David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
AstraZeneca may be done with vaccines. That’s sad but not surprising The company did the world a solid by agreeing to offer its treatment at cost price. The world snarled back in response. Will anyone do the same in future? Doubtful
Who can blame them? They did the world a massive favour and have received no plaudits. It perhaps didn't help that our government crowed about our vaccine rollout so much and made it a nationalistic willy waving contest.
I think the UK's government response is quite measured when you compare it to the EU's.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
That is not currently the view of the US.
The US military like a reason to ask for more "resources". I imagine they will have war gamed it many times. It is not in their interest to suggest they would give the Chinese a kicking any more than it was in their interest to boast how they would against Saddam in Gulf War 1.
Sure, but in the localised case of the S China Sea, there's every reason to believe them.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Machine-guns weren't really much of a thing in the ACW. Only a very few Gatling guns were used, for instance (two figures at most).
I bow to the superior knowledge of PB. It is always an education, this place. I lazily assumed the terrible carnage of the ACW was due, in part to machine guns. I now learn it is actually more nuanced than that (tho related)
David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
Also other key personnel such as artillerymen. Hence the shields being put on field artillery such as (slightly in advance) the M1897 French 75mm.
Of course, the 'concentration camp' (more of a disease-ridden compulsory deportee camp than the later KZ-Lager) was also terribly unsporting.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
That is not currently the view of the US.
The US military like a reason to ask for more "resources". I imagine they will have war gamed it many times. It is not in their interest to suggest they would give the Chinese a kicking any more than it was in their interest to boast how they would against Saddam in Gulf War 1.
China is not Saddam in Gulf War 1
I think your view of easy American superiority is about 10-15 years out of date
Of course China is not Saddam. It might of course depend on surprise. If China can invade swiftly (which is highly unlikely) then ejecting them will be impossible. US military capability is still years and years ahead of China in pretty much every regard. Their main advantage over the US is, like Saddam, numbers. This won't help them much for a seaborn invasion. They know it, and for all the sabre rattling they won't do it, because it will be militarily difficult and economically damaging.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
There was a rather interesting debate in the House of Lord, pre WWI, about the adoption of the Lee-Enfield No.4 - in light of the Boer War. The classic debate between those who want every rifle to be a 2,000 yard target rifle and those who want something reliable.
Reading the minutes of the debate, it was a very well informed one, with a great deal of technical discussion on both sides.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp Apocalypse Now Paths of Glory All Quite on the Western Front The Cruel Sea
Something you don't want to see from your window seat:
Normally if you see reversers deploying in the air, that’d be a BIG problem. But for the C-17s of @99Sq it’s just routine. 30,000ft to 5,000 ft in 2 minutes. That’s falling with style. Great video 99…thanks for sharing.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
We weren't really interested in marksmanship until after we'd encountered the Boers.
PB really is impressive on military history, tactics, weaponry. It’s almost like we’re a bunch of over-educated middle aged men who love reading too much military history.
This morning’s conversation does nothing to dispel my assumption that PB Tories are a bunch of dyspeptic old codgers, glaring at the day’s news through a monocle and half a glass of port.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp Apocalypse Now Paths of Glory All Quite on the Western Front The Cruel Sea
AstraZeneca may be done with vaccines. That’s sad but not surprising The company did the world a solid by agreeing to offer its treatment at cost price. The world snarled back in response. Will anyone do the same in future? Doubtful
Who can blame them? They did the world a massive favour and have received no plaudits. It perhaps didn't help that our government crowed about our vaccine rollout so much and made it a nationalistic willy waving contest.
I think the UK's government response is quite measured when you compare it to the EU's.
I agree, but only by comparison. AZ have been treated shabbily by politicians. As their primary responsibility is to their shareholders (that is most of our pension funds before any lefties start getting uppity about pharma companies), then they will want to steer well clear of anything like this again.
David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
While I agree in general, PBers know one big thing: there aren't many certainties about the future, and the more distant the fewer non general certainties there are. In truth no-one knows whether Calcutta will be uninhabitable in 2050 or any other year.
What I am taking away from recent BBC and other coverage is this: for many years now the rhetoric has been that if only we try hard the mega problem can be averted by limiting climate change to X.
This has long been obviously untrue since CO2 has gone into the air, continues to go in at record speed and once there it stays and can only be added to, even if more slowly.
Short of a totally novel wheeze we are stuck, if the science is correct.
What is happening with BBC and friends is that the rhetoric is moving from: this is an avertable global disaster to: how do we manage this global disaster?
Sadly I think this is more realistic. and has been for years.
But no-one is going to actually believe that the people who matter actually believe all this until (a) their life styles match what they say
and
(b) they actually start, for example, closing down Calcutta and moving the population.
PB really is impressive on military history, tactics, weaponry. It’s almost like we’re a bunch of over-educated middle aged men who love reading too much military history.
This morning’s conversation does nothing to dispel my assumption that PB Tories are a bunch of dyspeptic old codgers, glaring at the day’s news through a monocle and half a glass of port.
Oppositions generally have not done as well as might be expected so far in GB, Scotland, Wales and England. Why?
I think we're still in the active pandemic phase where the public generally accepts that the government is doing what can reasonably be expected and they don't wish to add political turmoil to the list of the country's issues.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
AstraZeneca may be done with vaccines. That’s sad but not surprising The company did the world a solid by agreeing to offer its treatment at cost price. The world snarled back in response. Will anyone do the same in future? Doubtful
Who can blame them? They did the world a massive favour and have received no plaudits. It perhaps didn't help that our government crowed about our vaccine rollout so much and made it a nationalistic willy waving contest.
I think the UK's government response is quite measured when you compare it to the EU's.
I agree, but only by comparison. AZ have been treated shabbily by politicians. As their primary responsibility is to their shareholders (that is most of our pension funds before any lefties start getting uppity about pharma companies), then they will want to steer well clear of anything like this again.
Not sure they've been treated badly at all by the UK government. Approaching criminal behaviour from some in the EU though.
David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
The UK and Ireland are among five nations most likely to survive a collapse of global civilisation, researchers have said.
A study has suggested a combination of ecological destruction, limited resources and population growth could trigger a worldwide breakdown "within a few decades", with climate change making things worse.
Five countries were identified as best placed to maintain civilisation within their own borders, with New Zealand topping the list and followed by Iceland, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia.
David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
Non-independent SAGE in new sheeps clothing....
I wouldn't have thought you could edit that post to make it even stupider than the original. Bravo!
Calcutta is fucked unless you think that the theory that ice turns to water when you warm it up enough is something cooked up by an unaccountable quango of talking heads, which you probably do.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
On the flip side, perfectly serviceable steam tugboats were up and running by 1800. If someone had told Napoleon about them he'd have invaded in a flat calm, et nous parlerions francais.
I'm unsure about how useful early tugboats would have been, but I'm amazed that Napoleon apparently made very little use of balloons. Revolutionary France had an observation balloon corps that helped in the victory at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794, but Napoleon never really used them.
"On her maiden trip, the Charlotte Dundas, with her 10 horsepower steam engine, carried 20 passengers and pulled 2 loaded barges 19 ½ miles along the Forth & Clyde Canal near Glasgow, Scotland. This 6-hour trip was the only journey she took. Canal proprietors, fearing she would erode the canal banks with the paddlewheel, banned paddle wheelers on the canal. So, the Charlotte Dundas was left sitting where she stopped."
That's 1802. Sounds adequate to tow barges full of infantry across the channel in a calm.
Even in a dead calm, there are currents. 10 horsepower is not a lot. Particularly when you consider the efficiency of paddlewheels - you'd be lucky to get 1/2 the power into the water.
Not currents you need to worry about. There's tides, sure, but in a channel crossing you don't worry about fighting those, you just point at where you want to go and the effects cancel out over time. I'm not saying the logistics are straightforward, but marching on Moscow isn't cheap either.
In reality one would hope that if Napoleon started building bulk steam tugs the admiralty would have seen the problem and started building its own.
You can end up spending the whole day fighting the currents. Hence some of the problems with Sealion.
Historically, Napoleon was looking at using rowing to help manoeuvre against wind and tide. The British defensive response also included rowed gun boats. In both cases the craft had sails as well.
David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
The UK and Ireland are among five nations most likely to survive a collapse of global civilisation, researchers have said.
A study has suggested a combination of ecological destruction, limited resources and population growth could trigger a worldwide breakdown "within a few decades", with climate change making things worse.
Five countries were identified as best placed to maintain civilisation within their own borders, with New Zealand topping the list and followed by Iceland, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
That is not currently the view of the US.
The US military like a reason to ask for more "resources". I imagine they will have war gamed it many times. It is not in their interest to suggest they would give the Chinese a kicking any more than it was in their interest to boast how they would against Saddam in Gulf War 1.
China is not Saddam in Gulf War 1
I think your view of easy American superiority is about 10-15 years out of date
Of course China is not Saddam. It might of course depend on surprise. If China can invade swiftly (which is highly unlikely) then ejecting them will be impossible. US military capability is still years and years ahead of China in pretty much every regard. Their main advantage over the US is, like Saddam, numbers. This won't help them much for a seaborn invasion. They know it, and for all the sabre rattling they won't do it, because it will be militarily difficult and economically damaging.
China’s attack - if it happens - would be far more sophisticated than ‘D Day Redux’
One of the first things they might do is take down the internet in Taiwan. If they succeed in that, they win in a day. Game over
Bioweapons? They’d need to try a few test bugs, first...
Meanwhile: espionage, trade wars, encirclement, cyber warfare, all to weaken Taiwan’s will to resist until China can take over without a single soldier landing on a beach
China has, after all, just done exactly that in Hong Kong, with great success
David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
Non-independent SAGE in new sheeps clothing....
I wouldn't have thought you could edit that post to make it even stupider than the original. Bravo!
Calcutta is fucked unless you think that the theory that ice turns to water when you warm it up enough is something cooked up by an unaccountable quango of talking heads, which you probably do.
What are you wittering about? I was stating a fact it is Independent SAGE new group.
No idea where you got the idea I was a climate change denier, in 60k posts, I have never posted anything of the sort.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
We weren't really interested in marksmanship until after we'd encountered the Boers.
Sorry to correct you, but not entirely true. It certainly increased the importance of what we now call snipers, but riflemen were used to great effect in the Napoleonic wars against the French who were still much wedded to muskets. The principle challenge then was reloading which was largely overcome by breach loading actions.
There we are, that is my bit of monocle wearing for the day!
PB really is impressive on military history, tactics, weaponry. It’s almost like we’re a bunch of over-educated middle aged men who love reading too much military history.
This morning’s conversation does nothing to dispel my assumption that PB Tories are a bunch of dyspeptic old codgers, glaring at the day’s news through a monocle and half a glass of port.
Or rum/pink gin.
Now, now, many of us are modernisers. Who think that the invention of the quick firing gun has rendered the Admiral class untenable.
This morning’s conversation does nothing to dispel my assumption that PB Tories are a bunch of dyspeptic old codgers, glaring at the day’s news through a monocle and half a glass of port.
Half a bottle of port, huge belly, no hair, not seen their willy (except in a mirror) since the late 90s nor used it to give pleasure to a lady since 2013. Vaguely purplish complexion and imminent coronary.
That’s Sean dealt with. Sure the others not much better. And then they moan about the youngsters not winning them enough medals…
PB really is impressive on military history, tactics, weaponry. It’s almost like we’re a bunch of over-educated middle aged men who love reading too much military history.
This morning’s conversation does nothing to dispel my assumption that PB Tories are a bunch of dyspeptic old codgers, glaring at the day’s news through a monocle and half a glass of port.
Or rum/pink gin.
Now, now, many of us are modernisers. Who think that the invention of the quick firing gun has rendered the Admiral class untenable.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
There is no way the US is going to get in a shooting war with a nuclear superpower over Taiwan. If they really were prepared to defend it they would have troops based there now. There are countries the US would fight China for, Australia and Japan which both have permanent US military presences, but Taiwan isn't one of them.
Taiwan will get the full Hong Kong treatment and be assimilated by 2035-40.
Must be silly season, PB Tories are talking about the First World War.
Regarding the header, the Tories face some interesting headwinds.
1. NHS waiting lists 2. Knife crime and underfunded justice system 3. Austerity 3.0 (and the battle between Rishi and Johnson) 4. Social care, and how to fund it 5. Ongoing economic damage from Brexit 6. Faragiste attacks on their right flank 7. Decarbonisation, and how to pay for it 8. Northern Ireland 9. Scottish independence 10. The kid’s education backlog post pandemic 11. Labour shortages 12. Boris’s tendency to fuck up generally
On the other hand, they have Keir’s general uselessness on their side and the war on woke of course.
So let us analyse and/or attribute blame here.
1. The Pandemic. 2. Khan. 3. Gordon Brown/Alistair Darling. 4. The Blair Government. 5. The EU. 6. Boris and Priti have outflanked Farage on the right. 7. China and Russia. 8. The weakness of the GFA and EU intransigence. 9. Only a future Labour Prime Minister will sell out the Union. 10. Labour Mayors and local authorities. Education is so New Labour anyway. 11. The EU. 12. Johnson is a lucky General.
So Johnson walks away unscathed.
You are right about Starmer too, and he can't do Edinburgh quality comedy with an umbrella like Johnson can either.
David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
The UK and Ireland are among five nations most likely to survive a collapse of global civilisation, researchers have said.
A study has suggested a combination of ecological destruction, limited resources and population growth could trigger a worldwide breakdown "within a few decades", with climate change making things worse.
Five countries were identified as best placed to maintain civilisation within their own borders, with New Zealand topping the list and followed by Iceland, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia.
I have visa free entry to 4 out of 5.
🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
I am sure our border force is perfectly capable of defending our coasts from small boats carrying 500,000,000 million civilization-free Europeans to our island refuge.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
That is not currently the view of the US.
The US military like a reason to ask for more "resources". I imagine they will have war gamed it many times. It is not in their interest to suggest they would give the Chinese a kicking any more than it was in their interest to boast how they would against Saddam in Gulf War 1.
China is not Saddam in Gulf War 1
I think your view of easy American superiority is about 10-15 years out of date
Of course China is not Saddam. It might of course depend on surprise. If China can invade swiftly (which is highly unlikely) then ejecting them will be impossible. US military capability is still years and years ahead of China in pretty much every regard. Their main advantage over the US is, like Saddam, numbers. This won't help them much for a seaborn invasion. They know it, and for all the sabre rattling they won't do it, because it will be militarily difficult and economically damaging.
China’s attack - if it happens - would be far more sophisticated than ‘D Day Redux’
One of the first things they might do is take down the internet in Taiwan. If they succeed in that, they win in a day. Game over
Bioweapons? They’d need to try a few test bugs, first...
Meanwhile: espionage, trade wars, encirclement, cyber warfare, all to weaken Taiwan’s will to resist until China can take over without a single soldier landing on a beach
China has, after all, just done exactly that in Hong Kong, with great success
Indeed, but Hong Kong is a lot smaller and closer to their mainland than Taiwan, and HK had it's governmental apparatus taken over by the Chinese. Busting a country's internet is also, I believe quite a lot harder than one thinks. Unless you allow the hostile country to build the infrastructure. Huawei? Perhaps?
I am speculating of course. I hope I am right and you are wrong. A Sino-US conflict is not in anyone's interest
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
A pedant writes... they were mostly line infantry, albeit by then were issued with a single shot breech loading rifle (the Martin-Henry)
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Machine-guns weren't really much of a thing in the ACW. Only a very few Gatling guns were used, for instance (two figures at most).
Of the 630,000 fatalities, 420,000 died of various diseases, including measles, typhus and cholera.
I think actually the deadliest wars in English history were probably the Civil War of 1642-1646 and the Second War of the Roses from 1459-61. It’s hard to be sure given the lack of reliable population estimates and casualty figures, but it has been suggested more men may have died in the rout of Towton (1461) than died on the first day of the Somme.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp Apocalypse Now Paths of Glory All Quite on the Western Front The Cruel Sea
Good list
I’d put ‘1917’ in my top 5. It has a kind of hallucinatory genius. A masterpiece
The first half hour of Saving Private Ryan is awesome, but the rest is mediocre
The Deer Hunter is grueling but iconic and unforgettable
Everything in the article is true of course. A circumstance like Covid and aftermath is a gift for opposition parties, as it creates positions which are inevitable and intolerable and if soluble at all only over a long time and at the cost of billions when the public finances are already is a mess.
So the Tories in England and UK are 20 points behind Labour; the SNP in Scotland have collapsed and Labour in Wales is disappearing without trace. Not.
Oppositions generally have not done as well as might be expected so far in GB, Scotland, Wales and England. Why?
The opposition in England is doing much better than the opposition in Scotland.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
There is no way the US is going to get in a shooting war with a nuclear superpower over Taiwan. If they really were prepared to defend it they would have troops based there now. There are countries the US would fight China for, Australia and Japan which both have permanent US military presences, but Taiwan isn't one of them.
Taiwan will get the full Hong Kong treatment and be assimilated by 2035-40.
America cannot afford to let Taiwan fall as if they do then advanced semi-conductor technology falls into the hands of the Chinese and chokes off the USA supply of chips.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
There is no way the US is going to get in a shooting war with a nuclear superpower over Taiwan. If they really were prepared to defend it they would have troops based there now. There are countries the US would fight China for, Australia and Japan which both have permanent US military presences, but Taiwan isn't one of them.
Taiwan will get the full Hong Kong treatment and be assimilated by 2035-40.
America cannot afford to let Taiwan fall as if they do then advanced semi-conductor technology falls into the hands of the Chinese and chokes off the USA supply of chips.
Biden (and Intel) have just announced a vast program on on-shoring.... chip production.
PB really is impressive on military history, tactics, weaponry. It’s almost like we’re a bunch of over-educated middle aged men who love reading too much military history.
I thought the most interesting thing about the ONS survey was the breakdown by age. Virtually the only age groups not showing either a decline or at least a levelling off are those going up to 16. Given that fact, it's quite believable that schools breaking up will have had a dramatic effect.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
There is no way the US is going to get in a shooting war with a nuclear superpower over Taiwan. If they really were prepared to defend it they would have troops based there now. There are countries the US would fight China for, Australia and Japan which both have permanent US military presences, but Taiwan isn't one of them.
Taiwan will get the full Hong Kong treatment and be assimilated by 2035-40.
America cannot afford to let Taiwan fall as if they do then advanced semi-conductor technology falls into the hands of the Chinese and chokes off the USA supply of chips.
If only the Americans spoke English. Tell the people of the Midwest their supply of chips is threatened and they’ll swarm to China en masse and kill everyone.
But as they call them ‘fries’ that idea won’t work.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
There is no way the US is going to get in a shooting war with a nuclear superpower over Taiwan. If they really were prepared to defend it they would have troops based there now. There are countries the US would fight China for, Australia and Japan which both have permanent US military presences, but Taiwan isn't one of them.
Taiwan will get the full Hong Kong treatment and be assimilated by 2035-40.
Yes of course. And it will probably be sooner than that
China also has a moral argument on its side. Taiwan is historically and demographically part of China, it is only ‘independent’ because of a renegade nationalist government decamping there in 1949
If and when China feels able to retake Taiwan, it will do so. Most of the world will shrug and carry on its enormous trade with China. The USA will remonstrate but do nothing militarily. It really will be the Sudetenland 2.0
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
On the flip side, perfectly serviceable steam tugboats were up and running by 1800. If someone had told Napoleon about them he'd have invaded in a flat calm, et nous parlerions francais.
I'm unsure about how useful early tugboats would have been, but I'm amazed that Napoleon apparently made very little use of balloons. Revolutionary France had an observation balloon corps that helped in the victory at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794, but Napoleon never really used them.
"On her maiden trip, the Charlotte Dundas, with her 10 horsepower steam engine, carried 20 passengers and pulled 2 loaded barges 19 ½ miles along the Forth & Clyde Canal near Glasgow, Scotland. This 6-hour trip was the only journey she took. Canal proprietors, fearing she would erode the canal banks with the paddlewheel, banned paddle wheelers on the canal. So, the Charlotte Dundas was left sitting where she stopped."
That's 1802. Sounds adequate to tow barges full of infantry across the channel in a calm.
Even in a dead calm, there are currents. 10 horsepower is not a lot. Particularly when you consider the efficiency of paddlewheels - you'd be lucky to get 1/2 the power into the water.
Not currents you need to worry about. There's tides, sure, but in a channel crossing you don't worry about fighting those, you just point at where you want to go and the effects cancel out over time. I'm not saying the logistics are straightforward, but marching on Moscow isn't cheap either.
In reality one would hope that if Napoleon started building bulk steam tugs the admiralty would have seen the problem and started building its own.
You can end up spending the whole day fighting the currents. Hence some of the problems with Sealion.
Historically, Napoleon was looking at using rowing to help manoeuvre against wind and tide. The British defensive response also included rowed gun boats. In both cases the craft had sails as well.
Not if you understand some very basic navigation. You either aim off uptide by enough to compensate, or if you are sailing through a whole tidal cycle ignore the problem cos it cancels out. Its not like trying to canoe up a waterfall.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
I am more pessimistic. China is close to armed superiority in its own neighborhood. It will use its increasing advantages in AI and cyber-warfare absolutely ruthlessly
They are many scenarios but if I had to choose one it would be China seizing Taiwan like Germany seizing the Sudetenland. Not a shot fired. The West will sigh and shrug and pray that it ends there
That's what we saw with Crimea, with the added parallel that it breached a treaty commitment, while the PRC and ROC can still claim to be in the midst of a civil war.
The Crimean situation is an interesting parallel with the claim that our treaty commitment to Belgium made involvement in WWI inevitable.
If there was any doubt that Hong Kong is over.....
Hong Kong activist Tong Ying-kit has been jailed for nine years, after he became the first person to be convicted under the national security law Beijing imposed on the city.
On Friday, in a landmark sentencing for the city four days after he was found guilty of inciting secession and terrorist activities, 24-year-old Tong was handed the custodial jail term by the the High Court. His sentencing marks the end of Hong Kong’s first-ever trial under the sweeping security legislation which was enacted on June 30 last year.
And all the west will do is write some angry tweets.
We are taking in all Hong Kongs best talent.
But I agree more should be done. It is about time we pulled Western companies out of China.
David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
The UK and Ireland are among five nations most likely to survive a collapse of global civilisation, researchers have said.
A study has suggested a combination of ecological destruction, limited resources and population growth could trigger a worldwide breakdown "within a few decades", with climate change making things worse.
Five countries were identified as best placed to maintain civilisation within their own borders, with New Zealand topping the list and followed by Iceland, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia.
I have visa free entry to 4 out of 5.
🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
I am sure our border force is perfectly capable of defending our coasts from small boats carrying 500,000,000 million civilization-free Europeans to our island refuge.
We'd first have to blow up the Channel Tunnel to show those 500 million Europeans that we were serious.
If Boris Johnson really was the heir to Churchill then he would want to have his own Mers-el-Kébir moment.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
There is no way the US is going to get in a shooting war with a nuclear superpower over Taiwan. If they really were prepared to defend it they would have troops based there now. There are countries the US would fight China for, Australia and Japan which both have permanent US military presences, but Taiwan isn't one of them.
Taiwan will get the full Hong Kong treatment and be assimilated by 2035-40.
America cannot afford to let Taiwan fall as if they do then advanced semi-conductor technology falls into the hands of the Chinese and chokes off the USA supply of chips.
The west is now, belatedly, decreasing its reliance on Taiwanese chip-making. It will take time. But we are at last doing it
And one reason we’re doing it is that Taiwan looks doomed in the medium term
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
Best war movies -
1. Paths of Glory 2. Threads 3. Grave of the Fireflies 4. Apocalypse Now 5. The Deer Hunter
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
That is not currently the view of the US.
The US military like a reason to ask for more "resources". I imagine they will have war gamed it many times. It is not in their interest to suggest they would give the Chinese a kicking any more than it was in their interest to boast how they would against Saddam in Gulf War 1.
China is not Saddam in Gulf War 1
I think your view of easy American superiority is about 10-15 years out of date
America is also more internally divided than it was. Would a serious conflict make it cohere or just fuel further division?
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
On the flip side, perfectly serviceable steam tugboats were up and running by 1800. If someone had told Napoleon about them he'd have invaded in a flat calm, et nous parlerions francais.
I'm unsure about how useful early tugboats would have been, but I'm amazed that Napoleon apparently made very little use of balloons. Revolutionary France had an observation balloon corps that helped in the victory at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794, but Napoleon never really used them.
"On her maiden trip, the Charlotte Dundas, with her 10 horsepower steam engine, carried 20 passengers and pulled 2 loaded barges 19 ½ miles along the Forth & Clyde Canal near Glasgow, Scotland. This 6-hour trip was the only journey she took. Canal proprietors, fearing she would erode the canal banks with the paddlewheel, banned paddle wheelers on the canal. So, the Charlotte Dundas was left sitting where she stopped."
That's 1802. Sounds adequate to tow barges full of infantry across the channel in a calm.
Even in a dead calm, there are currents. 10 horsepower is not a lot. Particularly when you consider the efficiency of paddlewheels - you'd be lucky to get 1/2 the power into the water.
Not currents you need to worry about. There's tides, sure, but in a channel crossing you don't worry about fighting those, you just point at where you want to go and the effects cancel out over time. I'm not saying the logistics are straightforward, but marching on Moscow isn't cheap either.
In reality one would hope that if Napoleon started building bulk steam tugs the admiralty would have seen the problem and started building its own.
You can end up spending the whole day fighting the currents. Hence some of the problems with Sealion.
Historically, Napoleon was looking at using rowing to help manoeuvre against wind and tide. The British defensive response also included rowed gun boats. In both cases the craft had sails as well.
Not if you understand some very basic navigation. You either aim off uptide by enough to compensate, or if you are sailing through a whole tidal cycle ignore the problem cos it cancels out. Its not like trying to canoe up a waterfall.
That assumes your rate of advance is substantially greater than the speed of the tides/currents.... You can end up "spending" much of your speed through the water on just not being swept sideways, reducing your rate of advance to... not very much.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
That is not currently the view of the US.
The US military like a reason to ask for more "resources". I imagine they will have war gamed it many times. It is not in their interest to suggest they would give the Chinese a kicking any more than it was in their interest to boast how they would against Saddam in Gulf War 1.
China is not Saddam in Gulf War 1
I think your view of easy American superiority is about 10-15 years out of date
America is also more internally divided than it was. Would a serious conflict make it cohere or just fuel further division?
Yes and no.
Lest we forget the Senate only just declared war on Saddam in 1991.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
Been out with dog. It’s arguable that even the great tank battle at Cambrai was mostly down to the now extremely refined British assault tactics, that would do so much to win the war in 1918. The Germans were shocked by the first use of tanks, but quickly adapted, and as others have said, the 1916-1918 tanks were very much not the panzers and Shermans of ww2 fame. In reality the tactics of the British in particular, use of surprise, lightening bombardment followed by exceptional creeping bombardment, storm troops (idea nicked from the Germans), all reached a peak in late 1917-1918, but the signs were there as early as the Somme. July14th saw a successful, limited night attack with many of the characteristics of later fighting. Moving away from trying to breakthrough, to allow the enemy to get himself killed trying to recover lost ground. I’m happy that we no longer live in such a world.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
Been out with dog. It’s arguable that even the great tank battle at Cambrai was mostly down to the now extremely refined British assault tactics, that would do so much to win the war in 1918. The Germans were shocked by the first use of tanks, but quickly adapted, and as others have said, the 1916-1918 tanks were very much not the panzers and Shermans of ww2 fame. In reality the tactics of the British in particular, use of surprise, lightening bombardment followed by exceptional creeping bombardment, storm troops (idea nicked from the Germans), all reached a peak in late 1917-1918, but the signs were there as early as the Somme. July14th saw a successful, limited night attack with many of the characteristics of later fighting. Moving away from trying to breakthrough, to allow the enemy to get himself killed trying to recover lost ground. I’m happy that we no longer live in such a world.
We live in such a world...
Look what happened to the Ukrainians vs Russians. Wipe out due to Russian artillery.....
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
Best war movies -
1. Paths of Glory 2. Threads 3. Grave of the Fireflies 4. Apocalypse Now 5. The Deer Hunter
Some amazing-sounding movies I’ve never even heard of. I’m making a list for my own reference
Graves of the Fireflies The Way Ahead Angels One Five War Requiem
??!
Coincidentally, talking of Great War movies, I watched the BBC 2014 version of Testament of Youth last night, for the first time. Deeply moving, really well done. You will weep
David King on r4 yesterday saying it is a certainty that calcutta will be uninhabitable by 2050. Viruses and stuff are insanely trivial in comparison to that great clunking fact.
The UK and Ireland are among five nations most likely to survive a collapse of global civilisation, researchers have said.
A study has suggested a combination of ecological destruction, limited resources and population growth could trigger a worldwide breakdown "within a few decades", with climate change making things worse.
Five countries were identified as best placed to maintain civilisation within their own borders, with New Zealand topping the list and followed by Iceland, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
Been out with dog. It’s arguable that even the great tank battle at Cambrai was mostly down to the now extremely refined British assault tactics, that would do so much to win the war in 1918. The Germans were shocked by the first use of tanks, but quickly adapted, and as others have said, the 1916-1918 tanks were very much not the panzers and Shermans of ww2 fame. In reality the tactics of the British in particular, use of surprise, lightening bombardment followed by exceptional creeping bombardment, storm troops (idea nicked from the Germans), all reached a peak in late 1917-1918, but the signs were there as early as the Somme. July14th saw a successful, limited night attack with many of the characteristics of later fighting. Moving away from trying to breakthrough, to allow the enemy to get himself killed trying to recover lost ground. I’m happy that we no longer live in such a world.
The Germans nicked the Storm Troops thing from British, Italian and French practise, IIRC.
That's not the reason he said he left BT Sport as he said at the time.
La Liga matches take place at the weekend, his decision to leave BT Sport was so he could follow Leicester's European matches with his family during midweeks.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
If my maths is right, the 10k WR is six and a bit miles, at 4’10” a mile.
That's not the reason he said he left BT Sport as he said at the time.
La Liga matches take place at the weekend, his decision to leave BT Sport was so he could follow Leicester's European matches with his family during midweeks.
I am sure it is also a total coincidence that BT Sports is in the financial doo doo and La Liga TV have probably offered him a bumper pay packet....same as when he was on Al Jazeera Sport.
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
I'm a 'transport cyclist', who cycles for my commute/shopping/etc but doesn't do any club riding or similar. Nonetheless, it keeps me in decent shape and I'm pretty comfortable in the saddle now.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
Interesting that La Liga have gone for their own channel, while EPL just rolling over existing deals with Sky / BT / Amazon.
Also La Liga have had their own channel for at least a season, you can get it via Premier Sports or Amazon.
But it is silly to compare a dedicated channel for foreign rights and the deal for domestic rights.
La Liga got ditched by Sky/moved to Eleven Sports which turned out to be a disaster for both Eleven and La Liga.
The channel is part of La Liga president Javier Tebas' aim to move the league from an organiser of games to a global content provider. La Liga is the world's first football league to run its own television channel.
They are testing the waters with what could be the future of cutting out the middle man.
The thing is in the UK as a test market, La Liga really isn't very popular, outside the big game, it never got ratings. I can't see how it is profitable as a subscription service just for the UK.
That's not the reason he said he left BT Sport as he said at the time.
La Liga matches take place at the weekend, his decision to leave BT Sport was so he could follow Leicester's European matches with his family during midweeks.
I am sure it is also a total coincidence that BT Sports is in the financial doo doo and La Liga TV have probably offered him a bumper pay packet....same as when he was on Al Jazeera Sport.
BT Sport aren't in financial doo doo, that's a misnomer. They turn a profit.
The issue is that the BT Group have realised they need to spend money on broadband and on EE to keep their number one position and the best way to do that is stop spending money on sports rights.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Here is another alternative history: Queen Victoria is allowed to inherit the throne of Hanover, which prevents the Prussians invading with their "blood and iron" unification of Germany.
Germany remains a collection of cozy principalities, focused on making great music. WW1 never happens, and neither does WW2.
Have you noticed that after unification, Germany stopped producing Bachs and Beethovens, and instead became very militaristic and now very industrial?
Something similar happened to Russia after the Communist revolution. The land of the ballet, Tchaichovsky, Rachmaninov, Chechov and Tolstoy stopped producing any art of note.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
Best war movies -
1. Paths of Glory 2. Threads 3. Grave of the Fireflies 4. Apocalypse Now 5. The Deer Hunter
Some amazing-sounding movies I’ve never even heard of. I’m making a list for my own reference
Graves of the Fireflies The Way Ahead Angels One Five War Requiem
??!
Coincidentally, talking of Great War movies, I watched the BBC 2014 version of Testament of Youth last night, for the first time. Deeply moving, really well done. You will weep
Don't get Paths of Glory mixed up with Blades of Glory.
I’d put ‘1917’ in my top 5. It has a kind of hallucinatory genius. A masterpiece
The first half hour of Saving Private Ryan is awesome, but the rest is mediocre
The Deer Hunter is grueling but iconic and unforgettable
Back when I was doing Set Top Boxes, we had a video test stream of the beach landing from Saving Private Ryan. I'd go into the test lab and see dozens of TVs showing a man looking around for his own arm and all the other chaos.
(Those scenes are actually quite good for testing MPEG video decoding, as the scene changes rapidly. Flames and waves were also good, but infinitely more boring to watch. Although probably better for the soul than watching that beach scene hundreds of times ...)
Interesting that La Liga have gone for their own channel, while EPL just rolling over existing deals with Sky / BT / Amazon.
Also La Liga have had their own channel for at least a season, you can get it via Premier Sports or Amazon.
But it is silly to compare a dedicated channel for foreign rights and the deal for domestic rights.
La Liga got ditched by Sky/moved to Eleven Sports which turned out to be a disaster for both Eleven and La Liga.
The channel is part of La Liga president Javier Tebas' aim to move the league from an organiser of games to a global content provider. La Liga is the world's first football league to run its own television channel.[1]
La Liga isn't a model for the Premier League to follow given the way the rights are sold by clubs and distributed.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
Best war movies -
1. Paths of Glory 2. Threads 3. Grave of the Fireflies 4. Apocalypse Now 5. The Deer Hunter
Some amazing-sounding movies I’ve never even heard of. I’m making a list for my own reference
Graves of the Fireflies The Way Ahead Angels One Five War Requiem
??!
Coincidentally, talking of Great War movies, I watched the BBC 2014 version of Testament of Youth last night, for the first time. Deeply moving, really well done. You will weep
Ah, yes - the other one I forgot to mention is "Stalingrad" - a German war movie from ~1992/1993. It's brilliant, and my other half based a whole section of one of her Star Trek novels on it!
Cricky lad in the 10km running set off like he desperately needs the toilet.
I did 10,000 metres tuesday and thursday evening. Tuesday was a quick(ish) one for me and took ~ 53 and a half minutes, thursday just over an hour. Really amazing how fast these boys go.
If my maths is right, the 10k WR is six and a bit miles, at 4’10” a mile.
Slowest 10,000 metre olympic gold since 2000, probably the highest ever quality field too.
If Gary Lineker really wanted a bumper pay packet he could have accepted Sky's numerous offers, most notably in 2011 when Keys and Gray were fired and in 2016 when Ed Chamberlain left.
No the minister responsible in Scotland. The story before her was striking - a young man repeatedly failed by the Scottish state, then rescued when his father's despairing tweet was responded to by the Amy Winehouse Foundation in London who sorted out care for him.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
Depends what kind of war it is.
All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.
So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.
But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared
My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
That is not currently the view of the US.
The US military like a reason to ask for more "resources". I imagine they will have war gamed it many times. It is not in their interest to suggest they would give the Chinese a kicking any more than it was in their interest to boast how they would against Saddam in Gulf War 1.
China is not Saddam in Gulf War 1
I think your view of easy American superiority is about 10-15 years out of date
America is also more internally divided than it was. Would a serious conflict make it cohere or just fuel further division?
Is it? The 2000 Election was a much closer affair than 2020.
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.
It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?
I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history. I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.
Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.
I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)
Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
Nope.
The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.
Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg
That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.
I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.
That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.
Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism
History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
Defensive massed rifle fire was even more deadly.
The British learned this the hard way from the Boer War. That's why we escaped with far fewer casualties than the French or Germans.
The European powers learned the wrong lessons from the Boer war and the Russo Japanese war. They realised that rifle fire was deadly, but took the view that attacks that were pressed home with sufficient vigour, and sufficient willingness to take casualties, would eventually prevail.
Yes - I guess we always use "invention of the machine gun" as a shorthand for a much more comprehensive set of developments in the ability to fire a large number of bullets, continuously, by a comparatively smaller number of defenders, and the lack of recognition of the tactical impact of those developments.
Every Boer was at least a competent marksman, and their best snipers were deadly. They had a habit of shooting down British officers and couriers at 1,000 yards, something our own commanders thought terribly unsporting. A lot of military careers were destroyed in the early months of that war.
British riflemen were pretty good in the film ‘Zulu’. IIRC
Incidentally, is that the best war movie ever made? Zulu? Certainly in my top 5
Best war movies -
1. Paths of Glory 2. Threads 3. Grave of the Fireflies 4. Apocalypse Now 5. The Deer Hunter
Some amazing-sounding movies I’ve never even heard of. I’m making a list for my own reference
Graves of the Fireflies The Way Ahead Angels One Five War Requiem
??!
Coincidentally, talking of Great War movies, I watched the BBC 2014 version of Testament of Youth last night, for the first time. Deeply moving, really well done. You will weep
Threads probably stretches it but it came out when I was 10 and even just the Radio Times cover scarred me for life. Genuinely the most terrifying thing I have ever seen.
That's not the reason he said he left BT Sport as he said at the time.
La Liga matches take place at the weekend, his decision to leave BT Sport was so he could follow Leicester's European matches with his family during midweeks.
I am sure it is also a total coincidence that BT Sports is in the financial doo doo and La Liga TV have probably offered him a bumper pay packet....same as when he was on Al Jazeera Sport.
BT Sport aren't in financial doo doo, that's a misnomer. They turn a profit.
The issue is that the BT Group have realised they need to spend money on broadband and on EE to keep their number one position and the best way to do that is stop spending money on sports rights.
According to FT they have blown £2bn....and still makes no money. And sports rights continue to get more expensive and Amazon / Disney are keen to get involved and have massive pockets.
Comments
Of course, the 'concentration camp' (more of a disease-ridden compulsory deportee camp than the later KZ-Lager) was also terribly unsporting.
Reading the minutes of the debate, it was a very well informed one, with a great deal of technical discussion on both sides.
Apocalypse Now
Paths of Glory
All Quite on the Western Front
The Cruel Sea
Normally if you see reversers deploying in the air, that’d be a BIG problem. But for the C-17s of @99Sq it’s just routine. 30,000ft to 5,000 ft in 2 minutes. That’s falling with style. Great video 99…thanks for sharing.
https://twitter.com/scottiebateman/status/1421070728338853892?s=20
What I am taking away from recent BBC and other coverage is this: for many years now the rhetoric has been that if only we try hard the mega problem can be averted by limiting climate change to X.
This has long been obviously untrue since CO2 has gone into the air, continues to go in at record speed and once there it stays and can only be added to, even if more slowly.
Short of a totally novel wheeze we are stuck, if the science is correct.
What is happening with BBC and friends is that the rhetoric is moving from: this is an avertable global disaster to: how do we manage this global disaster?
Sadly I think this is more realistic. and has been for years.
But no-one is going to actually believe that the people who matter actually believe all this until (a) their life styles match what they say
and
(b) they actually start, for example, closing down Calcutta and moving the population.
Really amazing how fast these boys go.
The UK and Ireland are among five nations most likely to survive a collapse of global civilisation, researchers have said.
A study has suggested a combination of ecological destruction, limited resources and population growth could trigger a worldwide breakdown "within a few decades", with climate change making things worse.
Five countries were identified as best placed to maintain civilisation within their own borders, with New Zealand topping the list and followed by Iceland, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia.
Calcutta is fucked unless you think that the theory that ice turns to water when you warm it up enough is something cooked up by an unaccountable quango of talking heads, which you probably do.
Historically, Napoleon was looking at using rowing to help manoeuvre against wind and tide. The British defensive response also included rowed gun boats. In both cases the craft had sails as well.
🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
One of the first things they might do is take down the internet in Taiwan. If they succeed in that, they win in a day. Game over
Bioweapons? They’d need to try a few test bugs, first...
Meanwhile: espionage, trade wars, encirclement, cyber warfare, all to weaken Taiwan’s will to resist until China can take over without a single soldier landing on a beach
China has, after all, just done exactly that in Hong Kong, with great success
No idea where you got the idea I was a climate change denier, in 60k posts, I have never posted anything of the sort.
There we are, that is my bit of monocle wearing for the day!
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Departmental_Ditties_and_Ballads_and_Barrack-Room_Ballads/The_Ballad_of_the_"Clampherdown"
That’s Sean dealt with. Sure the others not much better. And then they moan about the youngsters not winning them enough medals…
Taiwan will get the full Hong Kong treatment and be assimilated by 2035-40.
1. The Pandemic.
2. Khan.
3. Gordon Brown/Alistair Darling.
4. The Blair Government.
5. The EU.
6. Boris and Priti have outflanked Farage on the right.
7. China and Russia.
8. The weakness of the GFA and EU intransigence.
9. Only a future Labour Prime Minister will sell out the Union.
10. Labour Mayors and local authorities. Education is so New Labour anyway.
11. The EU.
12. Johnson is a lucky General.
So Johnson walks away unscathed.
You are right about Starmer too, and he can't do Edinburgh quality comedy with an umbrella like Johnson can either.
I am sure our border force is perfectly capable of defending our coasts from small boats carrying 500,000,000 million civilization-free Europeans to our island refuge.
I am speculating of course. I hope I am right and you are wrong. A Sino-US conflict is not in anyone's interest
I think actually the deadliest wars in English history were probably the Civil War of 1642-1646 and the Second War of the Roses from 1459-61. It’s hard to be sure given the lack of reliable population estimates and casualty figures, but it has been suggested more men may have died in the rout of Towton (1461) than died on the first day of the Somme.
I’d put ‘1917’ in my top 5. It has a kind of hallucinatory genius. A masterpiece
The first half hour of Saving Private Ryan is awesome, but the rest is mediocre
The Deer Hunter is grueling but iconic and unforgettable
Scottish sub-sample from today’s YouGov:
SNP 42%
SCon 24%
SLab 17%
SGP 8%
SLD 4%
Ref 1%
oth 4%
Saving Private Ryan
War Requiem
Deer Hunter
A Bridge Too Far
(Apocalypse Now
Full Metal Jacket
Life & Death of Colonel Blimp
Dunkirk
The Hurt Locker)
Some of us are still in our 30s...
Tokyo Olympics: Russians face backlash from fellow competitors - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/58023171
But as they call them ‘fries’ that idea won’t work.
China also has a moral argument on its side. Taiwan is historically and demographically part of China, it is only ‘independent’ because of a renegade nationalist government decamping there in 1949
If and when China feels able to retake Taiwan, it will do so. Most of the world will shrug and carry on its enormous trade with China. The USA will remonstrate but do nothing militarily. It really will be the Sudetenland 2.0
The Crimean situation is an interesting parallel with the claim that our treaty commitment to Belgium made involvement in WWI inevitable.
But I agree more should be done. It is about time we pulled Western companies out of China.
If Boris Johnson really was the heir to Churchill then he would want to have his own Mers-el-Kébir moment.
And one reason we’re doing it is that Taiwan looks doomed in the medium term
1. Paths of Glory
2. Threads
3. Grave of the Fireflies
4. Apocalypse Now
5. The Deer Hunter
Will put it on my list now (Prime Video £3).
This was a serious issue with Sealion.
Lest we forget the Senate only just declared war on Saddam in 1991.
52 to 47.
Just one short of the cursed ratio.
I’m happy that we no longer live in such a world.
Look what happened to the Ukrainians vs Russians. Wipe out due to Russian artillery.....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9842929/Former-England-striker-Gary-Lineker-joins-LaLigaTV-talent-line-leaving-BT-Sport.html
Interesting that La Liga have gone for their own channel, while EPL just rolling over existing deals with Sky / BT / Amazon.
Graves of the Fireflies
The Way Ahead
Angels One Five
War Requiem
??!
Coincidentally, talking of Great War movies, I watched the BBC 2014 version of Testament of Youth last night, for the first time. Deeply moving, really well done. You will weep
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoah_(film)
Not a war film as such, I admit, but a stunning piece of film making.
La Liga matches take place at the weekend, his decision to leave BT Sport was so he could follow Leicester's European matches with his family during midweeks.
But it is silly to compare a dedicated channel for foreign rights and the deal for domestic rights.
La Liga got ditched by Sky/moved to Eleven Sports which turned out to be a disaster for both Eleven and La Liga.
Sometimes in the summer I go for leisure rides in the good weather, and my longest regular route is 26 miles, coincidentally almost exactly a marathon. I can do it in roughly 2 hours exactly, perhaps 2 hours 5 minutes at most. Which means that if I set off at the start of the marathon, on my bike, it would be a photo finish with the elite runners.
I know they are elite, but it still blows my mind. The bike is a pretty massive advantage!
They are testing the waters with what could be the future of cutting out the middle man.
The thing is in the UK as a test market, La Liga really isn't very popular, outside the big game, it never got ratings. I can't see how it is profitable as a subscription service just for the UK.
The issue is that the BT Group have realised they need to spend money on broadband and on EE to keep their number one position and the best way to do that is stop spending money on sports rights.
Germany remains a collection of cozy principalities, focused on making great music. WW1 never happens, and neither does WW2.
Have you noticed that after unification, Germany stopped producing Bachs and Beethovens, and instead became very militaristic and now very industrial?
Something similar happened to Russia after the Communist revolution. The land of the ballet, Tchaichovsky, Rachmaninov, Chechov and Tolstoy stopped producing any art of note.
(Those scenes are actually quite good for testing MPEG video decoding, as the scene changes rapidly. Flames and waves were also good, but infinitely more boring to watch. Although probably better for the soul than watching that beach scene hundreds of times ...)
It won't work for the PL model.
Oh for the days when the military budget was used instead to restore the Summer Palace.
https://www.ft.com/content/f6d30613-af0f-4720-b1bb-c8941bca10c0