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.
He would actually have to do a load of work then....Sky don't allow presenters to do an hour a weeks work. If Sky pay you the decent money, they expect you to do several days a week, plus appearing on Sky News, doing interviews, analysis, spin off shows etc.
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.
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.
🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
'Twenty countries were studied'
I would suggest that North Korea should top the list, as it has proven already it can survive the collapse of civilization.
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.
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
Black Hawk Down 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)
Angels One Five.
Fantastic.
In addition to that lot... The Way Ahead
Embarrassed to say I haven't seen it.
Will put it on my list now (Prime Video £3).
You can also get the original "training film" version of it from the IWM.
re The Way Ahead, just IMDBed it. Written by Eric Ambler. I bloody love Eric Ambler - a master at spy novels before they were spy novels. Immense craft and construction, a genius.
It's an even more def cert now. Might even watch it tonight.
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.
It really did, surprisingly. The EU, or bits of it, kept trying to pick a fight with the UK, eg their botched protocol business, when their dispute was with AZ. Amazingly the gov did not rise to it at the time and was able to play the role of adult in the room,quite our of character.
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.
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.
But did not explode into violence despite being close, so the divisions must be starker.
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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
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.
He would actually have to do a load of work then....Sky don't allow presenters to do an hour a weeks work. If Sky pay you the decent money, they expect you to do several days a week, plus appearing on Sky News, doing interviews, analysis, spin off shows etc.
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.
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.
He would actually have to do a load of work then....Sky don't allow presenters to do an hour a weeks work. If Sky pay you the decent money, they expect you to do several days a week, plus appearing on Sky News, doing interviews, analysis, spin off shows etc.
Just how often do you see Dave Jones on Sky News?
The likes of Gary Neville are on the big money at Sky and they are never off the screen.
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.
Eh? Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Eisenstein, Tarkovsky, Pasternak, Bulgakov, Solzhenitsyn, Mandelstam, Grossman and others might want to have a word. Of course it can be argued how helpful the SU was in many of their developments (except in a negative sense), but produced they were.
How has nobody mentioned the greatest war movie of all time?
Star Wars
Star Wars is a conspiracy film.
Think about it, the Empire's number two, it turns out his daughter obtained the plans to the Death Star, and his son was the one who pulled off the one in a million shot that destroyed the Death Star.
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.
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.
He would actually have to do a load of work then....Sky don't allow presenters to do an hour a weeks work. If Sky pay you the decent money, they expect you to do several days a week, plus appearing on Sky News, doing interviews, analysis, spin off shows etc.
Just how often do you see Dave Jones on Sky News?
The likes of Gary Neville are on the big money at Sky and they are never off the screen.
He's a pundit, I was talking specifically about the head/lead presenter for Sky Sports football coverage. Lineker was offered more money than he was ever offered then and now to replace Keys and later Chamberlain, he said no.
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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
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.
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.
He would actually have to do a load of work then....Sky don't allow presenters to do an hour a weeks work. If Sky pay you the decent money, they expect you to do several days a week, plus appearing on Sky News, doing interviews, analysis, spin off shows etc.
Just how often do you see Dave Jones on Sky News?
The likes of Gary Neville are on the big money at Sky and they are never off the screen.
He's a pundit, I was talking specifically about the head/lead presenter for Sky Sports football coverage. Lineker was offered more money than he was ever offered then and now to replace Keys and later Chamberlain, he said no.
Sky would have got their money out of him, no way he would have just done 2hrs a week, just as they get their money out of Neville and Carragher.
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.
Eh? Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Eisenstein, Tarkovsky, Pasternak, Bulgakov, Solzhenitsyn, Mandelstam, Grossman and others might want to have a word. Of course it can be argued how helpful the SU was in many of their developments (except in a negative sense), but produced they were.
The BBC did own the full TV rights to the Tokyo Olympics but traded them to ensure it did not miss out on future Games, the broadcaster has admitted.
A deal between the public broadcaster and Discovery, which handed over the rights to thousands of hours of coverage to the American pay-TV giant, was done in 2016 with the BBC also paying a reported £120 million. In return the BBC was given the reduced free-to-air rights for the 2022 winter and 2024 summer Olympics.
The BBC said it “needed to carve out a deal to ensure the Olympics remained on the BBC” for future Games but its reduced coverage of Tokyo has been widely criticised. It has also emerged that in 2009 Roger Mosey, who was the BBC’s director of sport, warned it would be “a disaster” if the coverage was split so that the broadcaster only retained a few hundred hours while the majority was shown on pay TV.
Rest of the articles mentions MPs like Damian Collins asking OFCOM to look into whether the wider Discovery deal is compatible with the listed events rules, ie full live coverage of everything.
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.
He would actually have to do a load of work then....Sky don't allow presenters to do an hour a weeks work. If Sky pay you the decent money, they expect you to do several days a week, plus appearing on Sky News, doing interviews, analysis, spin off shows etc.
Just how often do you see Dave Jones on Sky News?
The likes of Gary Neville are on the big money at Sky and they are never off the screen.
He's a pundit, I was talking specifically about the head/lead presenter for Sky Sports football coverage. Lineker was offered more money than he was ever offered then and now to replace Keys and later Chamberlain, he said no.
Sky would have got their money out of him, no way he would have just done 2hrs a week, just as they get their money out of Neville and Carragher.
They did, remember in 2011 they also held the Champions League rights, so it was hefty package, offered him loads as well other things as his own (non sport) shows on Sky One and anything else he fancied.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
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
They were but they were firing at mass targets at 100 to 200 yds, and in volley - not individually.
Those tactics were already a little bit retro, even in 1879.
The BBC did own the full TV rights to the Tokyo Olympics but traded them to ensure it did not miss out on future Games, the broadcaster has admitted.
A deal between the public broadcaster and Discovery, which handed over the rights to thousands of hours of coverage to the American pay-TV giant, was done in 2016 with the BBC also paying a reported £120 million. In return the BBC was given the reduced free-to-air rights for the 2022 winter and 2024 summer Olympics.
The BBC said it “needed to carve out a deal to ensure the Olympics remained on the BBC” for future Games but its reduced coverage of Tokyo has been widely criticised. It has also emerged that in 2009 Roger Mosey, who was the BBC’s director of sport, warned it would be “a disaster” if the coverage was split so that the broadcaster only retained a few hundred hours while the majority was shown on pay TV.
Rest of the articles mentions MPs like Damian Collins asking OFCOM to look into whether the wider Discovery deal is compatible with the listed events rules, ie full live coverage of everything.
Oh dear, what a mess.
But even having the limited rights they do, there’s no excuse for not having a team of producers following everything and selecting content. That, and the apparent prioritisation of “studio time” and interviews, over live events.
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.
Eh? Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Eisenstein, Tarkovsky, Pasternak, Bulgakov, Solzhenitsyn, Mandelstam, Grossman and others might want to have a word. Of course it can be argued how helpful the SU was in many of their developments (except in a negative sense), but produced they were.
Germany became militaristic because it was, essentially, absorbed into Prussia - an army with a country attached to it. If the Habsburgs had managed to unify Germany under Austria instead things would have been a lot less militaristic, and efficient probably.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Jaws? Ruined swimming in the sea for a generation of people. That's fear.
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.
Mrs Flatlander says the same thing. It was all a bit close to home, as RAF Finningley was only a couple of miles away. It did rather have an agenda (a lot of the participants were CND, and Sheffield was chosen due to its 'nuclear free zone', whatever that meant), but if anything it wasn't bleak enough.
At the risk of adding to the cliches, Das Boot (the original!) is another war film/series worth watching, if only for the overbearing sense of claustrophobia.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Mrs C still gets upset with me if I refer to the Fly (IIRC the Goldblum remake). And we watched that when we were students, IIRC.
On the war movies -
Master and Commander Coronel and Falklands (the WW1 movie) The Somme (ditto) Battle of Britain Tali Ihantala Das Boot
Here's one for you. Alien is a great horror movie. Aliens is a great war movie. Discuss.
I’d agree with that.
I’d put Alien in my top 10 list of all movies of all time. Just a complete masterpiece. Think of all the iconic scenes that have entered everyday discourse. A stunning piece of cinematic art
How has nobody mentioned the greatest war movie of all time?
Star Wars
Star Wars is a conspiracy film.
Think about it, the Empire's number two, it turns out his daughter obtained the plans to the Death Star, and his son was the one who pulled off the one in a million shot that destroyed the Death Star.
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, that's very possible.
There's a sap of a Western argument that it's an "internal" Chinese matter - unfinished business from the civil war - and therefore not worth fighting for.
The most likely action we would take is to just geopolitically isolate China.
Craig Murray gives us all a salutary warning that you shouldn't mess with judges during a live trial.
I'm guessing Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill praised the decision of SCOTUK to not get involved in Scottish Affairs?
It's still very odd because other journalists were reputedly giving markedly more pieces of the jigsaw out.
Has the written judgement been issued?
I've not seen the SCOTUK ruling.
My understanding is that Murray's was much more explicit and the fact he was warned and asked to delete the offending entries but refused to do so.
Ok thanks; I've seen some seemingly well informed opinions expressed that some journos/newspapers were actually more informative, but we'll have to wait for the written judgement now I suppose.
The BBC did own the full TV rights to the Tokyo Olympics but traded them to ensure it did not miss out on future Games, the broadcaster has admitted.
A deal between the public broadcaster and Discovery, which handed over the rights to thousands of hours of coverage to the American pay-TV giant, was done in 2016 with the BBC also paying a reported £120 million. In return the BBC was given the reduced free-to-air rights for the 2022 winter and 2024 summer Olympics.
The BBC said it “needed to carve out a deal to ensure the Olympics remained on the BBC” for future Games but its reduced coverage of Tokyo has been widely criticised. It has also emerged that in 2009 Roger Mosey, who was the BBC’s director of sport, warned it would be “a disaster” if the coverage was split so that the broadcaster only retained a few hundred hours while the majority was shown on pay TV.
Rest of the articles mentions MPs like Damian Collins asking OFCOM to look into whether the wider Discovery deal is compatible with the listed events rules, ie full live coverage of everything.
Oh dear, what a mess.
But even having the limited rights they do, there’s no excuse for not having a team of producers following everything and selecting content. That, and the apparent prioritisation of “studio time” and interviews, over live events.
They were truly asleep at the wheel last night when the coverage went from duplication of showing a rain delay in the BMX to some odd delayed showing of the men's race to missing the men's podium.
The BBC did own the full TV rights to the Tokyo Olympics but traded them to ensure it did not miss out on future Games, the broadcaster has admitted.
A deal between the public broadcaster and Discovery, which handed over the rights to thousands of hours of coverage to the American pay-TV giant, was done in 2016 with the BBC also paying a reported £120 million. In return the BBC was given the reduced free-to-air rights for the 2022 winter and 2024 summer Olympics.
The BBC said it “needed to carve out a deal to ensure the Olympics remained on the BBC” for future Games but its reduced coverage of Tokyo has been widely criticised. It has also emerged that in 2009 Roger Mosey, who was the BBC’s director of sport, warned it would be “a disaster” if the coverage was split so that the broadcaster only retained a few hundred hours while the majority was shown on pay TV.
Rest of the articles mentions MPs like Damian Collins asking OFCOM to look into whether the wider Discovery deal is compatible with the listed events rules, ie full live coverage of everything.
Oh dear, what a mess.
But even having the limited rights they do, there’s no excuse for not having a team of producers following everything and selecting content. That, and the apparent prioritisation of “studio time” and interviews, over live events.
I think what made it worse for the BBC is that 2012 and 2016 they set the benchmark for brilliant Olympic coverage with dedicated streams/channels for everything.
It is like getting used to eating at Michelin starred restaurants then getting a cold happy meal from the golden arches.
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.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
The two most frightening films I ever watched (actually stopped me sleeping) were Threads and Se7en.
How has nobody mentioned the greatest war movie of all time?
Star Wars
Star Wars is a conspiracy film.
Think about it, the Empire's number two, it turns out his daughter obtained the plans to the Death Star, and his son was the one who pulled off the one in a million shot that destroyed the Death Star.
#InsideJob
You mean you never saw Rogue One?
Where Vader rocks up with his mate Moff Tarkin, who proceeds to "rm -rf *.*" all the evidence.... after letting the rebels "accidentally" get into the file storage...
Presumed liability is a really stupid and unfair idea. Apart from anything else, it's a charter for the "crash for cash" gangs to exploit.
Its also very unfair to those motorists who are entirely innocent, who injure cyclists and pedestrians who do stupid things (eg all the cyclists who die every year attempting to undertake left turning HGVs).
I hit a pedestrian as a teenager - a bloke stepped out from between two parked cars without looking, towing a kid. I stood on the brakes, but hit the kid before I stopped. Seeing that kid disappear under the edge of my bonnet is one of the most horrible things I've ever experienced. The bloke didn't look to see what had happened to the kid, but attempted to kill me - I had to sprint away from the scene (it was a busy street, other people ran to the aid of the kid - I didn't feel hanging around so his dad could beat me to death was going to help anyone).
Mercifully the kid was fine, just winded - they took him to hospital and checked him out as a precaution.
The police came, threatened me with due care etc. Impounded the car until it became apparent that the kid was completely unhurt. Measured the skid marks (this was years ago - it's not generally possible now since the advent of Abs brakes), concluded I was doing 18mph. Interviewed the bloke who claimed I was doing a million miles a hour, appeared from nowhere yada yada. Eventually dropped the whole thing, although not for several weeks.
None of it was very funny at the time. With a presumption of blame, it could have been far far worse, particularly if the police hadn't been able to prove the actual speed I was driving.
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.
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!
What puts me off cycling?
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Mrs C still gets upset with me if I refer to the Fly (IIRC the Goldblum remake). And we watched that when we were students, IIRC.
On the war movies -
Master and Commander Coronel and Falklands (the WW1 movie) The Somme (ditto) Battle of Britain Tali Ihantala Das Boot
all worth trying
I think a successful war movie (like any movie) needs to have a character arc at its centre. Battle of Britain (and other big budget epic productions like A Bridge Too Far) try to cram too much in. I actually find BoB quite boring. Master and Commander and Das Boot on the other hand are incredible pieces of filmmaking as they concentrate on the development of a specific group of people.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Horror works best in short stories. The story I read which frightened me the most upon reading it was The Colours Out of Space.
How has nobody mentioned the greatest war movie of all time?
Star Wars
Star Wars is a conspiracy film.
Think about it, the Empire's number two, it turns out his daughter obtained the plans to the Death Star, and his son was the one who pulled off the one in a million shot that destroyed the Death Star.
#InsideJob
You mean you never saw Rogue One?
Where Vader rocks up with his mate Moff Tarkin, who proceeds to "rm -rf *.*" all the evidence.... after letting the rebels "accidentally" get into the file storage...
Craig Murray gives us all a salutary warning that you shouldn't mess with judges during a live trial.
I'm guessing Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill praised the decision of SCOTUK to not get involved in Scottish Affairs?
It's still very odd because other journalists were reputedly giving markedly more pieces of the jigsaw out.
Has the written judgement been issued?
I've not seen the SCOTUK ruling.
My understanding is that Murray's was much more explicit and the fact he was warned and asked to delete the offending entries but refused to do so.
Ok thanks; I've seen some seemingly well informed opinions expressed that some journos/newspapers were actually more informative, but we'll have to wait for the written judgement now I suppose.
Even if they were, once a court tells you to do something, do it, then once the trial is over then you raise it and point out the hypocrisy/stupidity of it all.
Ultimately Murray told the court I know better than you, and that never ends well.
Given the wider issues of sexual offences being charged/convicted it is something the wider criminal justice system is looking on cracking down.
Why am I still here? What's the point? How can you begin to argue with something that is so obviously an incorrect understanding of the data motivated through such blatant confirmation bias?
Craig Murray gives us all a salutary warning that you shouldn't mess with judges during a live trial.
I'm guessing Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill praised the decision of SCOTUK to not get involved in Scottish Affairs?
It's still very odd because other journalists were reputedly giving markedly more pieces of the jigsaw out.
Has the written judgement been issued?
I've tried avoiding Murraygate twitter on the same basis I avoid other twitter cesspools, but I've seen 'the other journo were at it' allegations without any supporting evidence. I guess providing that evidence may repeat the original crime?
As far as I can see (apart from whether he's a journalist or not), Murray seems to have been doing a huge wink about the identities of those involved which may suggest intent, eg "I implore you to read this article very, very carefully indeed. Between the lines."
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.
Threads is horrible.
How does it rate versus the War Game, btw?
My English teacher from school played the Bishop of Rochester in the War Game. I've watched both but the sheer horror of Threads has pushed the memory of the War Game out.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Mrs C still gets upset with me if I refer to the Fly (IIRC the Goldblum remake). And we watched that when we were students, IIRC.
On the war movies -
Master and Commander Coronel and Falklands (the WW1 movie) The Somme (ditto) Battle of Britain Tali Ihantala Das Boot
all worth trying
I'd forgotten Das Boot, superb film but overblown Amazon series.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Mrs C still gets upset with me if I refer to the Fly (IIRC the Goldblum remake). And we watched that when we were students, IIRC.
On the war movies -
Master and Commander Coronel and Falklands (the WW1 movie) The Somme (ditto) Battle of Britain Tali Ihantala Das Boot
all worth trying
I think a successful war movie (like any movie) needs to have a character arc at its centre. Battle of Britain (and other big budget epic productions like A Bridge Too Far) try to cram too much in. I actually find BoB quite boring. Master and Commander and Das Boot on the other hand are incredible pieces of filmmaking as they concentrate on the development of a specific group of people.
That's perceptive. BoB is in its way a worthy film, a sort of national epic, and Tali Ihantala (about the final defences in the desperate last months of WW2) has something of the same nature of it and the same critique. I wondered if anyone would pick up on that tension in the roles of the films and you did!
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
I watched the Deer Hunter for the first time in lockdown and though it was overinflated, tedious and self-indulgent luvvie backslapping film making.
It's *at least* an hour too long, with an absurdly long and unnecessary wedding scene at the start, and the character development isn't anything like it's cracked up to be. The film also tries to do too many things. It's mainly memorable because of the famous Russian Roulette scenes.
Christopher Walken and Meryl Streep carry it but I think it's decidedly average.
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, that's very possible.
There's a sap of a Western argument that it's an "internal" Chinese matter - unfinished business from the civil war - and therefore not worth fighting for.
The most likely action we would take is to just geopolitically isolate China.
The world abandoned Taiwan when the PRC gained China's seat at the UN in 1971.
I’m surprised there’s not more support for Sam Mendes’ 1917. Too recent?
It’s magnificent. The night sequence alone is mind-blowing
I will get round to watching it at some point. I know verisimilitude is not a good criteria for wars films, but something about mendes saying it’s a true story, or at least closely based on a true story, puts me off, because the premise is utter nonsense, and didn’t happen, despite what he thinks his father(?) told him.
How has nobody mentioned the greatest war movie of all time?
Star Wars
Star Wars is a conspiracy film.
Think about it, the Empire's number two, it turns out his daughter obtained the plans to the Death Star, and his son was the one who pulled off the one in a million shot that destroyed the Death Star.
#InsideJob
You mean you never saw Rogue One?
Many many times, it is my second favourite Star Wars film.
Doesn't negate the fact that Vader's kids were key to destruction of the Death Star.
Fun facts about the Ronald Reagan attempted assassination.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley Jr – one of the foremost assassins in history motivated by a desire to impress Jodie Foster.
But even as Bush was being rushed to the White House to deputise, questions were already being asked about why the family of John Hinckley Jr had contributed to Bush's 1980 Republican nomination campaign. Hinckley's older brother, Scott, was supposed to go for dinner at the home of Neil Bush the very day after the Reagan assassination attempt.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
The two most frightening films I ever watched (actually stopped me sleeping) were Threads and Se7en.
I saw an utterly sick film at university (laddish dare to a few of us) called Cannibal Holocaust.
It was previously banned, and rightly so. I had nightmares and trauma for weeks afterwards.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Mrs C still gets upset with me if I refer to the Fly (IIRC the Goldblum remake). And we watched that when we were students, IIRC.
On the war movies -
Master and Commander Coronel and Falklands (the WW1 movie) The Somme (ditto) Battle of Britain Tali Ihantala Das Boot
all worth trying
I'd forgotten Das Boot, superb film but overblown Amazon series.
I once worked beside an ex-RN submariner. The conversation turned to war movies and what htey watched on the boat. Das Boot was popular - and we discussed others - but when I unthinkingly asked about the Cruel Sea I got a big thumbs down!
My best second world war films (I prefer the more "wasting nazis " type ones to more moral higher message ones)
Where Eagles Dare (probably in my top three fav movies of any genre especially the score ,opening shots and scenery)
Das Boot - bit more deeper I suppose but strangely cosy
633 Squadron - sucker for the leader being brave and going rogue
The Longest Day - To me this is better than Saving Private Ryan as a depiction of D -Day .
A Bridge too Far - Great scenery as well as a lot of action
Downfall - great mix of action, politics and drama
On longest day vis saving private Ryan, it’s important to note that the latter shows just one part of the whole, while the former tries to capture the experience of hundreds of thousands of men on that day. No question that the opening of SPR is stunning in its brutality, and I pray I never experience anything like it, but veterans have acclaimed it. But for many on d-day it was not like that at all. Even the other US beach was much less severe.
Starship Troopers is one of my favourite films of all time. Brilliant satire. Certainly on the list of great war films. Ice Cold in Alex and The Guns of Navarone probably my favourite British ones. Saving Private Ryan I saw for the first time a month or two ago and I thought it was great. The Good the Bad and the Ugly has some fantastic war scenes in it, even if it's not really a war film per se. Then of course there is Casablanca, the greatest film ever made, and certainly a war film. I'd also put in an honourable mention for Oh What A Lovely War, not necessarily the film version but it's a really powerful piece of theatre (I have performed in two separate productions of it, and found it easily the most devastating play I've ever been in).
Should add that Jo Jo Rabbit is a great recent film set in the backdrop WW2 .
It has comedy, optimism , offbeat stuff (the trans/gay German major who befriends Jo Jo and looks out for him when the Russians come) and is also desperately sad (when he sees his mother's body hanging) and also disturbing to see how propaganda can cause ordinary children (jo Jo ) to hate (the Jewish girl hiding in the attic)
Here's one for you. Alien is a great horror movie. Aliens is a great war movie. Discuss.
Alien is about horror, and Aliens about terror.
I rewatch Aliens far more frequently than Alien.
"All right, sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast in bed? Another glorious day in the Corps! A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheque a fortune! Every formation a parade! I *love* the Corps!"
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
The two most frightening films I ever watched (actually stopped me sleeping) were Threads and Se7en.
I saw an utterly sick film at university (laddish dare to a few of us) called Cannibal Holocaust.
It was previously banned, and rightly so. I had nightmares and trauma for weeks afterwards.
What amazes me about The Exorcist is that they actually TOOK OUT scenes as creepy as this - the infamous spider walk scene
I'm playing a fun game called "which of the usual suspects will misrepresent the ONS data, and fail to communicate limitations, in order to appeal to their target demographic and confirm their preexisting biases?" and "How many RTs will this crap get?"
Should add that Jo Jo Rabbit is a great recent film set in the backdrop WW2 .
It has comedy, optimism , offbeat stuff (the trans/gay German major who befriends Jo Jo and looks out for him when the Russians come) and is also desperately sad (when he sees his mother's body hanging) and also disturbing to see how propaganda can cause ordinary children (jo Jo ) to hate (the Jewish girl hiding in the attic)
In a vaguely similar vein, The Captain is grimly entertaining.
I'm playing a fun game called "which of the usual suspects will misrepresent the ONS data, and fail to communicate limitations, in order to appeal to their target demographic and confirm their preexisting biases?" and "How many RTs will this crap get?"
I hope everyone has seen this video of the Star Wars Death Star attack dialogue overlayed onto the pictures of the fjord attach in 633 Squadron. It's a work of absolute genuis showing how much Lucas ripped off from 633 Squadron -
For the military types amongst us - Tanks for Stalin. Utterly weird mix of superb reconstruction of the specific prototype T-34 (I can't spot any errors without actually checking against contemporary photos), the beauty of the Russian landscape in summer, a lady engineer, horny handed sons of toil, and a noble Chekist, which is all that one would expect - and then it all falls down in a bizarre subplot involving evil Germans and a Mad Max style shootout.
Definitely not one of the top ten war films, I'm afraid.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Horror works best in short stories. The story I read which frightened me the most upon reading it was The Colours Out of Space.
Yes quite true. The Monkey’s Paw is one of the most terrifying works of literature. And it’s about 5 pages long?
There are very few genuinely frightening stories or novels. It’s a fiendishly difficult emotion to evoke with mere words
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Horror works best in short stories. The story I read which frightened me the most upon reading it was The Colours Out of Space.
Yes quite true. The Monkey’s Paw is one of the most terrifying works of literature. And it’s about 5 pages long?
There are very few genuinely frightening stories or novels. It’s a fiendishly difficult emotion to evoke with mere words
Thanks for the suggestion. Will try!
Ooh yes. Our biology master woudl read Paw to us during the last lesson of the year.
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Horror works best in short stories. The story I read which frightened me the most upon reading it was The Colours Out of Space.
Yes quite true. The Monkey’s Paw is one of the most terrifying works of literature. And it’s about 5 pages long?
There are very few genuinely frightening stories or novels. It’s a fiendishly difficult emotion to evoke with mere words
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.
Will try, thanks! THough I have also a huge heap of naval books to get through (some inherited recently).
(BTW did you see my flag up about the UK's last working Blondin?).
Drachinifel is brilliant. I watch him whilst cooking. The only problem is that his five-hour long Q&A sessions are too long for me to watch now. Sometimes you can make too much output.
I did see your post about the blondin - a fascinating thing. I'd never actually realised they were slightly different from common-or-garden aerial ropeways.
Craig Murray gives us all a salutary warning that you shouldn't mess with judges during a live trial.
I'm guessing Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill praised the decision of SCOTUK to not get involved in Scottish Affairs?
It's still very odd because other journalists were reputedly giving markedly more pieces of the jigsaw out.
Has the written judgement been issued?
I've tried avoiding Murraygate twitter on the same basis I avoid other twitter cesspools, but I've seen 'the other journo were at it' allegations without any supporting evidence. I guess providing that evidence may repeat the original crime?
As far as I can see (apart from whether he's a journalist or not), Murray seems to have been doing a huge wink about the identities of those involved which may suggest intent, eg "I implore you to read this article very, very carefully indeed. Between the lines."
That is the general problem: how can one discuss Mr Murray's case, or indeed Mr Salmond's, rationally under such a prohibition - and also under such an information clampdown in the first place?
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.
Will try, thanks! THough I have also a huge heap of naval books to get through (some inherited recently).
(BTW did you see my flag up about the UK's last working Blondin?).
Drachinifel is brilliant. I watch him whilst cooking. The only problem is that his five-hour long Q&A sessions are too long for me to watch now. Sometimes you can make too much output.
I did see your post about the blondin - a fascinating thing. I'd never actually realised they were slightly different from common-or-garden aerial ropeways.
If you want crazy level detail, anything by John Campbell on Jutland. There was a brilliant parody of his style, on soc.history.what-if, years ago........
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
I watched the Deer Hunter for the first time in lockdown and though it was overinflated, tedious and self-indulgent luvvie backslapping film making.
It's *at least* an hour too long, with an absurdly long and unnecessary wedding scene at the start, and the character development isn't anything like it's cracked up to be. The film also tries to do too many things. It's mainly memorable because of the famous Russian Roulette scenes.
Christopher Walken and Meryl Streep carry it but I think it's decidedly average.
Apocalypse Now is far better.
The Deer Hunter is gravely flawed. It is indeed too long, and even the Russian Roulette scenes are absurd - how could he survive for weeks, spinning the gun barrel 10 times a day?
And yet it stays with you, and in places it is deeply moving
I’d put it in my top 30 war movies. Apocalypse Now is definitely superior. Top 10 at least
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.ecomes, 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.
Yes I also saw Threads at a tender age. Bloody hell
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Interesting. I actually went to see the Exorcist at the pictures when it was re-released once and, as a person who hid behind the sofa when Dr Who and Star Trek came on until a ridiculously advanced age, was surprised how little I was scared.
Fear is a very personal thing. I’ve watched countless movies and TV dramas where people have assured me I will be ‘petrified’ - yet, meh. I’m actually quite hard to scare
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Horror works best in short stories. The story I read which frightened me the most upon reading it was The Colours Out of Space.
Yes quite true. The Monkey’s Paw is one of the most terrifying works of literature. And it’s about 5 pages long?
There are very few genuinely frightening stories or novels. It’s a fiendishly difficult emotion to evoke with mere words
Thanks for the suggestion. Will try!
Have you read any MR James?
Yes! There are vanishingly few writers that can do Scary. He’s one of them
Craig Murray gives us all a salutary warning that you shouldn't mess with judges during a live trial.
I'm guessing Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill praised the decision of SCOTUK to not get involved in Scottish Affairs?
It's still very odd because other journalists were reputedly giving markedly more pieces of the jigsaw out.
Has the written judgement been issued?
I've tried avoiding Murraygate twitter on the same basis I avoid other twitter cesspools, but I've seen 'the other journo were at it' allegations without any supporting evidence. I guess providing that evidence may repeat the original crime?
As far as I can see (apart from whether he's a journalist or not), Murray seems to have been doing a huge wink about the identities of those involved which may suggest intent, eg "I implore you to read this article very, very carefully indeed. Between the lines."
That is the general problem: how can one discuss Mr Murray's case, or indeed Mr Salmond's, rationally under such a prohibition - and also under such an information clampdown in the first place?
This is why you need David Davis.
I suspect the thing that has complicated discussion of it is
1) Roddy Dunlop's not so private views on Alex Salmond
2) Alex Salmond admitting he was no angel
3) A not proven verdict on serious charge. Now you and I know that not proven is not guilty, but for some a not proven is tantamount to saying guilty/no smoke without fire.
I saw an utterly sick film at university (laddish dare to a few of us) called Cannibal Holocaust.
It was previously banned, and rightly so. I had nightmares and trauma for weeks afterwards.
Really? I giggled all the way through Cannibal Holocaust, thinking they banned this?
Although I have gone off it when I found out they had used actual animal abuse/violence in it.
Edit - I think I was desensitised to violence when my father let me watch as a six year old The Omen.
Poor David Warner.
I have watched quite a few definitely not for kids films with my children before. They were under 1 and I was doing night-time bottle feeds. I don't think they noticed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/1421083602473918465?s=20
BT Sport was essentially set up as a counterweight to Sky entering the broadband market.
All without googling
It's an even more def cert now. Might even watch it tonight.
I'm guessing Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill praised the decision of SCOTUK to not get involved in Scottish Affairs?
The Exorcist is scarier, but the Exorcist is the scariest movie I’ve ever seen, so that’s a high bar
Star Wars
Star Wars is Cowboys & Indians......
Of course it can be argued how helpful the SU was in many of their developments (except in a negative sense), but produced they were.
Think about it, the Empire's number two, it turns out his daughter obtained the plans to the Death Star, and his son was the one who pulled off the one in a million shot that destroyed the Death Star.
#InsideJob
https://www.youtube.com/user/Drachinifel
STARSHIP TROOPERS
(BTW did you see my flag up about the UK's last working Blondin?).
Here's one for you. Alien is a great horror movie. Aliens is a great war movie. Discuss.
A deal between the public broadcaster and Discovery, which handed over the rights to thousands of hours of coverage to the American pay-TV giant, was done in 2016 with the BBC also paying a reported £120 million. In return the BBC was given the reduced free-to-air rights for the 2022 winter and 2024 summer Olympics.
The BBC said it “needed to carve out a deal to ensure the Olympics remained on the BBC” for future Games but its reduced coverage of Tokyo has been widely criticised. It has also emerged that in 2009 Roger Mosey, who was the BBC’s director of sport, warned it would be “a disaster” if the coverage was split so that the broadcaster only retained a few hundred hours while the majority was shown on pay TV.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-traded-tokyo-rights-for-future-olympics-guarantee-9zhq02k6j
Rest of the articles mentions MPs like Damian Collins asking OFCOM to look into whether the wider Discovery deal is compatible with the listed events rules, ie full live coverage of everything.
Has the written judgement been issued?
But the Exorcist had me gibbering at the age of 14 when I snuck into a london cinema on a school trip and saw it, and it can still freak me out now if I re-watch it 40 years later
True fear is probably quite a hard thing to manufacture in movies, almost as hard as comedy? It’s almost impossible to do in books.
Those tactics were already a little bit retro, even in 1879.
But even having the limited rights they do, there’s no excuse for not having a team of producers following everything and selecting content. That, and the apparent prioritisation of “studio time” and interviews, over live events.
Aliens is also a great feminist and anti racist tract, in its spare time. And the most quotable film which is not Casablanca.
Of course it can be argued how helpful the SU was in many of their developments (except in a negative sense), but produced they were.
Germany became militaristic because it was, essentially, absorbed into Prussia - an army with a country attached to it. If the Habsburgs had managed to unify Germany under Austria instead things would have been a lot less militaristic, and efficient probably.
At the risk of adding to the cliches, Das Boot (the original!) is another war film/series worth watching, if only for the overbearing sense of claustrophobia.
On the war movies -
Master and Commander
Coronel and Falklands (the WW1 movie)
The Somme (ditto)
Battle of Britain
Tali Ihantala
Das Boot
all worth trying
I’d put Alien in my top 10 list of all movies of all time. Just a complete masterpiece. Think of all the iconic scenes that have entered everyday discourse. A stunning piece of cinematic art
My understanding is that Murray's was much more explicit and the fact he was warned and asked to delete the offending entries but refused to do so.
Remember the above numbers reflect transmission levels 2 to 3 weeks ago, so are not particularly useful as an indicator or current gauge…
https://twitter.com/fact_covid/status/1421086646506770434?s=20
In the ONS Scotland (declining tests for several weeks) only turned negative this week...
There's a sap of a Western argument that it's an "internal" Chinese matter - unfinished business from the civil war - and therefore not worth fighting for.
The most likely action we would take is to just geopolitically isolate China.
It is like getting used to eating at Michelin starred restaurants then getting a cold happy meal from the golden arches.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.....
Its also very unfair to those motorists who are entirely innocent, who injure cyclists and pedestrians who do stupid things (eg all the cyclists who die every year attempting to undertake left turning HGVs).
I hit a pedestrian as a teenager - a bloke stepped out from between two parked cars without looking, towing a kid. I stood on the brakes, but hit the kid before I stopped. Seeing that kid disappear under the edge of my bonnet is one of the most horrible things I've ever experienced.
The bloke didn't look to see what had happened to the kid, but attempted to kill me - I had to sprint away from the scene (it was a busy street, other people ran to the aid of the kid - I didn't feel hanging around so his dad could beat me to death was going to help anyone).
Mercifully the kid was fine, just winded - they took him to hospital and checked him out as a precaution.
The police came, threatened me with due care etc. Impounded the car until it became apparent that the kid was completely unhurt. Measured the skid marks (this was years ago - it's not generally possible now since the advent of Abs brakes), concluded I was doing 18mph. Interviewed the bloke who claimed I was doing a million miles a hour, appeared from nowhere yada yada. Eventually dropped the whole thing, although not for several weeks.
None of it was very funny at the time. With a presumption of blame, it could have been far far worse, particularly if the police hadn't been able to prove the actual speed I was driving.
It’s magnificent. The night sequence alone is mind-blowing
Motorists (particularly white van man, and I'm never convinced it's safe on the road) and other cyclists - the lycra louts.
They really are tossers.
Ultimately Murray told the court I know better than you, and that never ends well.
Given the wider issues of sexual offences being charged/convicted it is something the wider criminal justice system is looking on cracking down.
I don't really know what to say to this.
Why am I still here? What's the point? How can you begin to argue with something that is so obviously an incorrect understanding of the data motivated through such blatant confirmation bias?
Starting to believe war really is peace.
https://twitter.com/RufusSG/status/1421088100856573961?s=20
As far as I can see (apart from whether he's a journalist or not), Murray seems to have been doing a huge wink about the identities of those involved which may suggest intent, eg "I implore you to read this article very, very carefully indeed. Between the lines."
Where Eagles Dare (probably in my top three fav movies of any genre especially the score ,opening shots and scenery)
Das Boot - bit more deeper I suppose but strangely cosy
633 Squadron - sucker for the leader being brave and going rogue
The Longest Day - To me this is better than Saving Private Ryan as a depiction of D -Day .
A Bridge too Far - Great scenery as well as a lot of action
Downfall - great mix of action, politics and drama
It's *at least* an hour too long, with an absurdly long and unnecessary wedding scene at the start, and the character development isn't anything like it's cracked up to be. The film also tries to do too many things. It's mainly memorable because of the famous Russian Roulette scenes.
Christopher Walken and Meryl Streep carry it but I think it's decidedly average.
Apocalypse Now is far better.
Doesn't negate the fact that Vader's kids were key to destruction of the Death Star.
Fun facts about the Ronald Reagan attempted assassination.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley Jr – one of the foremost assassins in history motivated by a desire to impress Jodie Foster.
But even as Bush was being rushed to the White House to deputise, questions were already being asked about why the family of John Hinckley Jr had contributed to Bush's 1980 Republican nomination campaign. Hinckley's older brother, Scott, was supposed to go for dinner at the home of Neil Bush the very day after the Reagan assassination attempt.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbazxm/facts-about-the-life-and-times-of-george-hw-bush-you-may-not-have-known
#AnotherInsideJob
I rewatch Aliens far more frequently than Alien.
It was previously banned, and rightly so. I had nightmares and trauma for weeks afterwards.
Ice Cold in Alex and The Guns of Navarone probably my favourite British ones.
Saving Private Ryan I saw for the first time a month or two ago and I thought it was great.
The Good the Bad and the Ugly has some fantastic war scenes in it, even if it's not really a war film per se.
Then of course there is Casablanca, the greatest film ever made, and certainly a war film.
I'd also put in an honourable mention for Oh What A Lovely War, not necessarily the film version but it's a really powerful piece of theatre (I have performed in two separate productions of it, and found it easily the most devastating play I've ever been in).
It has comedy, optimism , offbeat stuff (the trans/gay German major who befriends Jo Jo and looks out for him when the Russians come) and is also desperately sad (when he sees his mother's body hanging) and also disturbing to see how propaganda can cause ordinary children (jo Jo ) to hate (the Jewish girl hiding in the attic)
A movie touched with Satanic genius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pr-I0V0ZOc
https://twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/1421087878336204800?s=20
Sky News were saying the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZq-tlJTrU
Definitely not one of the top ten war films, I'm afraid.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8396188/
Nobody speaking out for Patton as a movie?
There are very few genuinely frightening stories or novels. It’s a fiendishly difficult emotion to evoke with mere words
Thanks for the suggestion. Will try!
I did see your post about the blondin - a fascinating thing. I'd never actually realised they were slightly different from common-or-garden aerial ropeways.
Although I have gone off it when I found out they had used actual animal abuse/violence in it.
Edit - I think I was desensitised to violence when my father let me watch as a six year old The Omen.
Poor David Warner.
And yet it stays with you, and in places it is deeply moving
I’d put it in my top 30 war movies. Apocalypse Now is definitely superior. Top 10 at least
I suspect the thing that has complicated discussion of it is
1) Roddy Dunlop's not so private views on Alex Salmond
2) Alex Salmond admitting he was no angel
3) A not proven verdict on serious charge. Now you and I know that not proven is not guilty, but for some a not proven is tantamount to saying guilty/no smoke without fire.