Re: Gallipoli: the assumption was that the Ottoman Empire would be just as shit close to home as it had proven to be throughout the whole of the 19th Century, and for a quite a long time before too.
But, they ended up fighting Turks who fought very well motivated by nationalism, so it didn't apply, and both the Army/Navy were very complacent, which worked in the Crimea 60 years earlier (just about, despite their failings) but not this time.
The army and navy also didn't co-operate properly and Churchill - as FLOTA - didn't have the authority to make the army do so (though the navy could have done a better job too, for example in mine-clearing). But yes, the strategic concept was sound: had the battle fleet forced its way through to Constantinople, it could well have forced the Ottomans out of the war. The mistake that turned a missed chance into a tragedy was in failing to recognise that once the moment had been lost on the first day and hence the chance to charge up the Straights more-or-less closed off, the operation should have been pulled. Several divisions sat on a beach for months was just lunacy.
The Royal Navy and its gunnery were rather poor in WW1. Still dining off Nelson's heroics 100 years earlier. Not only at Jutland, but at Gallipoli, the fire control and accuracy were woeful, which led to a number of sinkings to battery fire as well as mines. Then they just sort of gave up.
During the interwar years, there was actually a lot of training in the Royal Navy on gunnery ("learning the lessons") which was actually rather good by the time WWII came around, only for its effectiveness to be made largely second order to air power, U-boats, and defending against hit & run/frogmen sabotage, which sunk way more capital ships than anything else.
Sorry I was unexpected delayed for three days, because, ironically, considering the subject matter, a low pressure area approaching us which we expected to make a bit of rain, got upgraded 12 hours out into a Tropical Depression (lots of rain) and then less than an hour out upgraded again into a Typhoon which took out a couple of electricity distribution pylons on the mainland and left us without power (and pumped water) for three days. Now then what were people saying about the accuracy of weather forecasts, I might have missed it Waking up to an inch of water on my bedroom floor was also a slight inconvenience!
Oh dear, that doesn't sound very good. Hope you manage to get the house back together in short order, and that there isn't too much damage.
Thanks. I got the apartment cleaned out today and have moved back in again, tomorrow I need to sort through the half a dozen cardboard boxes of "stuff" that were sitting on the floor and see how much of it got written off.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
I think it probably could have been done but not in 1940. Had Germany devoted its industrial and fighting war effort wholly against Britain then a second Battle of Britain could have been won in 1941 and with air supremacy might have come the chance to defeat the navy from the air (which would have been an essential pre-requisite for a successful invasion). What it would have meant though was that an invasion of the USSR would probably have had to be deferred to at least 1942 and possibly 1943, which given that the Soviet lebensraum was always Hitler's endgame, wasn't a price worth paying.
Donald Trump. I can cope with the bumptiousness. I can cope with the charmlessness. We've had bumptious and/or charmless politicians before. I can cope with his approach to economics and world affairs. His approach isn't mine, but many people's approach to these things isn't mine. I can cope with the charges of racism and sexism and such. Everyone, it seems - Germaine Greer, Peter Tatchell, Gordon the Gopher - is accused of such things.
But his excessive use of explanation marks really, really grates.
On topic: the accuracy of weather forecasts is not the only improvement over the last years. The way of the presenting the data as a system of fairly simple warnings, and now named storms is something the media can really get their teeth into. (With the honourable exception of the Daily Express who still allegedly get former Russian models to predict their heavy rain showers).
If the BoE or other economists are using such a system in a serious way, the media have not really cottoned on to it.
That said we have had a 93mph gust today in an area rather remote from the wind warning that was in force - looks to me like it had something to do with an unpredictably kinky isobar.
In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six. This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed. The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles. On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed. I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.
Mines in the Dardenelles sunk several Allied capital ships. The Ottoman shore forts were beginning to run short of ammunition. If minesweeping had continued, direct bombardment of Constantinople was possible. Will try to check Fall of The Ottomans by Rogan or The Ottoman Endgame -Sean McMeekin.
(Churchill's decision to seize the battleships Sultan Osman 1 and Reşadiye in August 1914, shifted the Ottomans towards an alliance with Germany).
The Ottoman -German alliance was signed on 2nd August. But the Turks didn't attack the Russians until 29th October.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
The Entente Cordiale didn't require us to defend France, but the London treaty obliged us to defend Belgium. However, I think that with smarter German diplomacy (and a better appreciation of British imperatives), they might very well have kept us on the sidelines.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
Sadly, yes. We risked German victory and domination of the continent otherwise and, as Marne, Verdun and the French mutiny/Russian revolution showed, France wouldn't necessarily have been able to hold them alone. Nor would we have been there to cripple the Germany economy through a naval blockade.
If we had reneged on our word to protect Belgian neutrality too, we would have been much diminished and little trusted in European/global affairs ever again, even if we had avoided casualties, and the Kaiser's Germany would be calling many more of the shots on the basis that might is right.
Did I read the sky news ticker right? Mark Carney said that Brexit now poses a bigger financial risk to the E.U instead of us? LOL.
Have there been some new Govt. advisors brought in to advise on the EU, replacing old ones, or something?
No, it's just that the media are highlighting a topic that Carney has touched on before. The City is the gateway to global capital markets & financial expertise/services for much of corporate Europe. It's a European asset that just happens to be in London.
In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six. This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed. The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles. On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed. I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.
Mines in the Dardenelles sunk several Allied capital ships. The Ottoman shore forts were beginning to run short of ammunition. If minesweeping had continued, direct bombardment of Constantinople was possible. Will try to check Fall of The Ottomans by Rogan or The Ottoman Endgame -Sean McMeekin.
(Churchill's decision to seize the battleships Sultan Osman 1 and Reşadiye in August 1914, shifted the Ottomans towards an alliance with Germany).
The Ottoman -German alliance was signed on 2nd August. But the Turks didn't attack the Russians until 29th October.
There is an inference in one of those books, that the Ottomans were hedging their bets, and keen to play off The Central Powers and The Entente. What I hadn't appreciated was that The Russians were making serious plans to launch a seaborne attack on Turkey in 1917, but the Feb Revolution stymied it.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
I think it probably could have been done but not in 1940. Had Germany devoted its industrial and fighting war effort wholly against Britain then a second Battle of Britain could have been won in 1941 and with air supremacy might have come the chance to defeat the navy from the air (which would have been an essential pre-requisite for a successful invasion). What it would have meant though was that an invasion of the USSR would probably have had to be deferred to at least 1942 and possibly 1943, which given that the Soviet lebensraum was always Hitler's endgame, wasn't a price worth paying.
In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six. This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed. The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles. On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed. I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.
Mines in the Dardenelles sunk several Allied capital ships. The Ottoman shore forts were beginning to run short of ammunition. If minesweeping had continued, direct bombardment of Constantinople was possible. Will try to check Fall of The Ottomans by Rogan or The Ottoman Endgame -Sean McMeekin.
(Churchill's decision to seize the battleships Sultan Osman 1 and Reşadiye in August 1914, shifted the Ottomans towards an alliance with Germany).
The Ottoman -German alliance was signed on 2nd August. But the Turks didn't attack the Russians until 29th October.
There is an inference in one of those books, that the Ottomans were hedging their bets, and keen to play off The Central Powers and The Entente. What I hadn't appreciated was that The Russians were making serious plans to launch a seaborne attack on Turkey in 1917, but the Feb Revolution stymied it.
Erin and Agincourt weren't actually seized until the 22nd August, three weeks after war was declared on Germany.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
Sadly, yes. We risked German victory and domination of the continent otherwise and, as Marne, Verdun and the French mutiny/Russian revolution showed, France wouldn't necessarily have been able to hold them alone. Nor would we have been there to cripple the Germany economy through a naval blockade.
If we had reneged on our word to protect Belgian neutrality too, we would have been much diminished and little trusted in European/global affairs ever again, even if we had avoided casualties, and the Kaiser's Germany would be calling many more of the shots on the basis that might is right.
Adolf Hitler would have been a minor, fairly unsuccessful, artist though. And that would have been it!
Dr. Spyn, the Revolution also meant Montengro (on our side) got screwed over by Serbia and abandoned by her allies after the First World War ended (the Czar would've stood up for Montenegro, had he been there), and the planned handover of Istanbul to the Russians never happened.
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
A balloonist comes down in a farmer's field and isn't sure where he is, spotting a man walking his dog on the nearby road he jogs over:
"Excuse me, can you tell me where I am please ?" "Yes of course, you are 27.63 metres from the northern hedge, and 6.12 meters east of the gate" "Ah yes thank you, tell me, are you an economist by any chance ?" "Why yes, how did you know ?" "Because your information was fantastically accurate, and utterly useless"
This one was quite popular when I was a student.
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are marooned on an island. They only have one can of beans but no can opener. They have a meeting.
The physicist says: I will throw the can from the tree and it will burst open.
The chemist says: I would be too messy. We will leave it in the sun and the air inside will expand and the can will burst open.
The economist says: Let's assume we have a can opener.
LOL like it.
Three lawyers are discussing the meaning of sang froid
The first says when you come home, open the bedroom door and find your wife in bed with her lover. You simply close the door and act as if nothing has happened that's sang froid
No says the second that's laissez faire.
Sang froid is when you come home, find your wife in bed with her lover and say " do continue" and then walk away as if nothing had happened
Nonsense says the third, that's savoir faire
Sang froid when when you come home, find your wife in bed with her lover and say " do continue" and HE CAN, that's true sang froid.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
The Entente Cordiale didn't require us to defend France, but the London treaty obliged us to defend Belgium. However, I think that with smarter German diplomacy (and a better appreciation of British imperatives), they might very well have kept us on the sidelines.
The bigger question is: why were Germany (or, more accurately, elements of its military) so spoiling for a fight?
They had licked France and Austria before, and had an extensive empire already. But ratcheted up the ante at almost every step of the way in August 1914.
All of that has been lost. Modern Germany is much smaller than it would have been had they just left alone.
Update for those interested in the Stormont situation. The Sinn Fein MLAs all failed to attend committees today. Looks like they are not interested in negotiations this side of an election. By my reckoning, the DUP have four days to stage a humongous climbdown or an election will be on.
Thanks for the update. If, as looks likely, there will be an election, when would it take place - six weeks from next week?
That's the general timescale expected. Very little appetite for it, I have to say.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not .
I'm blockquote>
.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
I think it probably could have been done but not in 1940. Had Germany devoted its industrial and fighting war effort wholly against Britain then a second Battle of Britain could have been won in 1941 and with air supremacy might have come the chance to defeat the navy from the air (which would have been an essential pre-requisite for a successful invasion). What it would have meant though was that an invasion of the USSR would probably have had to be deferred to at least 1942 and possibly 1943, which given that the Soviet lebensraum was always Hitler's endgame, wasn't a price worth paying.
Possibly, but (given how the German war economy developed) I don't think they could have garnered sufficient capital ships (it takes several years to build big ships and destroyers and the Royal Navy had many, many more) and air power to overwhelm the UK even in 1941, given their pilot and material losses in 1940, plus the UK home forces were much stronger in 1941.
I think the answer is yes: had they waited until late 1942/1943 and devoted themselves wholly to defeating the UK, and not declared war on the USA, by which time we might largely have been strangled by U-boats anyway.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
Impossible to say. Or more accurately, Britain could have sat it out, in which case Germany would probably have won and imposed harsh terms on France and Russia (though not as harsh as Brest-Litovsk turned out to be).
But how the world would have panned out then is anyone's guess. France would have harboured a resentment towards Britain, particularly if Britain ratted at the last minute rather than not engaging so closely in the years running up to WWI; Germany would have been by far the dominant power in Europe, with an (over?-)confident spring in its step and probably with a harbouring for more colonies, probably courtesy of France; Russia would have been diminished in the short term but would not necessarily have gone through the strife of 1917-22. Where would the politics of the 1920s have then gone in a very different world? In the big scheme of things, it would probably have been much better, though you can never quite tell and there's no guarantee a second Napoleon wouldn't have risen.
Like Rumsfeld's dicta on unknowns, Gove's remark was a brilliant thicko detector because they thought laughing at people who laugh at experts must be fair game. As a rule of thumb, if gambling is possible about a given area, expert prediction in that area is not a thing, because bookies like to stay in business.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman.
Disappointing to see the expression "Worshipers of the cult of ignorance" in the piece: misunderstanding other peoples' points is the default on this site, but misunderstanding one's own point is slightly rarer.
Weather forecasting is now as good out to 3 or 4 days as it was out to one day 30 years ago. I would think every hour gained has cost something like a billion dollars in hard- and soft-ware and satellites and research and stuff, and a lot of the gain is due to the paradigm shidft of being able to look down from above and see what is coming: I can't think of a similar giant leap economics could make. And the old point against economics is still valid: if you are so smart, where is the Lear jet? Keynes got above-average returns for the King's College wine funds for a number of years, but other hard evidence of economic foresight is far to seek. Hedge funds are run by very clever people, and you would have done better in 2016 to keep your cash in the mattress all year, take it out on New Year's Eve and burn 10% of it.
And that "ooh, it's all coming, but later than we said" shtick is an absolute cop out; like a doctor claiming a 100% prognosis record by saying that all his patients will die, eventually.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
The Entente Cordiale didn't require us to defend France, but the London treaty obliged us to defend Belgium. However, I think that with smarter German diplomacy (and a better appreciation of British imperatives), they might very well have kept us on the sidelines.
The bigger question is: why were Germany (or, more accurately, elements of its military) so spoiling for a fight?
They had licked France and Austria before, and had an extensive empire already. But ratcheted up the ante at almost every step of the way in August 1914.
All of that has been lost. Modern Germany is much smaller than it would have been had they just left alone.
There's so much that has been written about the origins of WWI, it's hard to give a concise answer. Ultimately, I think it was down to the Kaiser's personality flaws.
I also like the theory that the Germans were essentially slaves to their own mobilisation plans, which depended on the full utilisation of their rail network. Once they pressed the 'mobilise' button, it could not be undone. Given their appreciation of the scale and speed of Russian mobilisation, they had to knock out France quickly (violating Belgian neutrality in the process), and this also required tactical surprise. Hence the military champing at the bit.
For all that, it was a wholly avoidable war, and probably Europe's great tragedy.
'Lad culture' (IMHO) isn't a response to political correctness, for most of human history men have generally viewed women as their inferiors. Given that so many women in the world don't even have access to education (62 million girls) it looks like it's continuing today.
RE men and sexual desire: There's a time a place. At the club, a-okay. But most of the women I know don't really care to be approached when on the way to work, for example. Personally as a woman I'm just over being valued as sex object. It's rather be valued for who I am as person.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
The Entente Cordiale didn't require us to defend France, but the London treaty obliged us to defend Belgium. However, I think that with smarter German diplomacy (and a better appreciation of British imperatives), they might very well have kept us on the sidelines.
The bigger question is: why were Germany (or, more accurately, elements of its military) so spoiling for a fight?
They had licked France and Austria before, and had an extensive empire already. But ratcheted up the ante at almost every step of the way in August 1914.
All of that has been lost. Modern Germany is much smaller than it would have been had they just left alone.
I blame Kaiser Bill! A good counterfactual to ponder is if his dad didn't die after only 99 days on the throne.
In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six. This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed. The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles. On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed. I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.
Mines in the Dardenelles sunk several Allied capital ships. The Ottoman shore forts were beginning to run short of ammunition. If minesweeping had continued, direct bombardment of Constantinople was possible. Will try to check Fall of The Ottomans by Rogan or The Ottoman Endgame -Sean McMeekin.
(Churchill's decision to seize the battleships Sultan Osman 1 and Reşadiye in August 1914, shifted the Ottomans towards an alliance with Germany).
The Ottoman -German alliance was signed on 2nd August. But the Turks didn't attack the Russians until 29th October.
There is an inference in one of those books, that the Ottomans were hedging their bets, and keen to play off The Central Powers and The Entente. What I hadn't appreciated was that The Russians were making serious plans to launch a seaborne attack on Turkey in 1917, but the Feb Revolution stymied it.
The Russians were originally allocated some of modern-day Turkey under Sykes-Picot (or a subsequent revision of it), I think.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
I think it probably could have been done but not in 1940. Had Germany devoted its industrial and fighting war effort wholly against Britain then a second Battle of Britain could have been won in 1941 and with air supremacy might have come the chance to defeat the navy from the air (which would have been an essential pre-requisite for a successful invasion). What it would have meant though was that an invasion of the USSR would probably have had to be deferred to at least 1942 and possibly 1943, which given that the Soviet lebensraum was always Hitler's endgame, wasn't a price worth paying.
How many weeks food were we down to in 1942/1943?
Don't know. A lot more than Leningrad survived on though.
In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, and - through a chain of events which I now forget, possibly to do with oil - considerably shortening the war in northern Europe. It was always a high risk landing, which Churchill knew, but the potential rewards were so great that it was worth rolling the dice. Like a gambler faced with making a 20-1 return for rolling a six. This is a fairly brutal way to look at an event which led to so many deaths, but those were - and perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed. The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles. On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed. I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
Wasn't the issue that it was planned to be simultaneous with a landing at Alexandretta (to cut Turkey off from Mosul). The French vetoed it because they were worried that it would allow the Brits to conquet Syria which meant that Gallipoli was only half the plan.
Did I read the sky news ticker right? Mark Carney said that Brexit now poses a bigger financial risk to the E.U instead of us? LOL.
Have there been some new Govt. advisors brought in to advise on the EU, replacing old ones, or something?
No, it's just that the media are highlighting a topic that Carney has touched on before. The City is the gateway to global capital markets & financial expertise/services for much of corporate Europe. It's a European asset that just happens to be in London.
The EU needs to chasten us, be seen to protect its four freedoms, show we've suffered, and that being outside the EU is 'worse' than inside, but preserve access to our finance for the Eurozone, continue to sell us manufactured goods in which it has a strong surplus, and retain our military, intelligence and security cooperation.
In defence of Churchill with regard to Gallipoli, I have heard it argued that had the landing been successful, it would have led to a fairly swift capture of Constantinople (was it still called that then?) thereby taking Turkey out of the war, perhaps still are - the terms in which war is viewed. The fact that it was an ANZAC force doing the heavy lifting has led it a subsequent political dimension, but I'm sure the decisions would have been the same had the regiments been from the British Isles. On this basis, the Gallipoli landings were the right decision strategically, even if they ultimately failed. I have no idea if this analysis stacks up!
I think the Allies' most fatal wiing assumption was that the ottoman empire was a busted flush and would put up no resistance.
Combined operations/amphibious landings were typically fraught with all sorts of issues. The biggest shock about D-day is arguably that it wasn't a disaster.
IIRC, the operation started to go wrong when a flotilla turned back barely miles from successfully breaching the Dardanelles. Sure that there's proper experts on here to confirm/deny.
Mines in the Dardenelles sunk several Allied capital ships. The Ottoman shore forts were beginning to run short of ammunition. If minesweeping had continued, direct bombardment of Constantinople was possible. Will try to check Fall of The Ottomans by Rogan or The Ottoman Endgame -Sean McMeekin.
(Churchill's decision to seize the battleships Sultan Osman 1 and Reşadiye in August 1914, shifted the Ottomans towards an alliance with Germany).
The Ottoman -German alliance was signed on 2nd August. But the Turks didn't attack the Russians until 29th October.
There is an inference in one of those books, that the Ottomans were hedging their bets, and keen to play off The Central Powers and The Entente. What I hadn't appreciated was that The Russians were making serious plans to launch a seaborne attack on Turkey in 1917, but the Feb Revolution stymied it.
The Russians were originally allocated some of modern-day Turkey under Sykes-Picot (or a subsequent revision of it), I think.
1920 Treaty of Sevres. Greece was to take over eastern Thrace short of Istanbul, as well as the region around Izmir (Smyrna).
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says: "Let's smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says: "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says: "Let us assume that we have a can-opener..."
An economist walking down the road with a friend. The friend points out a ten pound note on the pavement.
The economust says to ignore it because if it was there it would have already been picked up.
A balloonist comes down in a farmer's field and isn't sure where he is, spotting a man walking his dog on the nearby road he jogs over:
"Excuse me, can you tell me where I am please ?" "Yes of course, you are 27.63 metres from the northern hedge, and 6.12 meters east of the gate" "Ah yes thank you, tell me, are you an economist by any chance ?" "Why yes, how did you know ?" "Because your information was fantastically accurate, and utterly useless"
This one was quite popular when I was a student.
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are marooned on an island. They only have one can of beans but no can opener. They have a meeting.
The physicist says: I will throw the can from the tree and it will burst open.
The chemist says: I would be too messy. We will leave it in the sun and the air inside will expand and the can will burst open.
The economist says: Let's assume we have a can opener.
LOL like it.
There is a nerdyer version.
An astronomer, a physician and a mathematician go on holiday into Scotland. Just past Carter Bar they see a black sheep in a field.
The astronomer says "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black" The Physician says "No - Some of the sheep in Scotland are black" The mathematician says "No - In Scotland there exists at least one field containing one sheep that is black on at least one side."
Dr. Spyn, the Revolution also meant Montengro (on our side) got screwed over by Serbia and abandoned by her allies after the First World War ended (the Czar would've stood up for Montenegro, had he been there), and the planned handover of Istanbul to the Russians never happened.
Had Britain not become involved in WWI, the Balkans would have been very different. Austria-Hungary would have survived the war, Yugoslavia would never have been born, and so on.
Did I read the sky news ticker right? Mark Carney said that Brexit now poses a bigger financial risk to the E.U instead of us? LOL.
Have there been some new Govt. advisors brought in to advise on the EU, replacing old ones, or something?
No, it's just that the media are highlighting a topic that Carney has touched on before. The City is the gateway to global capital markets & financial expertise/services for much of corporate Europe. It's a European asset that just happens to be in London.
The EU needs to chasten us, be seen to protect its four freedoms, show we've suffered, and that being outside the EU is 'worse' than inside, but preserve access to our finance for the Eurozone, continue to sell us manufactured goods in which it has a strong surplus, and retain our military, intelligence and security cooperation.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not .
I'm blockquote>
.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
I think it probably could have been done but not in 1940. Had Germany devoted its industrial and fighting war effort wholly against Britain then a second Battle of Britain could have been won in 1941 and with air supremacy might have come the chance to defeat the navy from the air (which would have been an essential pre-requisite for a successful invasion). What it would have meant though was that an invasion of the USSR would probably have had to be deferred to at least 1942 and possibly 1943, which given that the Soviet lebensraum was always Hitler's endgame, wasn't a price worth paying.
Possibly, but (given how the German war economy developed) I don't think they could have garnered sufficient capital ships (it takes several years to build big ships and destroyers and the Royal Navy had many, many more) and air power to overwhelm the UK even in 1941, given their pilot and material losses in 1940, plus the UK home forces were much stronger in 1941.
I think the answer is yes: had they waited until late 1942/1943 and devoted themselves wholly to defeating the UK, and not declared war on the USA, by which time we might largely have been strangled by U-boats anyway.
I agree re capital ships: would have been a huge waste of resources (and it's not just the ships they didn't have; they didn't have the shipyards or builders to complete, say, 8 Bismarck-class battleships in 3 years). That's why they'd have had to have neutralised the Royal Navy some other way.
I wonder if there is a military history forum where the posters spend half their time posting about betting and politics.
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Looking at the origins of WW1 I cannot help feeling the world would be a safer place if the Baltic states were not in NATO.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
The Entente Cordiale didn't require us to defend France, but the London treaty obliged us to defend Belgium. However, I think that with smarter German diplomacy (and a better appreciation of British imperatives), they might very well have kept us on the sidelines.
The bigger question is: why were Germany (or, more accurately, elements of its military) so spoiling for a fight?
They had licked France and Austria before, and had an extensive empire already. But ratcheted up the ante at almost every step of the way in August 1914.
All of that has been lost. Modern Germany is much smaller than it would have been had they just left alone.
They weren't, particularly, more than any of the other continental powers. It's a consequence of 'history written by winners', as much as anything. Russia, France and (elements in) Austria were at least as bellicose.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
The Entente Cordiale didn't require us to defend France, but the London treaty obliged us to defend Belgium. However, I think that with smarter German diplomacy (and a better appreciation of British imperatives), they might very well have kept us on the sidelines.
The bigger question is: why were Germany (or, more accurately, elements of its military) so spoiling for a fight?
They had licked France and Austria before, and had an extensive empire already. But ratcheted up the ante at almost every step of the way in August 1914.
All of that has been lost. Modern Germany is much smaller than it would have been had they just left alone.
They weren't, particularly, more than any of the other continental powers. It's a consequence of 'history written by winners', as much as anything. Russia, France and (elements in) Austria were at least as bellicose.
I blame Kaiser Bill! A good counterfactual to ponder is if his dad didn't die after only 99 days on the throne.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am convinced the Germans had no chance of successfully invading the UK in 1940.
I think it probably could have been done but not in 1940. Had Germany devoted its industrial and fighting war effort wholly against Britain then a second Battle of Britain could have been won in 1941 and with air supremacy might have come the chance to defeat the navy from the air (which would have been an essential pre-requisite for a successful invasion). What it would have meant though was that an invasion of the USSR would probably have had to be deferred to at least 1942 and possibly 1943, which given that the Soviet lebensraum was always Hitler's endgame, wasn't a price worth paying.
How many weeks food were we down to in 1942/1943?
Don't know. A lot more than Leningrad survived on though.
True; one of the reasons it did survive was that the Finns, although nominally allies of the Germans had got what they wanted and stopped.
I wonder if there is a military history forum where the posters spend half their time posting about betting and politics.
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Looking at the origins of WW1 I cannot help feeling the world would be a safer place if the Baltic states were not in NATO.
He then brought us Dieppe so Overlord was third time lucky. Learning from experience.
You're forgetting Norway.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
Destroyers and cruisers would have been of minimal use in an attempt to invade England. Either the Germans would have knocked out the RAF and navy in the Battle of Britain and subsequent landing preparations - in which case the destroyers would at best have provided limited shore landing support - or they wouldn't, in which case they'd have been hammered by the RN.
After years of study, I am
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
The Entente Cordiale didn't require us to defend France, but the London treaty obliged us to defend Belgium. However, I think that with smarter German diplomacy (and a better appreciation of British imperatives), they might very well have kept us on the sidelines.
The bigger question is: why were Germany (or, more accurately, elements of its military) so spoiling for a fight?
They had licked France and Austria before, and had an extensive empire already. But ratcheted up the ante at almost every step of the way in August 1914.
All of that has been lost. Modern Germany is much smaller than it would have been had they just left alone.
They weren't, particularly, more than any of the other continental powers. It's a consequence of 'history written by winners', as much as anything. Russia, France and (elements in) Austria were at least as bellicose.
I actually disagree with that, albeit don't have enough time to go into why now.
Apologies, 4th. That was a fiasco, to little strategic purpose other than losing an aircraft carrier.
...while the Germans lost ten of their valuable destroyers.
Not to mention damage to two even more precious cruisers. This, with the time and resources lost to the Norway campaign, changed the timetable and options for invading the UK.
I'm unconvinced that there was ever a realistic option for invading the UK. A few destroyer and cruiser losses were nothing compared to the underlying logistics problems.
After years of study, I am
Heading back to WWI, did we actually need to get involved ?
The French might have been speaking German by now but we probably wouldn't have been. WWII was a different matter entirely.
The Entente Cordiale didn't require us to defend France, but the London treaty obliged us to defend Belgium. However, I think that with smarter German diplomacy (and a better appreciation of British imperatives), they might very well have kept us on the sidelines.
The bigger question is: why were Germany (or, more accurately, elements of its military) so spoiling for a fight?
They had licked France and Austria before, and had an extensive empire already. But ratcheted up the ante at almost every step of the way in August 1914.
All of that has been lost. Modern Germany is much smaller than it would have been had they just left alone.
They weren't, particularly, more than any of the other continental powers. It's a consequence of 'history written by winners', as much as anything. Russia, France and (elements in) Austria were at least as bellicose.
I actually disagree with that, albeit don't have enough time to go into why now.
I agree with you. It was a more militaristic culture and they had got very used to very short and very decisive wins under Bismarck and expected the same again.
Trump adamant that anyone who puts car manufacturing into Mexico will see very large taxes for selling into the US. BMW intend building a factory in Mexico - how much tax are they going to pay to sell into the US
Trump just refused a question from an angry journalist by saying 'You are fake news'
The World order is going to change big time with Trump's Presidency and it looks like the liberal left are going to have a collective breakdown
A remark was made down thread about tariffs and the WTO. My worry is about state aid rules and social housing. My understanding is that EU rules allow for exemptions, and they have exempted subsidies for social housing from state aid rules, but standard WTO rules don't allow exemptions. So if we aren't careful, we could end up butchering social housing to a greater extent that it is being butchered now by not being able to fund it. Just a teeny bit worrying.
A remark was made down thread about tariffs and the WTO. My worry is about state aid rules and social housing. My understanding is that EU rules allow for exemptions, and they have exempted subsidies for social housing from state aid rules, but standard WTO rules don't allow exemptions. So if we aren't careful, we could end up butchering social housing to a greater extent that it is being butchered now by not being able to fund it. Just a teeny bit worrying.
I wasn't aware that the WTO had anything to say about social housing. On the other hand, I'm not omniscient. Do you mean the agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures? Or, if not, do you have a link?
A bit of a change on tune on Russia from Trump then. Looks like with the amount of anti-Russia GOPers in Congress, he knows it won't be simple in re-setting America's relationship with Russia.
I am not saying I support him as I do have many concerns but he has controlled the media in this conference. They seem to be dumbfounded and do not know how to deal with him
The great thing about the closeness of the Brexit vote is that you can blame every tiny contributing factor for the result. The cookie idiocy must have pushed at least some punters from In to Out.
A bit of a change on tune on Russia from Trump then. Looks like with the amount of anti-Russia GOPers in Congress, he knows it won't be simple in re-setting America's relationship with Russia.
Granted the influence of the GOP cold warriors, it was noticeable that Trump soon turned the focus back to China -- Chinese trade, Chinese hacking and Chinese expansionism.
Trump adamant that anyone who puts car manufacturing into Mexico will see very large taxes for selling into the US. BMW intend building a factory in Mexico - how much tax are they going to pay to sell into the US
Trump just refused a question from an angry journalist by saying 'You are fake news'
The World order is going to change big time with Trump's Presidency and it looks like the liberal left are going to have a collective breakdown
Trump adamant that anyone who puts car manufacturing into Mexico will see very large taxes for selling into the US. BMW intend building a factory in Mexico - how much tax are they going to pay to sell into the US
Trump just refused a question from an angry journalist by saying 'You are fake news'
The World order is going to change big time with Trump's Presidency and it looks like the liberal left are going to have a collective breakdown
Forget the liberal left, it is the capitalist right building factories in Mexico and it will be the capitalist right that questions the legality of the import tariffs Trump wants.
I am not saying I support him as I do have many concerns but he has controlled the media in this conference. They seem to be dumbfounded and do not know how to deal with him
Loved the bit where he wouldn't let cnn speak at the conference and bbc guy stood up mentioning he was from the bbc and trumps reply was " there's another beauty" - lol
A bit of a change on tune on Russia from Trump then. Looks like with the amount of anti-Russia GOPers in Congress, he knows it won't be simple in re-setting America's relationship with Russia.
Granted the influence of the GOP cold warriors, it was noticeable that Trump soon turned the focus back to China -- Chinese trade, Chinese hacking and Chinese expansionism.
Yep, but it's Trump. I'm used to this from him by now. We're already seeing from this hacking situation, funding issues for the Great Wall of Donald, and the troubles with repealing Obamacare that governing may be harder for Trump than he imagined.
Trump adamant that anyone who puts car manufacturing into Mexico will see very large taxes for selling into the US. BMW intend building a factory in Mexico - how much tax are they going to pay to sell into the US
Trump just refused a question from an angry journalist by saying 'You are fake news'
The World order is going to change big time with Trump's Presidency and it looks like the liberal left are going to have a collective breakdown
Forget the liberal left, it is the capitalist right building factories in Mexico and it will be the capitalist right that questions the legality of the import tariffs Trump wants.
He will ignore them. It is going to be one heck of a roller coaster ride
Trump adamant that anyone who puts car manufacturing into Mexico will see very large taxes for selling into the US. BMW intend building a factory in Mexico - how much tax are they going to pay to sell into the US
Trump just refused a question from an angry journalist by saying 'You are fake news'
The World order is going to change big time with Trump's Presidency and it looks like the liberal left are going to have a collective breakdown
Well, as long as the liberal-left is discomfited that's OK then :-D
Be careful what you wish for.
It is certainly true that we are entering totally unprecedented territory. What we do not know yet is where that will take us.
Wasn't the issue that it was planned to be simultaneous with a landing at Alexandretta (to cut Turkey off from Mosul). The French vetoed it because they were worried that it would allow the Brits to conquet Syria which meant that Gallipoli was only half the plan.
A remark was made down thread about tariffs and the WTO. My worry is about state aid rules and social housing. My understanding is that EU rules allow for exemptions, and they have exempted subsidies for social housing from state aid rules, but standard WTO rules don't allow exemptions. So if we aren't careful, we could end up butchering social housing to a greater extent that it is being butchered now by not being able to fund it. Just a teeny bit worrying.
I wasn't aware that the WTO had anything to say about social housing. On the other hand, I'm not omniscient. Do you mean the agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures? Or, if not, do you have a link?
They don't say anything about social housing. That's the point. State aid is forbidden, without the ability to give exemptions, whereas the EU has explicitly exempted it. Closest thing to a source is this "Second, EU law allows for ex ante approval by the European Commission of particular categories of justified subsidies under Articles 107(2) and 107(3) TFEU. No such option is available under WTO law." here http://1exagu1grkmq3k572418odoooym-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AFTER-BREXIT.pdf
Why does this myth continue to persist that the only people concerned about Trump are liberal lefties? My family on my mum's side whose heritage is Jamaican, and several of whom are Conservatives, all hate Trump and consider him a 'madman'. My grandad who is a life-long Tory, and a supporter of Thatcher (and a Daily Mail reader) thinks that Trump will 'destroy the world'. There are GOP senators like Graham and McCain who aren't keen on Trump. You have a former GOP secretary of state in Colin Powell who voted Clinton. Hell, you have 48% of the American electorate who voted Clinton. Does anyone really believe all of these people are a part of a 'liberal elite' and are all cliche liberal lefties? Polls since Trump's election show that most Americans really aren't rating him as a soon-to-be-President either.
The concern about Trump crosses left-wing/right wing lines.
Trump adamant that anyone who puts car manufacturing into Mexico will see very large taxes for selling into the US. BMW intend building a factory in Mexico - how much tax are they going to pay to sell into the US
Trump just refused a question from an angry journalist by saying 'You are fake news'
The World order is going to change big time with Trump's Presidency and it looks like the liberal left are going to have a collective breakdown
Well, as long as the liberal-left is discomfited that's OK then :-D
Be careful what you wish for.
It is certainly true that we are entering totally unprecedented territory. What we do not know yet is where that will take us.
I'd suggest that it's not just the liberal-left that is going to be appalled, but sensible people wherever they sit on the political spectrum. There also seems to be an implicit assumption that Brexiteers will automatically support Trump. Not so. I think he's appalling too.
Wasn't the issue that it was planned to be simultaneous with a landing at Alexandretta (to cut Turkey off from Mosul). The French vetoed it because they were worried that it would allow the Brits to conquet Syria which meant that Gallipoli was only half the plan.
It will be fascinating to see how it plays out. He is entering the White House with an historically low approval rating and that will need to improve. If it doesn't no amount of grandstanding in front of the press is going to help him - in fact, it will make matters worse. He needs some quick wins. A lot wrests on how he goes about repealing Obamacare and what he puts in its place.
Trump adamant that anyone who puts car manufacturing into Mexico will see very large taxes for selling into the US. BMW intend building a factory in Mexico - how much tax are they going to pay to sell into the US
Trump just refused a question from an angry journalist by saying 'You are fake news'
The World order is going to change big time with Trump's Presidency and it looks like the liberal left are going to have a collective breakdown
Well, as long as the liberal-left is discomfited that's OK then :-D
Be careful what you wish for.
It is certainly true that we are entering totally unprecedented territory. What we do not know yet is where that will take us.
I'd suggest that it's not just the liberal-left that is going to be appalled, but sensible people wherever they sit on the political spectrum. There also seems to be an implicit assumption that Brexiteers will automatically support Trump. Not so. I think he's appalling too.
I am sure that is the case. And that is going to be a problem for Trump if he does not get some quick wins. But, clearly, there are some who think that if he does piss off the liberal-left he is basically doing a good job whatever else he does.
Trump adamant that anyone who puts car manufacturing into Mexico will see very large taxes for selling into the US. BMW intend building a factory in Mexico - how much tax are they going to pay to sell into the US
Trump just refused a question from an angry journalist by saying 'You are fake news'
The World order is going to change big time with Trump's Presidency and it looks like the liberal left are going to have a collective breakdown
That was CNN lol
Had to laugh when the CNN reporter said it wasn't appropriate (referring to his refusal to take their question, I guess).
A remark was made down thread about tariffs and the WTO. My worry is about state aid rules and social housing. My understanding is that EU rules allow for exemptions, and they have exempted subsidies for social housing from state aid rules, but standard WTO rules don't allow exemptions. So if we aren't careful, we could end up butchering social housing to a greater extent that it is being butchered now by not being able to fund it. Just a teeny bit worrying.
I wasn't aware that the WTO had anything to say about social housing. On the other hand, I'm not omniscient. Do you mean the agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures? Or, if not, do you have a link?
They don't say anything about social housing. That's the point. State aid is forbidden, without the ability to give exemptions, whereas the EU has explicitly exempted it. Closest thing to a source is this "Second, EU law allows for ex ante approval by the European Commission of particular categories of justified subsidies under Articles 107(2) and 107(3) TFEU. No such option is available under WTO law." here http://1exagu1grkmq3k572418odoooym-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AFTER-BREXIT.pdf
Comments
During the interwar years, there was actually a lot of training in the Royal Navy on gunnery ("learning the lessons") which was actually rather good by the time WWII came around, only for its effectiveness to be made largely second order to air power, U-boats, and defending against hit & run/frogmen sabotage, which sunk way more capital ships than anything else.
But his excessive use of explanation marks really, really grates.
If the BoE or other economists are using such a system in a serious way, the media have not really cottoned on to it.
That said we have had a 93mph gust today in an area rather remote from the wind warning that was in force - looks to me like it had something to do with an unpredictably kinky isobar.
If we had reneged on our word to protect Belgian neutrality too, we would have been much diminished and little trusted in European/global affairs ever again, even if we had avoided casualties, and the Kaiser's Germany would be calling many more of the shots on the basis that might is right.
The first says when you come home, open the bedroom door and find your wife in bed with her lover. You simply close the door and act as if nothing has happened that's sang froid
No says the second that's laissez faire.
Sang froid is when you come home, find your wife in bed with her lover and say " do continue" and then walk away as if nothing had happened
Nonsense says the third, that's savoir faire
Sang froid when when you come home, find your wife in bed with her lover and say " do continue" and HE CAN, that's true sang froid.
They had licked France and Austria before, and had an extensive empire already. But ratcheted up the ante at almost every step of the way in August 1914.
All of that has been lost. Modern Germany is much smaller than it would have been had they just left alone.
I think the answer is yes: had they waited until late 1942/1943 and devoted themselves wholly to defeating the UK, and not declared war on the USA, by which time we might largely have been strangled by U-boats anyway.
But how the world would have panned out then is anyone's guess. France would have harboured a resentment towards Britain, particularly if Britain ratted at the last minute rather than not engaging so closely in the years running up to WWI; Germany would have been by far the dominant power in Europe, with an (over?-)confident spring in its step and probably with a harbouring for more colonies, probably courtesy of France; Russia would have been diminished in the short term but would not necessarily have gone through the strife of 1917-22. Where would the politics of the 1920s have then gone in a very different world? In the big scheme of things, it would probably have been much better, though you can never quite tell and there's no guarantee a second Napoleon wouldn't have risen.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" - Richard Feynman.
Disappointing to see the expression "Worshipers of the cult of ignorance" in the piece: misunderstanding other peoples' points is the default on this site, but misunderstanding one's own point is slightly rarer.
Weather forecasting is now as good out to 3 or 4 days as it was out to one day 30 years ago. I would think every hour gained has cost something like a billion dollars in hard- and soft-ware and satellites and research and stuff, and a lot of the gain is due to the paradigm shidft of being able to look down from above and see what is coming: I can't think of a similar giant leap economics could make. And the old point against economics is still valid: if you are so smart, where is the Lear jet? Keynes got above-average returns for the King's College wine funds for a number of years, but other hard evidence of economic foresight is far to seek. Hedge funds are run by very clever people, and you would have done better in 2016 to keep your cash in the mattress all year, take it out on New Year's Eve and burn 10% of it.
And that "ooh, it's all coming, but later than we said" shtick is an absolute cop out; like a doctor claiming a 100% prognosis record by saying that all his patients will die, eventually.
I also like the theory that the Germans were essentially slaves to their own mobilisation plans, which depended on the full utilisation of their rail network. Once they pressed the 'mobilise' button, it could not be undone. Given their appreciation of the scale and speed of Russian mobilisation, they had to knock out France quickly (violating Belgian neutrality in the process), and this also required tactical surprise. Hence the military champing at the bit.
For all that, it was a wholly avoidable war, and probably Europe's great tragedy.
RE men and sexual desire: There's a time a place. At the club, a-okay. But most of the women I know don't really care to be approached when on the way to work, for example. Personally as a woman I'm just over being valued as sex object. It's rather be valued for who I am as person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_III,_German_Emperor
Basically it's all the French's fault
That's where a deal lies.
mind you not exactly endearing himself to the intelligence community
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sèvres
It was overturned by fierce Turkish resistance, resulting in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne,
An astronomer, a physician and a mathematician go on holiday into Scotland. Just past Carter Bar they see a black sheep in a field.
The astronomer says "Look! The sheep in Scotland are black"
The Physician says "No - Some of the sheep in Scotland are black"
The mathematician says "No - In Scotland there exists at least one field containing one sheep that is black on at least one side."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_III,_German_Emperor
Which makes a change!
Trump just refused a question from an angry journalist by saying 'You are fake news'
The World order is going to change big time with Trump's Presidency and it looks like the liberal left are going to have a collective breakdown
Edited extra bit: possible UKIP/Farage analogy there, actually.
You are right on that.
Has anyone read The Vanquished - it covers the impact of the WWI Peace Treaties on the defeated powers.
https://www.ft.com/content/26bb3f60-695f-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f
I am not saying I support him as I do have many concerns but he has controlled the media in this conference. They seem to be dumbfounded and do not know how to deal with him
The great thing about the closeness of the Brexit vote is that you can blame every tiny contributing factor for the result. The cookie idiocy must have pushed at least some punters from In to Out.
Comedy gold
Going to be a hell of a ride
Things are either great, good or horrible, terrible.
Be careful what you wish for.
It is certainly true that we are entering totally unprecedented territory. What we do not know yet is where that will take us.
US Intelligence will be desperate to prove he is.
"Second, EU law allows for ex ante approval by the European Commission of
particular categories of justified subsidies under Articles 107(2) and 107(3) TFEU. No such option is available under WTO law." here http://1exagu1grkmq3k572418odoooym-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AFTER-BREXIT.pdf
Also this on the current situation where at the end the writer is saying EU law will save us from the Tories' disastrous social housing policies http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/applying-the-brakes/7012837.article
And this piece from Inside Housing makes the same point I was making - no exemptions from state aid would mean no more grants to housing associations http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/to-stay-or-to-go/7015663.article
The concern about Trump crosses left-wing/right wing lines.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38587505
Here's the agreement, the prohibitions are in section 3.
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf