Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The growing NHS waiting list is arguably the Tories’ biggest challenge – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 30 in General
imageThe growing NHS waiting list is arguably the Tories’ biggest challenge – politicalbetting.com

One of the inevitable consequences of dealing with COVID has been the impact on those who have wanted the NHS for other reasons who are currently on waiting lists of one sort or another. It is estimated that there are 5m currently on them and this could be increasing all the time. Inevitably the primary focus has been on controlling the infection but as that pressure eases the focus will be on those who want attention for a wide range of other things

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,194
    first
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    On this subject, I think it's disgraceful that some (i.e. my dad's) GPs aren't back to normal and seeing patients properly. The government needs to get them back to work.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861

    THIS is what Boris should be saying


    ‘Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has sent out a firm warning to unvaccinated Filipinos that they will be confined to their homes by the authorities, adding that "for all I care, you can die anytime".’

    https://dailysceptic.org/2021/07/30/for-all-i-care-you-can-die-anytime-philippine-presidents-message-to-the-unvaccinated/
  • isamisam Posts: 38,441
    edited July 30
    When I went to my GP about a suspect mole on my stomach in February, the response from the local hospital he referred me to was so swift I thought it meant I was in big trouble. They are marking every appointment as urgent I think
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,194
    Is this new?

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1421047780617773067

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 39% (+1)
    LAB: 34% (=)
    GRN: 9% (+1)
    LDM: 8% (-1)

    Via
    @YouGov
    , 27-28 Jul.
    Changes w/ 20-21 Jul.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754
    Floater said:

    Is this new?

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1421047780617773067

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 39% (+1)
    LAB: 34% (=)
    GRN: 9% (+1)
    LDM: 8% (-1)

    Via
    @YouGov
    , 27-28 Jul.
    Changes w/ 20-21 Jul.

    I can't believe the Greens would get anywhere near 9% in a GE held tomorrow.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    They were the better team in the first half and now they are in front. GB 2-1 Australia.
  • FPT
    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402
    Floater said:
    Lol
    KLM complied with all the guidelines, a spokesperson for the airline said to the broadcaster. "The Dutch government has Japan on the list of safe countries, so personnel do not have to be tested. Japan does require a temperature check before arrival and on departure. Crew members can stay in the country for a maximum of 72 hours." He added that "there has been no contamination in our crew".

    KLM is ticking the boxes
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402

    Floater said:

    Is this new?

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1421047780617773067

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 39% (+1)
    LAB: 34% (=)
    GRN: 9% (+1)
    LDM: 8% (-1)

    Via
    @YouGov
    , 27-28 Jul.
    Changes w/ 20-21 Jul.

    I can't believe the Greens would get anywhere near 9% in a GE held tomorrow.
    You're right, that poll is more dangerous for the Tories than the headline numbers tbh. The green vote would be squeezed in a GE, and not to the Tories.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279

    Floater said:

    Is this new?

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1421047780617773067

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 39% (+1)
    LAB: 34% (=)
    GRN: 9% (+1)
    LDM: 8% (-1)

    Via
    @YouGov
    , 27-28 Jul.
    Changes w/ 20-21 Jul.

    I can't believe the Greens would get anywhere near 9% in a GE held tomorrow.
    Agreed. You can take 5 points off the Greens and give 3 to Labour, 1 to LD and 1 scattered.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 603
    Has anyone had to take a LFT sample from a resistant 8yo child? The pictures in the guide have a child calmly sitting there whilst you stick the big white stick into them.

    The mouth part is fine. Up the nose I have had to resort to kneeling over the child's chest (my weight on my knees either side rather than them) to stop their hands reaching up to stop me. Then using one hand to try and keep their head still whilst the other hand does the nasal swabbing. All the time they are screaming like you wouldn't believe and their 12yo sister, who has had to do it on their own twice/week for the last 6 months, telling them to man up.

    Having to do this daily at the moment due to a friend of the kids coming down with Covid on Wednesday. The worst medical intervention I had as a child was having to take the banana medicine when I hated bananas. Tests have all been negative so far.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    Pulpstar said:

    Floater said:

    Is this new?

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1421047780617773067

    Westminster Voting Intention:

    CON: 39% (+1)
    LAB: 34% (=)
    GRN: 9% (+1)
    LDM: 8% (-1)

    Via
    @YouGov
    , 27-28 Jul.
    Changes w/ 20-21 Jul.

    I can't believe the Greens would get anywhere near 9% in a GE held tomorrow.
    You're right, that poll is more dangerous for the Tories than the headline numbers tbh. The green vote would be squeezed in a GE, and not to the Tories.
    Probably, but not certainly. They feel a bit like Ukip c.2013.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    Savanta ComRes do not seem to have published detailed tables for their last three VI polls. Does anyone know why?

    They are a BPC member, surely?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,229
    edited July 30
    Pitsea North West (Basildon), council by-election result:

    CON: 56.5% (+14.8)
    LAB: 30.6% (-16.0)
    BCRP: 5.8% (-3.2)
    LDEM: 4.1% (+1.4)
    REFUK: 1.6% (+1.6)
    FBM: 1.4% (+1.4)

    Conservative GAIN from Labour.

    BCRP: Community Residents Party

    Knaresborough Scriven Park (Harrogate), council by-election result:

    LDEM: 56.6% (+19.6)
    CON: 34.3% (-4.2)
    LAB: 8.1% (-16.4)
    UKIP: 1.0% (+1.0)

    Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.

    Fellgate and Hedworth (South Tyneside), council by-election result:

    LAB: 49.1% (+9.6)
    IND: 32.0% (-15.8)
    CON: 9.1% (+4.7)
    LDEM: 7.2% (-1.0)
    GRN: 2.5% (+2.5)

    Labour GAIN from Independent.

    Gaywood South (Norfolk) result:

    LDEM: 39.3% (+28.0)
    LAB: 34.0% (-1.6)
    CON: 22.9% (-25.3)
    IND: 2.1% (+2.1)
    UKIP: 1.7% (-3.2)

    Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative.

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    2h
    East Retford South (Bassetlaw), council by-election result:

    CON: 40.1% (+25.2)
    IND: 39.7% (+39.7)
    LAB: 20.1% (-47.7)

    Conservative GAIN from Labour.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754
    After all the positive things said about Clarksons Farm, I wondered if the Grand Tour might see a return to form....Lochdown came out today....its terrible.....they just need to kill off the Grand Tour, when even the "special" adventures are crap.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,194
    Bloody hell - i'm off to the cinema for first time in 18 months later ......
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754
    Floater said:

    Bloody hell - i'm off to the cinema for first time in 18 months later ......

    Is there actually stuff to watch?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,927
    Pulpstar said:

    Floater said:
    Lol
    KLM complied with all the guidelines, a spokesperson for the airline said to the broadcaster. "The Dutch government has Japan on the list of safe countries, so personnel do not have to be tested. Japan does require a temperature check before arrival and on departure. Crew members can stay in the country for a maximum of 72 hours." He added that "there has been no contamination in our crew".

    KLM is ticking the boxes
    They say that, as if ticking the boxes is more important than disease control during a pandemic.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,177
    AlistairM said:

    Has anyone had to take a LFT sample from a resistant 8yo child? The pictures in the guide have a child calmly sitting there whilst you stick the big white stick into them.

    The mouth part is fine. Up the nose I have had to resort to kneeling over the child's chest (my weight on my knees either side rather than them) to stop their hands reaching up to stop me. Then using one hand to try and keep their head still whilst the other hand does the nasal swabbing. All the time they are screaming like you wouldn't believe and their 12yo sister, who has had to do it on their own twice/week for the last 6 months, telling them to man up.

    Having to do this daily at the moment due to a friend of the kids coming down with Covid on Wednesday. The worst medical intervention I had as a child was having to take the banana medicine when I hated bananas. Tests have all been negative so far.

    Jeezo, tiger parenting them to Olympic glory will be a dawdle after that!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754
    edited July 30
    I see Labour consistent response to pandemic continues....too risky to have double vaccinated people come from US without quarantine, but we shouldn't ask double vaccinated UK citizens to isolate when pinged.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,749

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402

    I see Labour consistent response to pandemic continues....too risky to have double vaccinated people come from US without quarantine, but we shouldn't ask double vaccinated UK citizens to isolate when pinged.

    Most of their voters won't care and noone except us lot pays attention to such inconsistent nonsense. Labour needs to gain additional voters to win the next GE though, and they'll struggle with crap like that proposed.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 651

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    If it thought the NHS could have coped, I think the government would have been quite prepared to see the sustained rate of 1,000+ deaths a day we had at our peak, to pursue a herd immunity policy.

    Only the fear that the whole thing would have collapsed like Italy's early response meant they steered away from it.

    Covid has shown us how easily people become accustomed to horrific casualty numbers - even in peacetime. Consider also that those numbers are "all casualties" not just deaths, and they took place "out of sight" across the channel.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    Australia go route 1 and equalise. This is going all the way to penalties, isn't it?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
  • FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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?
    Yeah that’s an interesting one. It could well re-create it, on a larger scale. One thing we’re good at is killing each other so there’ll probably be some carnage to come.

    There’s also the theory that one empire can never eclipse another without conflict, so that’s China and America due to clash imminently.

    Bring on world government!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • mwadams said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    If it thought the NHS could have coped, I think the government would have been quite prepared to see the sustained rate of 1,000+ deaths a day we had at our peak, to pursue a herd immunity policy.

    Only the fear that the whole thing would have collapsed like Italy's early response meant they steered away from it.

    Covid has shown us how easily people become accustomed to horrific casualty numbers - even in peacetime. Consider also that those numbers are "all casualties" not just deaths, and they took place "out of sight" across the channel.
    Excellent points.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,971
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Actually, as a point of information, by and large the under 40s *do* speak English from Bonn to Brno. It's far more widespread in Europe than it is, say, in Japan or Korea. Or perhaps even parts of very rural India.

    The only trouble I've had in speaking English in Europe is in France, some "offbeat" interior parts of Spain and those over 50 in the old eastern bloc.

    Everyone else speaks English.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,741
    edited July 30
    On topic !

    "5m and this could currently be increasing all the time."

    Could Or it could be decreasing.

    I'd agree that 5m will be a key number. I'd say that getting below the 4.5m level before the pandemic started is perhaps a more important threshold.

    Looking into this the other day, it was surprising how quickly some numbers change. I'm not sure the story these tell, but it is an interesting one. Is there scope for a quick recovery?

    Might put these on Twatter and see what happens :smile:





    Source: https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/pressure-points-in-the-nhs



  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,162
    On the election date impact I wonder how much could be achieved with another year? Probably not a huge amount.

    If he goes for the election earlier, in 2023, the Tories might still be able to argue that they have a plan for dealing with the issue, rather than being judged on the success or failure of that plan.

    However, it might make an early autumn election attractive. The government would hope to be able to point to progress made over the summer months, while a spring election would come after normal winter pressures which would hinder efforts to erode the backlog.

    Pencil in October 2023 for the next general election.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,971

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    You need both.

    It gets you past the machine guns and barbed wire and makes a mess with its gun but, unless followed up by infantry, can't hold ground.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    An interesting alternative history that is reliant on the idea that "all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is not correct provided it is British!

    It probably would have stopped Scottish Nationalism too because all Scotland's bright young things would have enthusiastically volunteered to be British European Empire governors and apparatchiks,.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,971
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    It will be economic and cyber, and possibly with new subterfuge and agent running.

    The only place I could see it getting hot is the South China Sea, particularly Taiwan.
  • PamelaWPamelaW Posts: 16
    It is far too early to predict date of next GE which could be late 2023 or May 2024 or late 2024.

    I agree long NHS waiting list could very well be a reason for GE happening in 2024.

    Also October 2023 is a bit tight for displaced Tory MPs seeking winnable seats subsequent to final Boundary Review decision.

    I am inclined to think Boris will wish to see himself and Tory party re-elected before Scottish Independence Referendum. If GE were to be held in May 2024, and Scottish Referendum (to be legislated for in 2023) were held in late 2024, then I believe Boris would not have to resign as PM if Yes won, as he himself would recently have received a mandate from the people.

  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    AlistairM said:

    Has anyone had to take a LFT sample from a resistant 8yo child? The pictures in the guide have a child calmly sitting there whilst you stick the big white stick into them.

    The mouth part is fine. Up the nose I have had to resort to kneeling over the child's chest (my weight on my knees either side rather than them) to stop their hands reaching up to stop me. Then using one hand to try and keep their head still whilst the other hand does the nasal swabbing. All the time they are screaming like you wouldn't believe and their 12yo sister, who has had to do it on their own twice/week for the last 6 months, telling them to man up.

    Having to do this daily at the moment due to a friend of the kids coming down with Covid on Wednesday. The worst medical intervention I had as a child was having to take the banana medicine when I hated bananas. Tests have all been negative so far.

    The easier alternative might be to stick it up your own nose, which is probably what your child shouted at you.

    I don't envy you. I imagine doing that to my eldest when he was 8 and the thought does frighten me.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,833
    AlistairM said:

    Has anyone had to take a LFT sample from a resistant 8yo child? The pictures in the guide have a child calmly sitting there whilst you stick the big white stick into them.

    The mouth part is fine. Up the nose I have had to resort to kneeling over the child's chest (my weight on my knees either side rather than them) to stop their hands reaching up to stop me. Then using one hand to try and keep their head still whilst the other hand does the nasal swabbing. All the time they are screaming like you wouldn't believe and their 12yo sister, who has had to do it on their own twice/week for the last 6 months, telling them to man up.

    Having to do this daily at the moment due to a friend of the kids coming down with Covid on Wednesday. The worst medical intervention I had as a child was having to take the banana medicine when I hated bananas. Tests have all been negative so far.

    Why not stop doing it?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    I’m finding these Olympics actively dispiriting. No, it’s not just Team GB’s mildly disappointing performance, it’s everything. Most of all Covid.

    You tune in and there’s no crowd, anywhere. No fervour, no costumed fools, no happy faces in paint. No noise. Just athletes thudding about in a void, as an invisible terror menaces the city around them.

    The bleakest games since Berlin ‘36. So sad for Japan
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    You need both.

    It gets you past the machine guns and barbed wire and makes a mess with its gun but, unless followed up by infantry, can't hold ground.
    They had their uses, but weren't a panacea.

    Read some accounts of the street fighting that stopped the tanks at Cambrai. German soldiers literally hanging onto the machine gun barrels sticking out of the tanks.....
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,357
    Everything in the article is true of course. A circumstance like Covid and aftermath is a gift for opposition parties, as it creates positions which are inevitable and intolerable and if soluble at all only over a long time and at the cost of billions when the public finances are already is a mess.

    So the Tories in England and UK are 20 points behind Labour; the SNP in Scotland have collapsed and Labour in Wales is disappearing without trace. Not.

    Oppositions generally have not done as well as might be expected so far in GB, Scotland, Wales and England. Why?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,971

    After all the positive things said about Clarksons Farm, I wondered if the Grand Tour might see a return to form....Lochdown came out today....its terrible.....they just need to kill off the Grand Tour, when even the "special" adventures are crap.

    Is it? Oh crap, that was on my watchlist for this weekend.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 651
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    .

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    What seems obvious now was not necessarily so at the time.
    A bit like the pandemic...
  • Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    Now they would, but what about in 20, 30. 40. 50 years? Gonna be interesting how it all pans out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931

    Floater said:

    Bloody hell - i'm off to the cinema for first time in 18 months later ......

    Is there actually stuff to watch?
    Summer of Soul ?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,218
    edited July 30


    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.

    I certainly think WWI was a massive failure of statesmanship. All the great powers were led by essentially frivolous people who underestimated the willingness of the others to fight.

    That doesn't mean we were wrong to participate. Once Belgium was attacked, I'd say we had very little option, given our treaty obligations.

    IMHO, "The Donkeys" while hugely popular was a polemic, not work of serious scholarship (Barbarossa is way better). The idea of generals ordering men over the top while they dined in chateaux is a huge canard; in fact 78 British generals were killed in action.

    Trenches were constructed precisely in order to minimise casualties. The first three months of the war, when armies were attacking each other in open country (and often using the tactics of the Napoleonic wars) were by far the most bloody.

    The real problem was that military technology was at a stage where the defenders could inflict dreadful casualties, whereas the attackers did not have the technology to achieve lasting breakthroughs that they had in WWII.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    edited July 30

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754

    After all the positive things said about Clarksons Farm, I wondered if the Grand Tour might see a return to form....Lochdown came out today....its terrible.....they just need to kill off the Grand Tour, when even the "special" adventures are crap.

    Is it? Oh crap, that was on my watchlist for this weekend.
    If you have seen the trailer, you have seen the only bits worth watching.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,177

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    And of course the most revolutionary/influential tank design of WWI was...French.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754
    Penalty in the football.....
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    edited July 30
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    The main limitation of WW1 is weight to power ratio.

    So we'd have had to have accelerate engine development more than anything else to get better tanks tanks. Because without better engines you can't have better armour or reliability. And without better armour you can't stop heavy machine gun fire fucking up the inside of the tank via spalling and penetrations.

    EDIT: The real disaster would have been 5 years of no practical combat experience would have lead us down the multi-turret "land battleship" dead end.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754
    And penalty saved ....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754
    And now Australia ahead.....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,675
    Missed penalty by GB and now Australia lead 3-2 with a deflected shot. Oh dear.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.

    It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
    I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
    I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
    How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?

    I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
    Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history.
    I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
    This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.

    Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.

    In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.

    I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
    The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)

    Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
    On the flip side, perfectly serviceable steam tugboats were up and running by 1800. If someone had told Napoleon about them he'd have invaded in a flat calm, et nous parlerions francais.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754
    Japan is extending a state of emergency in Tokyo and expanding it to new regions as the Olympic Games host faces a surge in Covid-19 cases.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    edited July 30
    If there was any doubt that Hong Kong is over.....

    Hong Kong activist Tong Ying-kit has been jailed for nine years, after he became the first person to be convicted under the national security law Beijing imposed on the city.

    On Friday, in a landmark sentencing for the city four days after he was found guilty of inciting secession and terrorist activities, 24-year-old Tong was handed the custodial jail term by the the High Court. His sentencing marks the end of Hong Kong’s first-ever trial under the sweeping security legislation which was enacted on June 30 last year.


    https://hongkongfp.com/2021/07/30/breaking-activist-tong-ying-kit-jailed-for-9-years-in-hong-kongs-first-national-security-case/
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 64,754

    If there was any doubt that Hong Kong is over.....

    Hong Kong activist Tong Ying-kit has been jailed for nine years, after he became the first person to be convicted under the national security law Beijing imposed on the city.

    On Friday, in a landmark sentencing for the city four days after he was found guilty of inciting secession and terrorist activities, 24-year-old Tong was handed the custodial jail term by the the High Court. His sentencing marks the end of Hong Kong’s first-ever trial under the sweeping security legislation which was enacted on June 30 last year.

    And all the west will do is write some angry tweets.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    The main limitation of WW1 is weight to power ratio.

    So we'd have had to have accelerate engine development more than anything else to get better tanks tanks. Because without better engines you can't have better armour or reliability. And without better armour you can't stop heavy machine gun fire fucking up the inside of the tank via spalling and penetrations.

    EDIT: The real disaster would have been 5 years of no practical combat experience would have lead us down the multi-turret "land battleship" dead end.
    Power to weight - yes. The massive increases in HP/lb from the aviation world....

    Also suspension, gearboxes that worked....

    No 1915 tank would have been much more reliable - a whole host of technologies and advancements was required.

    Probably the most important was compact, reliable, voice radio.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,218

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    It's not like China has anything like the superiority in arms that the Allies had at Overlord.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.

    It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
    I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
    I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
    How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?

    I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
    Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history.
    I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
    This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.

    Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.

    In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.

    I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
    The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)

    Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
    On the flip side, perfectly serviceable steam tugboats were up and running by 1800. If someone had told Napoleon about them he'd have invaded in a flat calm, et nous parlerions francais.
    Interestingly, the Admirality had some alarms about that - mostly raised by crackpots, but they did have a look at it. The issue at that point was the cost and power to weight ratio - the steam boats of the time were ok in a canal, but the Channel is a different thing
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,279
    algarkirk said:

    Everything in the article is true of course. A circumstance like Covid and aftermath is a gift for opposition parties, as it creates positions which are inevitable and intolerable and if soluble at all only over a long time and at the cost of billions when the public finances are already is a mess.

    So the Tories in England and UK are 20 points behind Labour; the SNP in Scotland have collapsed and Labour in Wales is disappearing without trace. Not.

    Oppositions generally have not done as well as might be expected so far in GB, Scotland, Wales and England. Why?

    Starmer, Ross, Sarwar and Davies are all rubbish. Not to mention the quality of the teams that are meant to be supporting them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,144

    AlistairM said:

    Has anyone had to take a LFT sample from a resistant 8yo child? The pictures in the guide have a child calmly sitting there whilst you stick the big white stick into them.

    The mouth part is fine. Up the nose I have had to resort to kneeling over the child's chest (my weight on my knees either side rather than them) to stop their hands reaching up to stop me. Then using one hand to try and keep their head still whilst the other hand does the nasal swabbing. All the time they are screaming like you wouldn't believe and their 12yo sister, who has had to do it on their own twice/week for the last 6 months, telling them to man up.

    Having to do this daily at the moment due to a friend of the kids coming down with Covid on Wednesday. The worst medical intervention I had as a child was having to take the banana medicine when I hated bananas. Tests have all been negative so far.

    Jeezo, tiger parenting them to Olympic glory will be a dawdle after that!
    Nearly as bad as the famous Facebook one 'How to give your cat a pill'.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,177
    Alistair said:



    The main limitation of WW1 is weight to power ratio.

    So we'd have had to have accelerate engine development more than anything else to get better tanks tanks. Because without better engines you can't have better armour or reliability. And without better armour you can't stop heavy machine gun fire fucking up the inside of the tank via spalling and penetrations.

    EDIT: The real disaster would have been 5 years of no practical combat experience would have lead us down the multi-turret "land battleship" dead end.

    And yet weirdly the land battleship idea persisted right till the outbreak of WWII. One might even say that the Maus (with a secondary armament of a 75mm cannon) was the ultimate expression of it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,159
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.

    It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
    I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
    I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
    How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?

    I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
    Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history.
    I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
    This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.

    Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.

    In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.

    I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
    The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)

    Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
    On the flip side, perfectly serviceable steam tugboats were up and running by 1800. If someone had told Napoleon about them he'd have invaded in a flat calm, et nous parlerions francais.
    I'm unsure about how useful early tugboats would have been, but I'm amazed that Napoleon apparently made very little use of balloons. Revolutionary France had an observation balloon corps that helped in the victory at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794, but Napoleon never really used them.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Napoleon-use-military-balloons
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017

    Alistair said:



    The main limitation of WW1 is weight to power ratio.

    So we'd have had to have accelerate engine development more than anything else to get better tanks tanks. Because without better engines you can't have better armour or reliability. And without better armour you can't stop heavy machine gun fire fucking up the inside of the tank via spalling and penetrations.

    EDIT: The real disaster would have been 5 years of no practical combat experience would have lead us down the multi-turret "land battleship" dead end.

    And yet weirdly the land battleship idea persisted right till the outbreak of WWII. One might even say that the Maus (with a secondary armament of a 75mm cannon) was the ultimate expression of it.
    It still exists today - plenty of designs for remote turrets to add to tanks to defend against infantry in urban engagements.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577
    And in news which knocks everything else into a cocked hat

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57988023

    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,218
    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,741
    Have we done the Highway Code?

    The hierarchy of users from the most vulnerable to the least is a positive, especially for the long term.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58021450

    Presumed liability in insurance claims next.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Quite a risky venture for both sides.

    DoD War Games Predict ‘Extremely Destabilizing’ Chinese Military Parity
    https://breakingdefense.com/2020/08/dod-war-games-predict-extremely-destabilizing-chinese-military-parity/
    "If we do come to blows with China, it's gonna be very confused for the first 30 or 45 days, and then we must fight in a distributed fashion," said Maj. Gen. Tracy King, Marine Corps’ director of Expeditionary Warfare

    And potentially catastrophic for the world economy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.

    It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
    I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
    I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
    How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?

    I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
    Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history.
    I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
    This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.

    Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.
    How do you feel about the argument that creating a world of regional blocs just recreates the pre-WW1 situation?
    Some kind of war between China and the West seems almost inevitable, now. Just gotta hope it’s minor wars by proxy - like the USSR v USA - not an all-out clash in the Pacific
    The Americans would give them an absolute kicking and the Chinese know it.
    Depends what kind of war it is.

    All out nuclear war means mutually assured destruction. The globe in smoking ruins. No one wins.

    So presumably you mean one step down from that - a conventional all-theatre war, across the world? I imagine the Americans would ‘win’ that, but it would not be a walkover. China has many allies, now, as the world’s biggest trader, and China also has the bigger navy.

    But that is also unlikely because both sides would be scared

    My likely scenario is as @casino posits - a serious clash in the South China Sea over Taiwan. That seems borderline probable to me, within the decade. China could easily triumph
    I meant even in a limited theatre war such as Taiwan. Depends if US has the will to defend it, though I think they probably would. China cannot pour troops over the border like they did in Korea. It would be messy, but I still think the US will win any conventional type war by a country mile.
    I am more pessimistic. China is close to armed superiority in its own neighborhood. It will use its increasing advantages in AI and cyber-warfare absolutely ruthlessly

    They are many scenarios but if I had to choose one it would be China seizing Taiwan like Germany seizing the Sudetenland. Not a shot fired. The West will sigh and shrug and pray that it ends there

  • Sean_F said:



    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.

    I certainly think WWI was a massive failure of statesmanship. All the great powers were led by essentially frivolous people who underestimated the willingness of the others to fight.

    That doesn't mean we were wrong to participate. Once Belgium was attacked, I'd say we had very little option, given our treaty obligations.

    IMHO, "The Donkeys" while hugely popular was a polemic, not work of serious scholarship (Barbarossa is way better). The idea of generals ordering men over the top while they dined in chateaux is a huge canard; in fact 78 British generals were killed in action.

    Trenches were constructed precisely in order to minimise casualties. The first three months of the war, when armies were attacking each other in open country (and often using the tactics of the Napoleonic wars) were by far the most bloody.

    The real problem was that military technology was at a stage where the defenders could inflict dreadful casualties, whereas the attackers did not have the technology to achieve lasting breakthroughs that they had in WWII.



    Oh I agree, once it kicked off we had to go in. It shouldn't have kicked off in the first place though, I think.

    Re trenches, I agree though there is also the notion that German trench systems were much more solidly built because they intended to hold the ground they had captured, whereas British trenches were much less solid because the generals didn't want the idea to permeate that they were to be permanent - they were temporary, to be left behind as soon as an advance allowed.

    Yes, the advantage was undoubtedly with the defenders in WW1!

    I must confess I've never read 'Donkeys' itself - I've generally stuck to more recent stuff by 'proper' historians, or autobiographcal accounts, but the idea has undoubtedly become a perception that is enduring in the popular perception of WW1. But I might add it to the reading list.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,931

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    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


    https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/business/astrazeneca-second-quarte-results-vaccine-production-b1893166.html
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.

    It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
    I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
    I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
    How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?

    I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
    Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history.
    I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
    This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.

    Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.

    In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.

    I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
    The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)

    Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
    On the flip side, perfectly serviceable steam tugboats were up and running by 1800. If someone had told Napoleon about them he'd have invaded in a flat calm, et nous parlerions francais.
    I'm unsure about how useful early tugboats would have been, but I'm amazed that Napoleon apparently made very little use of balloons. Revolutionary France had an observation balloon corps that helped in the victory at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794, but Napoleon never really used them.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Napoleon-use-military-balloons
    "On her maiden trip, the Charlotte Dundas, with her 10 horsepower steam engine, carried 20 passengers and pulled 2 loaded barges 19 ½ miles along the Forth & Clyde Canal near Glasgow, Scotland. This 6-hour trip was the only journey she took. Canal proprietors, fearing she would erode the canal banks with the paddlewheel, banned paddle wheelers on the canal. So, the Charlotte Dundas was left sitting where she stopped."

    https://www.harlowmarine.com/a-brief-look-at-tugboat-history/

    That's 1802. Sounds adequate to tow barges full of infantry across the channel in a calm.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,402
    Welsh covid cases up again from previous friday...
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    It's not like China has anything like the superiority in arms that the Allies had at Overlord.
    That is my view too. Invading a US ally over sea would be a daunting prospect. Plus, though the Chinese are boasting about their military prowess, and while they have advanced massively in terms of nicking IP on telecoms, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, I imagine they have found nicking the know-how and secrets of advanced military hardware a little more difficult.

    Also, for all their authoritarian faults I just don't think (hope I am right here) that they are a militarily aggressive power. To amend the words of Sting, I hope the Chinese love their children too!
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 651
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,510
    Must be silly season, PB Tories are talking about the First World War.

    Regarding the header, the Tories face some interesting headwinds.

    1. NHS waiting lists
    2. Knife crime and underfunded justice system
    3. Austerity 3.0 (and the battle between Rishi and Johnson)
    4. Social care, and how to fund it
    5. Ongoing economic damage from Brexit
    6. Faragiste attacks on their right flank
    7. Decarbonisation, and how to pay for it
    8. Northern Ireland
    9. Scottish independence
    10. The kid’s education backlog post pandemic
    11. Labour shortages
    12. Boris’s tendency to fuck up generally

    On the other hand, they have Keir’s general uselessness on their side and the war on woke of course.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    edited July 30

    Alistair said:



    The main limitation of WW1 is weight to power ratio.

    So we'd have had to have accelerate engine development more than anything else to get better tanks tanks. Because without better engines you can't have better armour or reliability. And without better armour you can't stop heavy machine gun fire fucking up the inside of the tank via spalling and penetrations.

    EDIT: The real disaster would have been 5 years of no practical combat experience would have lead us down the multi-turret "land battleship" dead end.

    And yet weirdly the land battleship idea persisted right till the outbreak of WWII. One might even say that the Maus (with a secondary armament of a 75mm cannon) was the ultimate expression of it.
    Quite, by the outbreak of WW2 everyone had worked out they were a shit idea so all there were some about no-one was thinking they were a good idea to expose to combat but it took them years to come to that very obvious conclusion. They were a classic "on paper" idea that is exactly the kind of thing you come up with when you are not getting feedback from actual use.

    An early pre-WW1 tank programme would have been well setup to develop some total utter duds.

    The interwar years are full of "Tank design by theory". The T-34 managed to come into being so early in the war due to actual Soviet experience of their "in theory" tanks get roughed up by the Japanese.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.

    It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
    I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
    I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
    How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?

    I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
    Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history.
    I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
    This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.

    Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.

    In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.

    I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
    The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)

    Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
    On the flip side, perfectly serviceable steam tugboats were up and running by 1800. If someone had told Napoleon about them he'd have invaded in a flat calm, et nous parlerions francais.
    I'm unsure about how useful early tugboats would have been, but I'm amazed that Napoleon apparently made very little use of balloons. Revolutionary France had an observation balloon corps that helped in the victory at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794, but Napoleon never really used them.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Napoleon-use-military-balloons
    "On her maiden trip, the Charlotte Dundas, with her 10 horsepower steam engine, carried 20 passengers and pulled 2 loaded barges 19 ½ miles along the Forth & Clyde Canal near Glasgow, Scotland. This 6-hour trip was the only journey she took. Canal proprietors, fearing she would erode the canal banks with the paddlewheel, banned paddle wheelers on the canal. So, the Charlotte Dundas was left sitting where she stopped."

    https://www.harlowmarine.com/a-brief-look-at-tugboat-history/

    That's 1802. Sounds adequate to tow barges full of infantry across the channel in a calm.
    Even in a dead calm, there are currents. 10 horsepower is not a lot. Particularly when you consider the efficiency of paddlewheels - you'd be lucky to get 1/2 the power into the water.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,218
    mwadams said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377
    mwadams said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    The invention of barbed wire was equally important
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    Pulpstar said:

    Welsh covid cases up again from previous friday...

    Please make it stop
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,936
    In interpreting today's ONS data for England (https://ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/30july2021), worth remembering that cases peaked in Scotland at the start of July, but this is the first week a decline has shown up in ONS report...

    https://twitter.com/AdamJKucharski/status/1421068272292741122?s=20

    For those panicking about the England numbers....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,017
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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.
    Machine guns did very little in the US Civil War.

    It took mass production of smokeless cartridges to a high standard before machine guns became usefully reliable.

    The reason that Gatlings and similar had dominated previously (and they were too heavy to be really useful) was that they were externally powered and could ignore misfires.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,096
    Interesting by-election results from yesterday. Very good for LDs (in part), mixed for Tories but good overall? Poor for Labour...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 8,377

    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


    https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/business/astrazeneca-second-quarte-results-vaccine-production-b1893166.html

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,449
    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.

    It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
    I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
    I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
    How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?

    I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
    Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history.
    I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
    This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.

    Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.

    In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.

    I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
    The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)

    Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
    Nope.

    The tanks in WWI were arguably not as revolutionary as better assault tactics. The typical tank attack ran out of working tanks within a few miles.

    Read some actual accounts of the tank VCs - last tank working, on its own, getting surrounded by Germans, fights as a static pillbox until they die or escape on foot.
    I accept that early tanks were rubbish. But by 1939 they were good enough for Blitzkrieg

    That’s my point. Read my comment. We invented them first - if only we’d invented them earlier we could have made them war winners by the time WW1 came along
    We might also have developed the standard tactics of tank warfare before the battlefield became a quagmire which didn't help.

    I've often wondered what would have happened if there had never been the brief period when (horse) cavalry become an ineffective tool due to the invention of the machine gun, before motorized infantry, tanks, then helicopters, became the new cavalry. WWI and even the US Civil War might have been very different affairs.
    Good point on the US Civil War. One of the bloodiest wars, per capita, ever fought? Because of machine guns, primarily.

    That was a warning to Europe what a truly modernized, mechanized war between advanced nations would look like. The great failure, perhaps, was not preparing for that and developing new tactics to avoid appalling bloodshed (eg tanks). We had 60 years to think.

    Presumably the European powers didn’t think because they were all focused on easy wars against spear throwing natives in Africa, etc. So the horror of World War One becomes, ironically, the price of rampant imperialism

    History has a strange way of slowly but surely serving justice
    Machine-guns weren't really much of a thing in the ACW. Only a very few Gatling guns were used, for instance (two figures at most).

  • LeonLeon Posts: 12,861
    Sean_F said:

    mwadams said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    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
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,577

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    FPT

    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    I must be mistaken #1

    I was assured that one of the few (only?) Brexit wins would be reduced salience of “immigration” as an issue.

    It is an itch that no amount of scratching will ever salve.
    I don't know whether you're talking about immigration or Brexit? I imagine both. Brexit discontent will be with us forever. The country's biggest folly and greatest shame.
    I meant immigration but Brexit too will never be over. I wouldn't say it was our biggest folly or greatest shame, though. Biggest folly would be stumbling into the disaster of WW1 I think, and greatest shame the Atlantic slave trade, IMHO, although there are many contenders especially on the shame front. (In the interests of balance and not doing down the country, would also point out we have a long list of achievements and things to be proud of).
    How would you suggest that Britain stayed out of WW1?

    I know the likes of Morley and Macdonald said it was feasible, but leaving aside treaty obligations do you really think Britain could have stayed out of a war that without our involvement would have led to the conquest of France and Belgium by a hostile power?
    Yes, I think our cultural idea of WW1 as a four-year long pointless blunder is possibly misplaced. It was a genuine civilisational clash, on which Britain was on the right side. We possibly could have stayed out, but it would have been to the shame of Britain had we done so and to the detriment of European history.
    I also think the common image of the generals us unthinking and uncaring buffoons could probably do with a bit of revision.
    This is, for me, an interesting area. I wrote my BA dissertation on the social effects of WW1 on the UK.

    Personally I think WW1 was a massive blunder, a continent wide failure of statecraft, a dick swinging contest between the various powers, envious of each other and splitting themselves into various blocs. That all came crashing down. This belief is the essence of my Remainerism - having read many, many personal accounts of soldiers from WW1 and 2, by far the lesser evil is subjecting ourselves to the EU, and binding ourselves so closely we would never fight European countries again, rather than risk inflicting the horrors of warfare on our populations once more. I'm sure many will not find that argument convincing.

    In military terms, many WW1 historians decry the 'Blackadder Effect', that has cemented the idea (that first emerged in the 60s with the 'Lions Led by Donkeys' idea) that the WW1 generals were callous, ruthless and incompetent, with no idea how to fight modern war. Debate continues, and will for evermore, between historians, but there is a revisionist bloc who argue that tactics did gradually develop (creeping barrages, improvements in the accuracy of artillery, etc, etc) that showed the generals could adapt tactically and did care about losses.

    I remain to be convinced personally. I struggle to get past the sheer scale of seemingly pointless loss. Every day on the western front the British and it's colonial allies suffered something like1500 casualties on average, called 'Trench Wastage'. Around a third of those will have been killed instantly, more will have succumbed later to their wounds. The scale of losses that were deemed acceptable seem incomprehensible now.
    The British did develop tanks. If only they’d arrived five years earlier we would have perfected them by 1915, crushed the Germans easily, and now everyone would be speaking English from Bonn to Brno (as well as speaking English everywhere else)

    Imagine a British Empire 3.0 that incorporated most of Europe AS WELL. No Nazism or Communism. Just wise, benign and perpetual rule of the entire globe from London. The world had no such luck, unfortunately
    On the flip side, perfectly serviceable steam tugboats were up and running by 1800. If someone had told Napoleon about them he'd have invaded in a flat calm, et nous parlerions francais.
    I'm unsure about how useful early tugboats would have been, but I'm amazed that Napoleon apparently made very little use of balloons. Revolutionary France had an observation balloon corps that helped in the victory at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794, but Napoleon never really used them.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Napoleon-use-military-balloons
    "On her maiden trip, the Charlotte Dundas, with her 10 horsepower steam engine, carried 20 passengers and pulled 2 loaded barges 19 ½ miles along the Forth & Clyde Canal near Glasgow, Scotland. This 6-hour trip was the only journey she took. Canal proprietors, fearing she would erode the canal banks with the paddlewheel, banned paddle wheelers on the canal. So, the Charlotte Dundas was left sitting where she stopped."

    https://www.harlowmarine.com/a-brief-look-at-tugboat-history/

    That's 1802. Sounds adequate to tow barges full of infantry across the channel in a calm.
    Even in a dead calm, there are currents. 10 horsepower is not a lot. Particularly when you consider the efficiency of paddlewheels - you'd be lucky to get 1/2 the power into the water.
    Not currents you need to worry about. There's tides, sure, but in a channel crossing you don't worry about fighting those, you just point at where you want to go and the effects cancel out over time. I'm not saying the logistics are straightforward, but marching on Moscow isn't cheap either.

    In reality one would hope that if Napoleon started building bulk steam tugs the admiralty would have seen the problem and started building its own.
This discussion has been closed.