Unsurprising findings – politicalbetting.com

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Israel should have our complete support until Hamas is completely destroyed.

If people want to offer refuge to Palestinians outside the war zone, then that is entirely reasonable, but expecting Israel not to fight a war or to fight with its hands tied behind its back is not.

I think that in reality Israel does have western support. The "concern" about the situation is a way of appeasing public opinion. It is unfortunate that the situation goes like this but it is largely the making of Hamas, and Israel are going to keep going until they are wiped out. It is hard to 'support' Israel given that the whole situation is a massive historical mess but the situation for them is existential and to this extent their position is understandable.

The thing is, I suspect Israel is creating two new Hamas members for every one they kill.

I don't.

If there's a ceasefire and Gaza goes back to being blockaded, with Hamas remaining in charge, and the Palestinian populace impoverished then that will create new Hamas members.

If Hamas are destroyed and a post-Hamas Gaza gets a Marshall Plan style redevelopment whereby Palestinians can have a future, then that will give peace a chance.

Give peace a chance, reject a ceasefire.

nico679 said:

Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !

Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.

UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !

And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .

As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .

BartholomewRoberts said:

nico679 said:

Another so called win for the Queen of Trade Deals !

Aussie beef exports to UK 17,000 tonnes.

UK exports to Australia , a big fat zero !

And the reason , the UK signed a deal that fxcked UK farmers and allowed the Aussies to draw out for years the approval process for beef imports .

As with all the trade deals signed by the over promoted waste of space it’s all about garnering positive headlines from the right wing press .

So we've got 17,000 tonnes of good quality, affordable beef?

Fantastic news for consumers.

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.

Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.

And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.

But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.

At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

***LEGENDARY MODESTY KLAXON***

I was right again.

Rishi Sunak has ruled out the possibility of a general election taking place on 2 May - the day of the local elections - as had been widely speculated.

Asked if this will be the election date by ITV, he said: "There won't be a general election on that day.

"But when there is a general election, what matters is the choice."

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-uk-politics-sunak-starmer-general-election-vote-labour-tories-speaker-sky-news-politics-hub-12593360

“ ***LEGENDARY MODESTY KLAXON*** “

With your new admin powers, you still can’t get this to be bigger, light up in rainbow colours and make the noise of a fog horn, then?

It wasn’t Peston that got him to crumble, it was some strange “news from your region people”. And you are going on Rishi saying “obviously there won’t be a General Election on that day as well” through a wide grin? Why did he spend over five minutes avoiding answering the question. Why couldn’t have informed the country “there will be no Mat 2nd General Election” more Prime Ministerialy, to the main press core, rather than a sort of “misspoke in a regional interview” moment?

I still still say May 2nd General Election. Becuase Everything is in place, waiting till autumn makes no logical or political sense, he only needs to ask for the Lectern to be carried out with the correct crest.

I fear you need to accept that Sunak's statement today ends a Spring election, but to be fair to you you did make an excellent case for it

I really do not know how a November-December election plays out, not least as the US will be electing their POTUS, but Starmer will win a substantial majority no matter when it is held

The impact of the UK general election will have zero impact on US presidential election.

Except for making Nigel Farage unavailable as for at least some Trump rallies. However, Boris Johnson no doubt available to assume the position.

Bonus points that many in the MAGA throng will mistake BoJo for Benny Hill.

Just as some folks back in 2020 no doubt thought, that the English chap endorsing Trump was Mr. Bean.

IanB2 said:

So the warmest day of the year so far ends in heavy showers, after a spectacular dawn, a decent morning, and a showery afternoon. Surely we’ll get some decent weather at home before I and my only friend in the whole wide world head off towards the mountains next month?

IanB2 said:

Omnium said:

IanB2 said:

So the warmest day of the year so far ends in heavy showers, after a spectacular dawn, a decent morning, and a showery afternoon. Surely we’ll get some decent weather at home before I and my only friend in the whole wide world head off towards the mountains next month?

How's he travelling? Last spotted here he seemed in a suitcase!

He jumped in that suitcase to make sure he wasn’t left behind, when I started packing for that trip. Since when I have been careful to do my packing up on the bed.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

***LEGENDARY MODESTY KLAXON***

I was right again.

Rishi Sunak has ruled out the possibility of a general election taking place on 2 May - the day of the local elections - as had been widely speculated.

Asked if this will be the election date by ITV, he said: "There won't be a general election on that day.

"But when there is a general election, what matters is the choice."

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-uk-politics-sunak-starmer-general-election-vote-labour-tories-speaker-sky-news-politics-hub-12593360

“ ***LEGENDARY MODESTY KLAXON*** “

With your new admin powers, you still can’t get this to be bigger, light up in rainbow colours and make the noise of a fog horn, then?

It wasn’t Peston that got him to crumble, it was some strange “news from your region people”. And you are going on Rishi saying “obviously there won’t be a General Election on that day as well” through a wide grin? Why did he spend over five minutes avoiding answering the question. Why couldn’t have informed the country “there will be no Mat 2nd General Election” more Prime Ministerialy, to the main press core, rather than a sort of “misspoke in a regional interview” moment?

I still still say May 2nd General Election. Becuase Everything is in place, waiting till autumn makes no logical or political sense, he only needs to ask for the Lectern to be carried out with the correct crest.

I fear you need to accept that Sunak's statement today ends a Spring election, but to be fair to you you did make an excellent case for it

I really do not know how a November-December election plays out, not least as the US will be electing their POTUS, but Starmer will win a substantial majority no matter when it is held

The impact of the UK general election will have zero impact on US presidential election.

Except for making Nigel Farage unavailable as for at least some Trump rallies. However, Boris Johnson no doubt available to assume the position.

Bonus points that many in the MAGA throng will mistake BoJo for Benny Hill.

Just as some folks back in 2020 no doubt thought, that the English chap endorsing Trump was Mr. Bean.

ajb said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

The problem here is that the war crimes very clearly have cover from the top. It's not just about an individual soldier or an individual commander; it's systematic, and motivated by other reasons than defeating Hamas.

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rottenborough said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Israel should have our complete support until Hamas is completely destroyed.

If people want to offer refuge to Palestinians outside the war zone, then that is entirely reasonable, but expecting Israel not to fight a war or to fight with its hands tied behind its back is not.

I think that in reality Israel does have western support. The "concern" about the situation is a way of appeasing public opinion. It is unfortunate that the situation goes like this but it is largely the making of Hamas, and Israel are going to keep going until they are wiped out. It is hard to 'support' Israel given that the whole situation is a massive historical mess but the situation for them is existential and to this extent their position is understandable.

The thing is, I suspect Israel is creating two new Hamas members for every one they kill.

I don't.

If there's a ceasefire and Gaza goes back to being blockaded, with Hamas remaining in charge, and the Palestinian populace impoverished then that will create new Hamas members.

If Hamas are destroyed and a post-Hamas Gaza gets a Marshall Plan style redevelopment whereby Palestinians can have a future, then that will give peace a chance.

Give peace a chance, reject a ceasefire.

They will not be a "marshall Plan" unless Israel accepts there needs to be a two state solution.

That means getting their current government out.

And Israel won't accept a two state solution as long as Hamas exists.

Quite reasonably so too.

Another reason to reject a ceasefire.

I don't think you're taking the motivations of the two sides adequately into account.

The widespread belief that the creation of the state of Israel itself was essentially a crime doesn't depend on the existence of Hamas and wouldn't go away by flooding Gaza with even more aid.

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FPT

Leon said:

Donkeys said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Truman said:

Leon said:

Truman said:

Leon said:

So my take on climate change is this: everywhere in the world is going to get hotter and hotter… apart from the UK which will, uniquely, contrive to get greyer and rainier and even more dismal

Oh well. At least it should discourage the boat people

I agree. Our winters are getting warmer but wetter and more miserable and our summers warmer but cloudier. Still one of the most dismal climates for its latitude in the world is Lima which despite being in the Tropics manages to be under constant grey 8 months of the year.

Indeed. Lima manages to be climatically way more miserable than anywhere in the UK, which is quite a feat given its location. It always annoys me when I read history books or guide books that reference Lima and don’t mention this fairly notable affliction

Why the fuck did the Spanish build their capital there? The incans very sensibly chose sunny and refreshing Cusco

Possibly the worst “place” I have ever been - in terms of climate meeting geography - is the desert north of Lima. The Sechura. It’s a dismal grey sand desert, strewn with trash, and cursed with that same cruel and depressing climate - chilly grey cloud like Glasgow but without the chirpy locals

Also shit food and a history of urgent child sacrifice

One of the worst drives of my life was in the desert north of lima stuck with a mad driver driving like a maniac on a narrow road and swerving at the last minute to avoid oncoming traffic. And yes its bleak and the locals are miserable.

I took this photo on a beach in deserty northern Peru as it seemed to summarise the whole place



However the little colonial towns do have a certain charm, under those sparkling blue skies

Very Quantum of Solace.

Imagine living on that street in the second photo. Wake up, put your head out of the door, hang yourself

Most people in the world live somewhere like that. It's Median Street, Planet Earth, 2024.
Most people have never stayed in a hotel, owned a car, held a year's income in a bank account, etc.
Yet suicide is more frequent in the USA and Canada than it is in Latin America.
And the curious thing: that's with "Latin America" defined as Hispanophone and Lusophone America. There is a single country in South America that tops USA and Canada for self-topping: Guyana.

As someone who constantly travels the world, I can (happily) reassure you that most people do NOT live on a street similar to that street in the 2nd photo: ie on a dirt road, in a concrete shack, in a shitty town in the middle of an awful foggy desert. Northern Peru, as we have established, is unusually hideous

The global median person probably lives in a concrete apartment in a large city in India or China. Not beautiful, but not terrible

As someone who has believed that travel broadens the mind, remembering the day that I promised myself to find time and space to travel (a promise I believe I have kept), as the 20-year-old self returning on a ferry across rough seas toward the white cliffs after the summer of 1983 spent mostly behind the iron curtain, your existence as the best travelled yet most self-evidently narrow-minded PB regular is always a distressing challenge to my world view.

There is either something flawed in your character or something flawed in the privileged, entitled way that you travel that must surely prove, in the literal historical sense, the rule.

I probably travel too much, to be honest, and sometimes I find myself disorientated- and I seek out something to stabilise me

One of those things - these touchstones, these guiding lodes, these reassuring familiars - is the sure and certain knowledge that you are, and always will be, an embittered old twat whose only friend is a dog

The paucity of benefit by way of insight or inspiration or genuine understanding for the plight of our fellow men (and women) that you seem to bring back from your many trips to far flung lands is, truly, a tragedy of our modern age.

You are lucky that the clickbait publications you work for merely want enough to entice others to pay top dollar to follow in your own, personally so fruitless, footsteps.

Have you considered the possibility your dog climbs in a suitcase because of sexual panic?

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Israel should have our complete support until Hamas is completely destroyed.

If people want to offer refuge to Palestinians outside the war zone, then that is entirely reasonable, but expecting Israel not to fight a war or to fight with its hands tied behind its back is not.

War crimes are still something that should be at least sought to be avoided however. I know you have argued previously they do indeed attempt that, yet by your logic above that would be willfully fighting with hands behind their back.

I don't think it is necessary to go so far as to suggest no limitations or scaling back is possible or reasonable, and still to support Israel in its ultimate goals here.

As far as I'm concerned yes they are seeking to avoid war crimes.

People seem to want them to avoid civilian suffering altogether, not just war crimes, which is certainly not possible though.

Would you agree that denying water and food to a population under occupation is a war crime?

No, sanctions and blockades are entirely legitimate in war.

If Egypt or anyone else wants to provide food or water, then they can and Egypt borders Gaza, why should it just be Israel's responsibility?

We're talking here about providing for and water to the civilians in Northern Gaza, which is entirely under Israeli occupation. That makes it Israel's responsibility, not Egypt's, or Hamas's.

agingjb2 said:

I suppose that the actions of the Israelis might eventually unite Islam in a collective effort to destroy Israel.

Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., united with all the local inter-Islamic forces currently detroying each other, would suffice.

Yes, unlikely, to say the least.

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FPT

Leon said:

Donkeys said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Truman said:

Leon said:

Truman said:

Leon said:

So my take on climate change is this: everywhere in the world is going to get hotter and hotter… apart from the UK which will, uniquely, contrive to get greyer and rainier and even more dismal

Oh well. At least it should discourage the boat people

I agree. Our winters are getting warmer but wetter and more miserable and our summers warmer but cloudier. Still one of the most dismal climates for its latitude in the world is Lima which despite being in the Tropics manages to be under constant grey 8 months of the year.

Indeed. Lima manages to be climatically way more miserable than anywhere in the UK, which is quite a feat given its location. It always annoys me when I read history books or guide books that reference Lima and don’t mention this fairly notable affliction

Why the fuck did the Spanish build their capital there? The incans very sensibly chose sunny and refreshing Cusco

Possibly the worst “place” I have ever been - in terms of climate meeting geography - is the desert north of Lima. The Sechura. It’s a dismal grey sand desert, strewn with trash, and cursed with that same cruel and depressing climate - chilly grey cloud like Glasgow but without the chirpy locals

Also shit food and a history of urgent child sacrifice

One of the worst drives of my life was in the desert north of lima stuck with a mad driver driving like a maniac on a narrow road and swerving at the last minute to avoid oncoming traffic. And yes its bleak and the locals are miserable.

I took this photo on a beach in deserty northern Peru as it seemed to summarise the whole place



However the little colonial towns do have a certain charm, under those sparkling blue skies

Very Quantum of Solace.

Imagine living on that street in the second photo. Wake up, put your head out of the door, hang yourself

Most people in the world live somewhere like that. It's Median Street, Planet Earth, 2024.
Most people have never stayed in a hotel, owned a car, held a year's income in a bank account, etc.
Yet suicide is more frequent in the USA and Canada than it is in Latin America.
And the curious thing: that's with "Latin America" defined as Hispanophone and Lusophone America. There is a single country in South America that tops USA and Canada for self-topping: Guyana.

As someone who constantly travels the world, I can (happily) reassure you that most people do NOT live on a street similar to that street in the 2nd photo: ie on a dirt road, in a concrete shack, in a shitty town in the middle of an awful foggy desert. Northern Peru, as we have established, is unusually hideous

The global median person probably lives in a concrete apartment in a large city in India or China. Not beautiful, but not terrible

As someone who has believed that travel broadens the mind, remembering the day that I promised myself to find time and space to travel (a promise I believe I have kept), as the 20-year-old self returning on a ferry across rough seas toward the white cliffs after the summer of 1983 spent mostly behind the iron curtain, your existence as the best travelled yet most self-evidently narrow-minded PB regular is always a distressing challenge to my world view.

There is either something flawed in your character or something flawed in the privileged, entitled way that you travel that must surely prove, in the literal historical sense, the rule.

I probably travel too much, to be honest, and sometimes I find myself disorientated- and I seek out something to stabilise me

One of those things - these touchstones, these guiding lodes, these reassuring familiars - is the sure and certain knowledge that you are, and always will be, an embittered old twat whose only friend is a dog

The paucity of benefit by way of insight or inspiration or genuine understanding for the plight of our fellow men (and women) that you seem to bring back from your many trips to far flung lands is, truly, a tragedy of our modern age.

You are lucky that the clickbait publications you work for merely want enough to entice others to pay top dollar to follow in your own, personally so fruitless, footsteps.

Have you considered the possibility your dog climbs in a suitcase because of sexual panic?

Have you considered the possibility that changing the subject is usually an inadequate response to someone hitting the nail on the head?

JosiasJessop said:

ajb said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

The problem here is that the war crimes very clearly have cover from the top. It's not just about an individual soldier or an individual commander; it's systematic, and motivated by other reasons than defeating Hamas.

Before you can say that, you have to be able to define, very clearly, what the war crimes are.

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it was Jeremy Bowen reporting during the earlier part of the 2022 invasion in Ukraine who made a comment that all sides do commit war crimes during war. Even if there is an attempt by the high command to prevent it, incidents will happen.

But also that there is a spectrum, such as those who genuinely seek to avoid things like murdering civilians, and those who deliberately engage in it . And that for example in the case of the Russian armed forces deliberate war crimes is very much part of their core strategies.

So sure it is very muddy and at times somewhat ridiculous, but presumably it comes down to general intent.

It's not really something kingdoms and armies used to concern themselves with very much I think. I recall reading By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in the Middle Ages, which was recommended by someone on here.

When Olivier did his Henry V as war time propaganda they skipped the speech outside Harfleur because it was so bloodthirsty. And when Brannagh did his version you could kinda see why and why Harfleur surrendered.

How yet resolves the Governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit.
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves
Or, like to men proud of destruction,
Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the batt’ry once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie burièd.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand, shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants.
What is it then to me if impious war,
Arrayed in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do with his smirched complexion all fell feats
Enlinked to waste and desolation?
What is ’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon th’ enragèd soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the Leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command,
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O’erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil, and villainy.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Desire the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters,
Your fathers taken by the silver beards
And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod’s bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? Will you yield and this avoid
Or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed?

You can see why they might have given it some thought.

Fairliered said:

Omnium said:

IanB2 said:

Omnium said:

IanB2 said:

So the warmest day of the year so far ends in heavy showers, after a spectacular dawn, a decent morning, and a showery afternoon. Surely we’ll get some decent weather at home before I and my only friend in the whole wide world head off towards the mountains next month?

How's he travelling? Last spotted here he seemed in a suitcase!

He jumped in that suitcase to make sure he wasn’t left behind, when I started packing for that trip. Since when I have been careful to do my packing up on the bed.

I really enjoy seeing your snaps of your pal.

(That's not to encourage others! I used to love Sunil's trains stories too, but there's no replacement.)

A TV railway travel series starring Sunil and DogB2 would be a must watch.

stodge said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.

Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.

And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.

But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.

At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.

Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense

eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist

It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war

Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes

Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.

The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.

Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.

And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.

But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.

At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.

Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense

eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist

It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war

Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes

Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.

The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.

Which is of course why we currently have the Koenigsberg, er, I mean Kaliningrad exclave surrounded by Poland and Lithuania.

maxh said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rottenborough said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Israel should have our complete support until Hamas is completely destroyed.

If people want to offer refuge to Palestinians outside the war zone, then that is entirely reasonable, but expecting Israel not to fight a war or to fight with its hands tied behind its back is not.

I think that in reality Israel does have western support. The "concern" about the situation is a way of appeasing public opinion. It is unfortunate that the situation goes like this but it is largely the making of Hamas, and Israel are going to keep going until they are wiped out. It is hard to 'support' Israel given that the whole situation is a massive historical mess but the situation for them is existential and to this extent their position is understandable.

The thing is, I suspect Israel is creating two new Hamas members for every one they kill.

I don't.

If there's a ceasefire and Gaza goes back to being blockaded, with Hamas remaining in charge, and the Palestinian populace impoverished then that will create new Hamas members.

If Hamas are destroyed and a post-Hamas Gaza gets a Marshall Plan style redevelopment whereby Palestinians can have a future, then that will give peace a chance.

Give peace a chance, reject a ceasefire.

They will not be a "marshall Plan" unless Israel accepts there needs to be a two state solution.

That means getting their current government out.

And Israel won't accept a two state solution as long as Hamas exists.

Quite reasonably so too.

Another reason to reject a ceasefire.

I don't think you're taking the motivations of the two sides adequately into account.

The widespread belief that the creation of the state of Israel itself was essentially a crime doesn't depend on the existence of Hamas and wouldn't go away by flooding Gaza with even more aid.

I’m not sure that’s correct. Sure, there will be those who hold onto that belief come what may.

But prosperity often (not always) encourages the average person to no longer look for a target for their rage at the unfairness of life.

It’s not a rational response, but nor is blaming a bunch of Israelis living today for a mess that previous generations created. (Settlements is of course a different matter).

Leon said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it was Jeremy Bowen reporting during the earlier part of the 2022 invasion in Ukraine who made a comment that all sides do commit war crimes during war. Even if there is an attempt by the high command to prevent it, incidents will happen.

But also that there is a spectrum, such as those who genuinely seek to avoid things like murdering civilians, and those who deliberately engage in it . And that for example in the case of the Russian armed forces deliberate war crimes is very much part of their core strategies.

So sure it is very muddy and at times somewhat ridiculous, but presumably it comes down to general intent.

It's not really something kingdoms and armies used to concern themselves with very much I think. I recall reading By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in the Middle Ages, which was recommended by someone on here.

When Olivier did his Henry V as war time propaganda they skipped the speech outside Harfleur because it was so bloodthirsty. And when Brannagh did his version you could kinda see why and why Harfleur surrendered.

How yet resolves the Governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit.
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves
Or, like to men proud of destruction,
Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the batt’ry once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie burièd.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand, shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants.
What is it then to me if impious war,
Arrayed in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do with his smirched complexion all fell feats
Enlinked to waste and desolation?
What is ’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon th’ enragèd soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the Leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command,
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O’erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil, and villainy.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Desire the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters,
Your fathers taken by the silver beards
And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod’s bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? Will you yield and this avoid
Or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed?

You can see why they might have given it some thought.

Jesus, that's brilliant. He was quite good, wasn't he? The Bard?

williamglenn said:

maxh said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rottenborough said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Israel should have our complete support until Hamas is completely destroyed.

If people want to offer refuge to Palestinians outside the war zone, then that is entirely reasonable, but expecting Israel not to fight a war or to fight with its hands tied behind its back is not.

I think that in reality Israel does have western support. The "concern" about the situation is a way of appeasing public opinion. It is unfortunate that the situation goes like this but it is largely the making of Hamas, and Israel are going to keep going until they are wiped out. It is hard to 'support' Israel given that the whole situation is a massive historical mess but the situation for them is existential and to this extent their position is understandable.

The thing is, I suspect Israel is creating two new Hamas members for every one they kill.

I don't.

If there's a ceasefire and Gaza goes back to being blockaded, with Hamas remaining in charge, and the Palestinian populace impoverished then that will create new Hamas members.

If Hamas are destroyed and a post-Hamas Gaza gets a Marshall Plan style redevelopment whereby Palestinians can have a future, then that will give peace a chance.

Give peace a chance, reject a ceasefire.

They will not be a "marshall Plan" unless Israel accepts there needs to be a two state solution.

That means getting their current government out.

And Israel won't accept a two state solution as long as Hamas exists.

Quite reasonably so too.

Another reason to reject a ceasefire.

I don't think you're taking the motivations of the two sides adequately into account.

The widespread belief that the creation of the state of Israel itself was essentially a crime doesn't depend on the existence of Hamas and wouldn't go away by flooding Gaza with even more aid.

I’m not sure that’s correct. Sure, there will be those who hold onto that belief come what may.

But prosperity often (not always) encourages the average person to no longer look for a target for their rage at the unfairness of life.

It’s not a rational response, but nor is blaming a bunch of Israelis living today for a mess that previous generations created. (Settlements is of course a different matter).

Is a wealthy China less of a military threat to Taiwan than a poor China?

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it was Jeremy Bowen reporting during the earlier part of the 2022 invasion in Ukraine who made a comment that all sides do commit war crimes during war. Even if there is an attempt by the high command to prevent it, incidents will happen.

But also that there is a spectrum, such as those who genuinely seek to avoid things like murdering civilians, and those who deliberately engage in it . And that for example in the case of the Russian armed forces deliberate war crimes is very much part of their core strategies.

So sure it is very muddy and at times somewhat ridiculous, but presumably it comes down to general intent.

It's not really something kingdoms and armies used to concern themselves with very much I think. I recall reading By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in the Middle Ages, which was recommended by someone on here.

When Olivier did his Henry V as war time propaganda they skipped the speech outside Harfleur because it was so bloodthirsty. And when Brannagh did his version you could kinda see why and why Harfleur surrendered.

How yet resolves the Governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit.
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves
Or, like to men proud of destruction,
Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the batt’ry once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie burièd.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand, shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants.
What is it then to me if impious war,
Arrayed in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do with his smirched complexion all fell feats
Enlinked to waste and desolation?
What is ’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon th’ enragèd soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the Leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command,
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O’erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil, and villainy.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Desire the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters,
Your fathers taken by the silver beards
And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod’s bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? Will you yield and this avoid
Or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed?

You can see why they might have given it some thought.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it was Jeremy Bowen reporting during the earlier part of the 2022 invasion in Ukraine who made a comment that all sides do commit war crimes during war. Even if there is an attempt by the high command to prevent it, incidents will happen.

But also that there is a spectrum, such as those who genuinely seek to avoid things like murdering civilians, and those who deliberately engage in it . And that for example in the case of the Russian armed forces deliberate war crimes is very much part of their core strategies.

So sure it is very muddy and at times somewhat ridiculous, but presumably it comes down to general intent.

It's not really something kingdoms and armies used to concern themselves with very much I think. I recall reading By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in the Middle Ages, which was recommended by someone on here.

When Olivier did his Henry V as war time propaganda they skipped the speech outside Harfleur because it was so bloodthirsty. And when Brannagh did his version you could kinda see why and why Harfleur surrendered.

How yet resolves the Governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit.
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves
Or, like to men proud of destruction,
Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the batt’ry once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie burièd.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand, shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants.
What is it then to me if impious war,
Arrayed in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do with his smirched complexion all fell feats
Enlinked to waste and desolation?
What is ’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon th’ enragèd soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the Leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command,
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O’erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil, and villainy.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Desire the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters,
Your fathers taken by the silver beards
And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod’s bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? Will you yield and this avoid
Or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed?

You can see why they might have given it some thought.

Jesus, that's brilliant. He was quite good, wasn't he? The Bard?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Robert Peston just announced that Sunak formally rules out a 2nd May election and Peston expects it in November-December

Yes I know it is Robert Peston

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it was Jeremy Bowen reporting during the earlier part of the 2022 invasion in Ukraine who made a comment that all sides do commit war crimes during war. Even if there is an attempt by the high command to prevent it, incidents will happen.

But also that there is a spectrum, such as those who genuinely seek to avoid things like murdering civilians, and those who deliberately engage in it . And that for example in the case of the Russian armed forces deliberate war crimes is very much part of their core strategies.

So sure it is very muddy and at times somewhat ridiculous, but presumably it comes down to general intent.

It's not really something kingdoms and armies used to concern themselves with very much I think. I recall reading By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in the Middle Ages, which was recommended by someone on here.

When Olivier did his Henry V as war time propaganda they skipped the speech outside Harfleur because it was so bloodthirsty. And when Brannagh did his version you could kinda see why and why Harfleur surrendered.

How yet resolves the Governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit.
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves
Or, like to men proud of destruction,
Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the batt’ry once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie burièd.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand, shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants.
What is it then to me if impious war,
Arrayed in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do with his smirched complexion all fell feats
Enlinked to waste and desolation?
What is ’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon th’ enragèd soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the Leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command,
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O’erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil, and villainy.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Desire the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters,
Your fathers taken by the silver beards
And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod’s bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? Will you yield and this avoid
Or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed?

You can see why they might have given it some thought.

Jesus, that's brilliant. He was quite good, wasn't he? The Bard?

Not exactly Geneva Convention compliant though.

williamglenn said:

maxh said:

williamglenn said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rottenborough said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rcs1000 said:

darkage said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Israel should have our complete support until Hamas is completely destroyed.

If people want to offer refuge to Palestinians outside the war zone, then that is entirely reasonable, but expecting Israel not to fight a war or to fight with its hands tied behind its back is not.

I think that in reality Israel does have western support. The "concern" about the situation is a way of appeasing public opinion. It is unfortunate that the situation goes like this but it is largely the making of Hamas, and Israel are going to keep going until they are wiped out. It is hard to 'support' Israel given that the whole situation is a massive historical mess but the situation for them is existential and to this extent their position is understandable.

The thing is, I suspect Israel is creating two new Hamas members for every one they kill.

I don't.

If there's a ceasefire and Gaza goes back to being blockaded, with Hamas remaining in charge, and the Palestinian populace impoverished then that will create new Hamas members.

If Hamas are destroyed and a post-Hamas Gaza gets a Marshall Plan style redevelopment whereby Palestinians can have a future, then that will give peace a chance.

Give peace a chance, reject a ceasefire.

They will not be a "marshall Plan" unless Israel accepts there needs to be a two state solution.

That means getting their current government out.

And Israel won't accept a two state solution as long as Hamas exists.

Quite reasonably so too.

Another reason to reject a ceasefire.

I don't think you're taking the motivations of the two sides adequately into account.

The widespread belief that the creation of the state of Israel itself was essentially a crime doesn't depend on the existence of Hamas and wouldn't go away by flooding Gaza with even more aid.

I’m not sure that’s correct. Sure, there will be those who hold onto that belief come what may.

But prosperity often (not always) encourages the average person to no longer look for a target for their rage at the unfairness of life.

It’s not a rational response, but nor is blaming a bunch of Israelis living today for a mess that previous generations created. (Settlements is of course a different matter).

Is a wealthy China less of a military threat to Taiwan than a poor China?

Malmesbury said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it was Jeremy Bowen reporting during the earlier part of the 2022 invasion in Ukraine who made a comment that all sides do commit war crimes during war. Even if there is an attempt by the high command to prevent it, incidents will happen.

But also that there is a spectrum, such as those who genuinely seek to avoid things like murdering civilians, and those who deliberately engage in it . And that for example in the case of the Russian armed forces deliberate war crimes is very much part of their core strategies.

So sure it is very muddy and at times somewhat ridiculous, but presumably it comes down to general intent.

It's not really something kingdoms and armies used to concern themselves with very much I think. I recall reading By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in the Middle Ages, which was recommended by someone on here.

When Olivier did his Henry V as war time propaganda they skipped the speech outside Harfleur because it was so bloodthirsty. And when Brannagh did his version you could kinda see why and why Harfleur surrendered.

How yet resolves the Governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit.
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves
Or, like to men proud of destruction,
Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the batt’ry once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie burièd.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand, shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh fair virgins and your flow’ring infants.
What is it then to me if impious war,
Arrayed in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do with his smirched complexion all fell feats
Enlinked to waste and desolation?
What is ’t to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon th’ enragèd soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the Leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command,
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O’erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil, and villainy.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Desire the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters,
Your fathers taken by the silver beards
And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod’s bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? Will you yield and this avoid
Or, guilty in defense, be thus destroyed?

You can see why they might have given it some thought.

Jesus, that's brilliant. He was quite good, wasn't he? The Bard?

Not exactly Geneva Convention compliant though.

It was exactly compliant with the “Customary Usages of War” at the time of Henry V and Shakespeare.

If a fortified town surrendered before/when a practicable breech in the walls was made, then a Good Chap would let them surrender on easy terms

If they held out, and forced the attacker to storm the place, slaughter was the expected and understood response.

This is because sieges were bad, even by the standards of the times. So an onus on towns to surrender early was considered legitimate.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Israel should have our complete support until Hamas is completely destroyed.

If people want to offer refuge to Palestinians outside the war zone, then that is entirely reasonable, but expecting Israel not to fight a war or to fight with its hands tied behind its back is not.

War crimes are still something that should be at least sought to be avoided however. I know you have argued previously they do indeed attempt that, yet by your logic above that would be willfully fighting with hands behind their back.

I don't think it is necessary to go so far as to suggest no limitations or scaling back is possible or reasonable, and still to support Israel in its ultimate goals here.

As far as I'm concerned yes they are seeking to avoid war crimes.

People seem to want them to avoid civilian suffering altogether, not just war crimes, which is certainly not possible though.

Would you agree that denying water and food to a population under occupation is a war crime?

No, sanctions and blockades are entirely legitimate in war.

If Egypt or anyone else wants to provide food or water, then they can and Egypt borders Gaza, why should it just be Israel's responsibility?

williamglenn said:

Macron on French TV this evening :
The war in 🇺🇦 is “existential…”If Russia were to win, life for the French would change. We would no longer have security in Europe. Who can seriously believe that Putin, who has respected no limits, would stop there?”

https://x.com/peddersophie/status/1768363829472133143

stodge said:

Leon said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.

Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.

And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.

But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.

At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.

Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense

eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist

It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war

Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes

Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.

The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.

THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War

"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"

https://www.amazon.com/Promise-Me-Youll-Shoot-Yourself/dp/0316534307

What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?

There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?

Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?

isam said:

I have never been someone to complain about the BBC, or the licence fee… but this is unreal

In 2014, CBBC - BBC's children's channel promoted puberty blockers to children as harmless and completely reversable.


https://x.com/wgthink/status/1768206096106193061?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

FPT

Leon said:

Donkeys said:

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Truman said:

Leon said:

Truman said:

Leon said:

So my take on climate change is this: everywhere in the world is going to get hotter and hotter… apart from the UK which will, uniquely, contrive to get greyer and rainier and even more dismal

Oh well. At least it should discourage the boat people

I agree. Our winters are getting warmer but wetter and more miserable and our summers warmer but cloudier. Still one of the most dismal climates for its latitude in the world is Lima which despite being in the Tropics manages to be under constant grey 8 months of the year.

Indeed. Lima manages to be climatically way more miserable than anywhere in the UK, which is quite a feat given its location. It always annoys me when I read history books or guide books that reference Lima and don’t mention this fairly notable affliction

Why the fuck did the Spanish build their capital there? The incans very sensibly chose sunny and refreshing Cusco

Possibly the worst “place” I have ever been - in terms of climate meeting geography - is the desert north of Lima. The Sechura. It’s a dismal grey sand desert, strewn with trash, and cursed with that same cruel and depressing climate - chilly grey cloud like Glasgow but without the chirpy locals

Also shit food and a history of urgent child sacrifice

One of the worst drives of my life was in the desert north of lima stuck with a mad driver driving like a maniac on a narrow road and swerving at the last minute to avoid oncoming traffic. And yes its bleak and the locals are miserable.

I took this photo on a beach in deserty northern Peru as it seemed to summarise the whole place



However the little colonial towns do have a certain charm, under those sparkling blue skies

Very Quantum of Solace.

Imagine living on that street in the second photo. Wake up, put your head out of the door, hang yourself

Most people in the world live somewhere like that. It's Median Street, Planet Earth, 2024.
Most people have never stayed in a hotel, owned a car, held a year's income in a bank account, etc.
Yet suicide is more frequent in the USA and Canada than it is in Latin America.
And the curious thing: that's with "Latin America" defined as Hispanophone and Lusophone America. There is a single country in South America that tops USA and Canada for self-topping: Guyana.

As someone who constantly travels the world, I can (happily) reassure you that most people do NOT live on a street similar to that street in the 2nd photo: ie on a dirt road, in a concrete shack, in a shitty town in the middle of an awful foggy desert. Northern Peru, as we have established, is unusually hideous

The global median person probably lives in a concrete apartment in a large city in India or China. Not beautiful, but not terrible

As someone who has believed that travel broadens the mind, remembering the day that I promised myself to find time and space to travel (a promise I believe I have kept), as the 20-year-old self returning on a ferry across rough seas toward the white cliffs after the summer of 1983 spent mostly behind the iron curtain, your existence as the best travelled yet most self-evidently narrow-minded PB regular is always a distressing challenge to my world view.

There is either something flawed in your character or something flawed in the privileged, entitled way that you travel that must surely prove, in the literal historical sense, the rule.

I probably travel too much, to be honest, and sometimes I find myself disorientated- and I seek out something to stabilise me

One of those things - these touchstones, these guiding lodes, these reassuring familiars - is the sure and certain knowledge that you are, and always will be, an embittered old twat whose only friend is a dog

The paucity of benefit by way of insight or inspiration or genuine understanding for the plight of our fellow men (and women) that you seem to bring back from your many trips to far flung lands is, truly, a tragedy of our modern age.

You are lucky that the clickbait publications you work for merely want enough to entice others to pay top dollar to follow in your own, personally so fruitless, footsteps.

Have you considered the possibility your dog climbs in a suitcase because of sexual panic?

williamglenn said:

Macron on French TV this evening :
The war in 🇺🇦 is “existential…”If Russia were to win, life for the French would change. We would no longer have security in Europe. Who can seriously believe that Putin, who has respected no limits, would stop there?”

https://x.com/peddersophie/status/1768363829472133143

Leon said:

williamglenn said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/14/fitzwilliam-museum-cambridge-university-not-woke-displays/

I for one cannot look at a hedge without wanting to conquer The Gambia

stodge said:

Leon said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

A fair point

I have always found the concept of "war crimes" intrinsically weird. Like it's OK to kill people one way, but not another way? eg Tokyo bombing fine, Hiroshima maybe not, Blitz OK, Dresden evil, or was it all the other way round? It's ridiculous

But if we must have the concept of war crimes then I am pretty sure both sides have committed them in this awful condlicr

I think it's a case of whether the 'event' in question can be seen as a valid thing to do in the war, to further military aims. A problem with Dresden AIUI is that it was *not* a military target. The bombing killed tens of thousands, and Harris saw the Dresden bombing, and others, as a 'terror' act to break the German population's will.

Did bombing of Dresden end the war any earlier? Did it save Allied lives? I don't know. But there is significant doubt.

And saying that the Germans performed the Blitz first is not an excuse IMO.

But if I was in Churchill's place back then? I'd probably have said bomb the damned lot.

At a smaller scale: rape. Put young, fearful soldiers amongst civilian populations, and you will get angels and devils. Any such rape is a crime. But when soldiers are ordered to rape civilians - and this has happened may times - that that puts it firmly into the 'war crimes' category. It does nothing to bring military victory nearer.

Actually, I'm not sure your final point is true, in a brutally realistic sense

eg The Red Army raped its way across Germany at the end of World War 2. I have read that this was tacitly encouraged as a means of 1, wreaking revenge on Germany for Barbarossa (and who can blame them, in that context?) and 2, breaking the German will to resist

It definitely achieved 1, did it achieve 2? I'd say Yes, probably. For sure it meant some Germans resisted even more stuborrnly, but it also meant that a lot of Germans committed suicide (the figures are staggering) and a lot more Germans eagerly surrended to the Allies rather than face the Red Army. So the tactic probably accelerated the end of the war

Was it an awful and evil thing? Also yes

Tales of Russian atrocities such as at Nemmersdorf were broadcast to the German people as a way of encouraging resistance and there's a fascinating clip of Goebbels whipping a crowd into a frenzt demanding "Total War" or "Totaler Krieg" as he put it.

The inability of the German Army to resist the vastly superior Red Army in January 1945 as they cut through Poland and into Saxony, Silesia and Pomerania began one of the great migrations of European history as millions of Volksdeutsche were forced out of land they had owned for generations westward.

THIS is an incredible book on the wave of suicides that swept Germany at the end of the War

"Promise Me You'll Shoot Yourself": The Mass Suicide of Ordinary Germans in 1945"

https://www.amazon.com/Promise-Me-Youll-Shoot-Yourself/dp/0316534307

What would we have done had the Germans crossed the Channel in 1940?

There are anecdotal accounts of individuals claiming they would take their own lives rather than submit to an invader. Given our island history of not having been conquered by a foreign power since 1066, how would we have reacted to German troops marching into our provincial High Streets or down country lanes or through the suburbs into our major towns and cities?

Apathy, resignation, fear, defiance - all or some or none?

BartholomewRoberts said:

ajb said:

JosiasJessop said:

ajb said:

JosiasJessop said:

An issue with this is that, in any war of appreciable size, troops commit war crimes. Whatever the side.

In WW2, Allied troops committed war crimes. They may have been smaller in scale, and less egregious, than those of the Japanese and Germans, but war crimes are sadly a part of war, even with well-trained troops.

The way to prevent them is not to have wars.

The problem here is that the war crimes very clearly have cover from the top. It's not just about an individual soldier or an individual commander; it's systematic, and motivated by other reasons than defeating Hamas.

Before you can say that, you have to be able to define, very clearly, what the war crimes are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_(crime)

Not the law in this conflict. The law explicitly and quite clearly at the end of WWII said that starvation is legal. Multiple courts ruled it so.

The only thing that might say otherwise is as that link says Protocol II, however Israel (and many of Israel's neighbours) have not signed or ratified that treaty so it doesn't apply to them any more than the European Convention of Human Rights applies to Canada.

DM_Andy said:

isam said:

I have never been someone to complain about the BBC, or the licence fee… but this is unreal

In 2014, CBBC - BBC's children's channel promoted puberty blockers to children as harmless and completely reversable.


https://x.com/wgthink/status/1768206096106193061?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

If puberty blockers are unsafe and irreversible, why does NICE still allow them to be used for precocious puberty?