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.
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.
At the rate things are going, everyone in Gaza will either have died (shot, blown up, starved or of disease) or fled across the border into Egypt within the next couple of months. Which, I imagine, is probably the plan.
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."
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.
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.
Inter alia, the map/info functionaity on the iPhone camera is incredible
Absolutely. The amount of evidence that the average crim carries around in his hip pocket is remarkable.
The idea that this small object in my hand - my iphone - can tell me exactly where I was on 1.13pm on Sunday October 10th, 14 years ago, in remote northern Peru, down to a certain block on a certain street - it's incredible. Imagine trying to explain that to someone in the 19th century...
All we need now is some way of determining each tiny individual spot on the planet, each 3m square, maybe 3 words, and incorporate THAT into the phone, and we are sorted
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
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.
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."
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.
I honestly don't think Boris is much of a Trump fan like Farage undoubtedly is. Boris is quite conventional in a lot of ways, he is not a crude political disruptor like Trump, he's pro-Ukraine, he's establishment through and through.
Truss I can conceive might, not because I think she's much of a Trump fan either, but just because she is struggling to find a niche for her post premiership career.
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?
April: pissing with rain May: pissing with rain June: pissing with rain July: hottest month on record, everyone desperate for it to stop August: pissing with rain (continues until next Summer)
Inter alia, the map/info functionaity on the iPhone camera is incredible
Absolutely. The amount of evidence that the average crim carries around in his hip pocket is remarkable.
The idea that this small object in my hand - my iphone - can tell me exactly where I was on 1.13pm on Sunday October 10th, 14 years ago, in remote northern Peru, down to a certain block on a certain street - it's incredible. Imagine trying to explain that to someone in the 19th century...
All we need now is some way of determining each tiny individual spot on the planet, each 3m square, maybe 3 words, and incorporate THAT into the phone, and we are sorted
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.)
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 utterly fruitless, footsteps.
Rishi waiting for something (anything) to turn up... And what's that? An asteroid from outer space is going to crash on his and the Tory Partys head this autumn/winter! #ExtinctionEvent
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?
You’re lucky! Weather here has been heavy cold rain from early morning. The lights have been on all day. Think late November.
How is the all Britons % thinking hamas has committed war crimes lower than any of the individual splits? That doesn't make sense, unless there's another group not shown that has < 72% thinking hamas have committed war crimes
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.
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."
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.
I wasn't thinking of it in a US context but it will be a huge story in the UK
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 .
- Total UK exports to Australia amounted to £14.3 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 18.5% or £2.2 billion in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022); - Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
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.
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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
Shows how clueless this Bartholomew Roberts really is.
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
I don't think the Red Army's rape strategy did anything to shorten the war (I have read somewhere that the higher-ups felt it was necessary as a way of controlling their men).
I also STR that, after the Fall of Berlin. a period was allowed when anything went. After that period, the generals tried to get control of the men by punishing transgressors. This was all *after* the war was over.
Rishi waiting for something (anything) to turn up... And what's that? An asteroid from outer space is going to crash on his and the Tory Partys head this autumn/winter! #ExtinctionEvent
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 utterly fruitless, footsteps.
No I wont have that. Leon does his bit to improve the lives of hookers worldwide a sound and noble undertaking.
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.
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?
I can't help it. I worry about that dog. Sometimes I night I wake up, bathed in sweat, hearing his little yelps of surprise and horror, as you lurch towards him, Tumescent in Ventnor
I will do a deal, tho. You stop your appalling depravities with the dog, I will stop posting photos of wineglasses
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.)
Just for balance, the station I chose to visit today in order to update my London Overground pictures (long overdue!) was Stamford Hill.
A Jewish teen on a bike actually gave way to me on the crossing visible in the picture, which I acknowledged with a wave and a smile
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.
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.
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?
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.
[Indiana Jones voice] "Dogs! Why did it have to be dogs?!"
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.
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"
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.
Correct: surrounded by Poland, Lithuania, and the NATO sea.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
I was thinking the same. Hadn’t seen that one before.
When AI can produce something as good as that you can happily announce the Turing test has been passed.
Trump likely to get a delay in the one criminal case looking likely to go to trial before the election - he is still hoping to get the Supreme Court to weigh in on it, but even the DA has offered a partial delay, so no March trial for those waiting and hoping.
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?
More the direction of travel than the status quo probably.
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.
Even in times medieval, though, there were guidelines that people were expected to stick to, and it rather shocked people if they did not. For example, if a town accepted your offer to surrender, then it was considered not the done thing to go ahead and rape and pillage them regardless.
Similarly, although people accepted that rebellion carried the risk of execution, it was still shocking to contemporaries during the War of the Roses when nobles were summarily executed after surrendering at the end of a battle, or dragged from sanctuary to be summarily executed.
So although the specific rules have changed over time, it's hardly a new thing to have boundaries over accepted conduct during conflict. And the reason for this is obvious. Very few conflicts end in complete annihilation for one side or the other, so some sort of lasting peace has to be established for both the victor and the defeated.
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.
Interestingly, that speech was actually about the rules of war at the time.
Because sieges were so bloody and horrible, it was held that if a town resisted after a breach was practical to assault, then slaughter was the correct approach.
Equally if a town surrendered before that, there was an onus to treat the place with respect.
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?
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."
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
I’m not accepting it on that “misspoke in regional interview” evidence, as that proves nothing at all.
You need to consider two things. Are the press core latching onto Sunak misspeaking, just for a bit of mischief to flag up how useless Rishi is at this profession?
And the only time Starmer’s gone out this week, after a hard day at work flushing the speakers head down the toilets, was to the footy where he had a few beers and a curry. SO Don’t the fact Rishi’s live on Blue Wall News this evening saying “I’ve cut your taxes” 99 times adding I love Ambrosia - best custard in the world - which he wouldn’t be doing this far out from a local election night, not sound a klaxon you can hear? 😇
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.
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?”
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?
I suspect the biggest military threat to Taiwan would (will) be a China that is struggling to sustain its growth rates.
Though I don’t think the two cases are really comparable; the aggressors in any attempt to destroy Israel would be unlikely to be Palestinians themselves, but rather regional actors (Iran).
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.)
Just for balance, the station I chose to visit today in order to update my London Overground pictures (long overdue!) was Stamford Hill.
A Jewish teen on a bike actually gave way to me on the crossing visible in the picture, which I acknowledged with a wave and a smile
I'm not a railway enthusiast in the strictest sense I guess, but I do like the odd railway observation. Well done.
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.
At the same time, it was understood that you had to let the garrison resist the siege for an honourable length of time. You couldn't expect them to surrender as soon as you turned up outside the walls, because they had to discharge their duty to their Lord.
So it would be unreasonable to order the sacking of a place because it didn't surrender straight away. It was quite nuanced really.
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.
At the same time, it was understood that you had to let the garrison resist the siege for an honourable length of time. You couldn't expect them to surrender as soon as you turned up outside the walls, because they had to discharge their duty to their Lord.
So it would be unreasonable to order the sacking of a place because it didn't surrender straight away. It was quite nuanced really.
Yes.
Some held that they had until the first siege engine touched the walls.
But the majority held that once the attackers had a practicable breech, they should hold a parley and offer terms to the besieged.
Non-Western nations are striving for sovereignty and are watching with interest as Russia confronts the US and its allies, Putin stated.
Western elites have been “tearing to pieces [the] poor peoples of Africa” and have exploited Latin America and Asia for 500 years, he claimed, adding that the West remains desperate to protect its unfair advantage.
“For centuries, they got used to stuffing their stomachs with human flesh and their pockets with money. But they must realize that this ‘ball of vampires’ is coming to an end.”
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.
Interestingly, that speech was actually about the rules of war at the time.
Because sieges were so bloody and horrible, it was held that if a town resisted after a breach was practical to assault, then slaughter was the correct approach.
Equally if a town surrendered before that, there was an onus to treat the place with respect.
Sure. But anyone who tries to kid themselves that the true nature of war has changed really should visit southern Ukraine or Gaza. We like to kid ourselves that it can be made tidy. It can't.
The irony is that Israel has never signed or ratified Protocol I and II because the Protocols are quite biased against Israel. As a result they never ratified it and as a result its not the law in this conflict, so you can't then claim Israel is committing war crimes based on those Protocols as those Protocols only apply where ratified, that's how the law works AFAIK.
Had the Protocols not been biased against Israel, then Israel might have ratified them and it would be the law. But then again, many of Israel's neighbours haven't either so who knows.
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"
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?
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?
When did Israel give its buffer zone along the Egypt/Gaza border?
If the election takes place after the US presidential election, AND Trump wins that election, then I believe that there is a fair chance of a Civil Contingency, even in the UK, which would mean the delay of any election.
Who should exercise executive power in the UK in that case is beyond my capacity to suggest counterfactuals.
I suspect if Trump wins (he won’t) and we haven’t voted yet, it will galvanise and guarantee 100% turn out from every centre and left voter in UK to vote Labour.
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?”
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?
When did Israel give its buffer zone along the Egypt/Gaza border?
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"
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?
Exactly the same as with France or the Channel Islands, mostly quiet and grudging compliance. Maybe, hopefully, some resistance, there were still plenty of WWI guns in private hands and the veterans of the Spanish Civil War would know that their names are known and it would be fight or end up in the camps. But I don't imagine a particularly heroic mass resistance.
Kieran Maguire @KieranMaguire Brighton fans respond to the rude banner about the Queen displayed by Roma fans last week with terrace humour reply of ultimate insult to an Italian “Totti loves pineapple on pizza”
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 you might have a slightly unhealthy obsession with bestiality ?
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"
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?
Exactly the same as with France or the Channel Islands, mostly quiet and grudging compliance. Maybe, hopefully, some resistance, there were still plenty of WWI guns in private hands and the veterans of the Spanish Civil War would know that their names are known and it would be fight or end up in the camps. But I don't imagine a particularly heroic mass resistance.
The occupation of the Channel Islands effectively precluded resistance given the size of the garrison in relation to the population of the islands. There were 65,000 civilians on the islands and 26,000 in the garrison.
The occupation of Britain as a whole would have been very different - apart from the main coastal towns there would have been main garrison towns which would cover large areas so if you lived in a rural village you could go months without even seeing a German soldier. I believe the plan was for an overall garrison of 250,000.
One option, as happened in France, was to have the coastal towns especially in the south and east, under direct German military control while the interior would have been left to a puppet British Government.
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?”
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"
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?
We know how we would have reacted because Germany did invade the Channel Islands. And the germans were evidently disgusted with the levels of compliance and collaboration from the locals. So thats what would have happened we would have collaborated.
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?”
"Tsar Alexander reached Paris!" - Stalin in 1945, upon being congratulated by a Western journalist.
The question is whether Starmer will be as good on Ukraine as Boris and Sunak have been. It is the only one that will really define him in the history books. I worry he may have a bit of a Lord Halifax appeaser in him.
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"
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?
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"
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?
Exactly the same as with France or the Channel Islands, mostly quiet and grudging compliance. Maybe, hopefully, some resistance, there were still plenty of WWI guns in private hands and the veterans of the Spanish Civil War would know that their names are known and it would be fight or end up in the camps. But I don't imagine a particularly heroic mass resistance.
The French are French and the Channel Islands are semi-French. Nothing like real British folks. "Never surrender."
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.
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.
That may be the legal status, but that shouldn't stop us regarding it as something which they should be pressured to stop doing.
Comments
Fantastic news for consumers.
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.
https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1768344277338173925?s=20
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
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.
Truss I can conceive might, not because I think she's much of a Trump fan either, but just because she is struggling to find a niche for her post premiership career.
I would however like to eat tariff-free Aussie beef.
May: pissing with rain
June: pissing with rain
July: hottest month on record, everyone desperate for it to stop
August: pissing with rain (continues until next Summer)
(That's not to encourage others! I used to love Sunil's trains stories too, but there's no replacement.)
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 utterly fruitless, footsteps.
RealClearPolling
@RCPolling
2024 General Election: USA Today/Suffolk
-Trump (R) 40%
-Biden (D) 38%
-Kennedy (I) 9%
-West (I) 2%
-Stein (G)
https://twitter.com/RCPolling/status/1768286561324437614
- Total UK imports from Australia amounted to £5.2 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q3 2023 (an increase of 15.8% or £707 million in current prices, compared to the four quarters to the end of Q3 2022)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65d4917bc2682d001628e881/australia-trade-and-investment-factsheet-2024-02-22.pdf
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).
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.
I also STR that, after the Fall of Berlin. a period was allowed when anything went. After that period, the generals tried to get control of the men by punishing transgressors. This was all *after* the war was over.
However I doubt it will.
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.
I will do a deal, tho. You stop your appalling depravities with the dog, I will stop posting photos of wineglasses
A Jewish teen on a bike actually gave way to me on the crossing visible in the picture, which I acknowledged with a wave and a smile
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.
What a bottle merchant.
"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
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.
When AI can produce something as good as that you can happily announce the Turing test has been passed.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/alvin-bragg-signals-readiness-for-trial-but-shows-willingness-to-delay-30-days
Similarly, although people accepted that rebellion carried the risk of execution, it was still shocking to contemporaries during the War of the Roses when nobles were summarily executed after surrendering at the end of a battle, or dragged from sanctuary to be summarily executed.
So although the specific rules have changed over time, it's hardly a new thing to have boundaries over accepted conduct during conflict. And the reason for this is obvious. Very few conflicts end in complete annihilation for one side or the other, so some sort of lasting peace has to be established for both the victor and the defeated.
Because sieges were so bloody and horrible, it was held that if a town resisted after a breach was practical to assault, then slaughter was the correct approach.
Equally if a town surrendered before that, there was an onus to treat the place with respect.
You need to consider two things. Are the press core latching onto Sunak misspeaking, just for a bit of mischief to flag up how useless Rishi is at this profession?
And the only time Starmer’s gone out this week, after a hard day at work flushing the speakers head down the toilets, was to the footy where he had a few beers and a curry. SO Don’t the fact Rishi’s live on Blue Wall News this evening saying “I’ve cut your taxes” 99 times adding I love Ambrosia - best custard in the world - which he wouldn’t be doing this far out from a local election night, not sound a klaxon you can hear? 😇
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.
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
Though I don’t think the two cases are really comparable; the aggressors in any attempt to destroy Israel would be unlikely to be Palestinians themselves, but rather regional actors (Iran).
So it would be unreasonable to order the sacking of a place because it didn't surrender straight away. It was quite nuanced really.
Some held that they had until the first siege engine touched the walls.
But the majority held that once the attackers had a practicable breech, they should hold a parley and offer terms to the besieged.
Western ‘vampire ball’ is ending
Non-Western nations are striving for sovereignty and are watching with interest as Russia confronts the US and its allies, Putin stated.
Western elites have been “tearing to pieces [the] poor peoples of Africa” and have exploited Latin America and Asia for 500 years, he claimed, adding that the West remains desperate to protect its unfair advantage.
“For centuries, they got used to stuffing their stomachs with human flesh and their pockets with money. But they must realize that this ‘ball of vampires’ is coming to an end.”
Had the Protocols not been biased against Israel, then Israel might have ratified them and it would be the law. But then again, many of Israel's neighbours haven't either so who knows.
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?
Interesting that Le Pen has made a pretty anti Putin speech this week.
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
And he gets paid?
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1768365764161978849
Kieran Maguire
@KieranMaguire
Brighton fans respond to the rude banner about the Queen displayed by Roma fans last week with terrace humour reply of ultimate insult to an Italian “Totti loves pineapple on pizza”
Which is less likely now, Liverpool getting through to the next round, or Labour getting a majority?
The occupation of Britain as a whole would have been very different - apart from the main coastal towns there would have been main garrison towns which would cover large areas so if you lived in a rural village you could go months without even seeing a German soldier. I believe the plan was for an overall garrison of 250,000.
One option, as happened in France, was to have the coastal towns especially in the south and east, under direct German military control while the interior would have been left to a puppet British Government.
If you say it loud enough you'll really sound precocious!"