It may not appear on the outside, but it seems American is following the same slide, but we're doing it to ourselves. I suppose we have the continue the crusty maxim "The fustest with the mostest," just to prove we can do it better and faster than anyone.
Perhaps democracy isn't the way to go, but what isn't worse?
What was foolish was the arrogant over-confidence with which Britain entered the war. They acted on the assumption that British arms would be automatically victorious at no great cost, for no better reason than that Britain had been victorious before.
That's not actually true at all. Britain was the LEAST over-confident entering the war compared to France and Germany. They'd been humbled by the Boers which had far-reaching implications (including the creation of a General Staff), and most significantly, Kitchener FORESAW that it was going to be a long and bloody war, which is why he put in the train the mass volunteer army that debuted so tragically on the Somme.
Add to this the Shell Crisis of 1915 which nearly BROUGHT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT. That doesn't smack of overconfidence or arrogance to me. That sounds like borderline desperation.
The trajectory I described applies to all of Central and Western Europe. The British merely rose higher, and thus had farther to fall, than did France or Germany.
The difficulties Britain had fighting the Boer War served as a wake-up call, but militarily only to the point of matching France and Germany in the military art. Note that Germany had a General Staff since the 1860's, and France since the 1870's.
Historically, British tactics were better than French and worse than German on the World War One battlefields. It is certainly true that Haig, at his worst, was never as arrogant as were the French in the first month of the war.
Yes, the British were completely unprepared to fight a major continental war, as shown. In terms of manpower and firepower it wasn't until the Somme that they were able to match the continental armies.
Historically, British tactics were better than French and worse than German on the World War One battlefields.
I think that's a sweeping over-generalisation. It depends not only on variations within the generalship of each country but also on the evolution of tactics over the course of the war. There British and French successes and at times the Germans displayed a tactical and strategic ineptitude and callousness that is hard to believe.
Well, of course it's a sweeping generalization (I'm not sure about "over-"). It has to be when I'm discussing a four-year-long war in a few paragraphs.
To be precise, the British tactics were better than the French but worse than the Germans in the first years of the war. However, the French -- because they had gone for all-out offensive in the first year of the war -- sometimes showed better common sense than did the British around the middle of the war. In the last year, the British actually developed a proto-blitzkrieg and used it to good effect. Part of the reason why the British got better was that they pioneered the tank and were one of the pioneers of tactical aviation.
The most serious German strategic error was the Verdun Offensive, which bled them far worse than it did the French. OTOH, Verdun came close to breaking the French Army; had it succeeded we would be discussing the German strategic brilliance of Verdun (same point about Churchill and the Dardanelles Offensive). Generally, though, the German offensives of
( ... )
I'm a major Anglophile, and the turn the British have taken over the last decade dismays me. You would have thought that the Rushdie affair would have rallied their culture against Islamism -- instead, it seems to have convinced them of the absolute necessity for pre-emptive appeasement.
It is sad. I remember reading this news story that spoke about this Muslim girl walking into a trendy hairdresser shop in London and asked for a job. They told her she would have to sport one of the hairstyles they sold which means she would have to take off her hajib. She flipped out and sued the place for discrimination and won like 20,000 pounds! The judge's statement was basically saying that he had to to keep the peace. As my sergeant said, "Why doesn't he just say he's afraid of the Muslims and be done with it." All I could think is how some stores in the US will not hire girls who are over a certain size because they don't sell clothes in that size or whatever. So by looking at that case, I could walk into one of these stores assuming I have a thyroid condition and demand a job and if they refuse, they're discriminating against my condition.
Also: service personnel are advised not to wear their uniforms in public for fear of attack.US soldiers are not allowed to wear their uniforms in Europe in most public places. We're
( ... )
US soldiers are not allowed to wear their uniforms in Europe in most public places. We're strongly advised not to. Just thought I'd point that out.
The situation is bad in all of Europe. But note that British soldiers are being advised not to go about in uniform in Britain itself. Hostility toward foreign allies is considerably more understandable than towards one's OWN troops!
I'm very proud to see my brother in his uniform, and am always glad to see the US Soldiers wearing their uniforms mixing with the crowd when I pass thru airports.
Comments 55
It may not appear on the outside, but it seems American is following the same slide, but we're doing it to ourselves. I suppose we have the continue the crusty maxim "The fustest with the mostest," just to prove we can do it better and faster than anyone.
Perhaps democracy isn't the way to go, but what isn't worse?
Reply
That's not actually true at all. Britain was the LEAST over-confident entering the war compared to France and Germany. They'd been humbled by the Boers which had far-reaching implications (including the creation of a General Staff), and most significantly, Kitchener FORESAW that it was going to be a long and bloody war, which is why he put in the train the mass volunteer army that debuted so tragically on the Somme.
Add to this the Shell Crisis of 1915 which nearly BROUGHT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT. That doesn't smack of overconfidence or arrogance to me. That sounds like borderline desperation.
Reply
The difficulties Britain had fighting the Boer War served as a wake-up call, but militarily only to the point of matching France and Germany in the military art. Note that Germany had a General Staff since the 1860's, and France since the 1870's.
Historically, British tactics were better than French and worse than German on the World War One battlefields. It is certainly true that Haig, at his worst, was never as arrogant as were the French in the first month of the war.
Reply
Historically, British tactics were better than French and worse than German on the World War One battlefields.
I think that's a sweeping over-generalisation. It depends not only on variations within the generalship of each country but also on the evolution of tactics over the course of the war. There British and French successes and at times the Germans displayed a tactical and strategic ineptitude and callousness that is hard to believe.
Reply
To be precise, the British tactics were better than the French but worse than the Germans in the first years of the war. However, the French -- because they had gone for all-out offensive in the first year of the war -- sometimes showed better common sense than did the British around the middle of the war. In the last year, the British actually developed a proto-blitzkrieg and used it to good effect. Part of the reason why the British got better was that they pioneered the tank and were one of the pioneers of tactical aviation.
The most serious German strategic error was the Verdun Offensive, which bled them far worse than it did the French. OTOH, Verdun came close to breaking the French Army; had it succeeded we would be discussing the German strategic brilliance of Verdun (same point about Churchill and the Dardanelles Offensive). Generally, though, the German offensives of ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
God save the Queen...because nobody else seems to want to.
Reply
Reply
Also: service personnel are advised not to wear their uniforms in public for fear of attack.US soldiers are not allowed to wear their uniforms in Europe in most public places. We're ( ... )
Reply
The situation is bad in all of Europe. But note that British soldiers are being advised not to go about in uniform in Britain itself. Hostility toward foreign allies is considerably more understandable than towards one's OWN troops!
Reply
Reply
I'm very proud to see my brother in his uniform, and am always glad to see the US Soldiers wearing their uniforms mixing with the crowd when I pass thru airports.
Reply
Leave a comment