Chaos as Corona virus test site for key workers closes after a few hours

[minestrone]

Started early I see. What does your missus think about your drinking, now you have to do it at home?

Well I think we can both agree parental bankruptcy and divorce is a terrible burden to place on a child.

Lord knows the trauma a child can face, the ongoing emotional adult issues as a result.

[sasguru]

Well I think we can both agree parental bankruptcy and divorce is a terrible burden to place on a child.

Lord knows the trauma a child can face, the ongoing emotional adult issues as a result.

Still smarting because you didn't know the difference between a probabilistic and a deterministic theory?
I can help you.

[minestrone]

Still smarting because you didn't know the difference between a probabilistic and a deterministic theory?
I can help you.

It's like someone got menelaus's old posts and dumped them into a bot.

[sasguru]

It's like someone got menelaus's old posts and dumped them into a bot.

Poor. You're not on form. I'll wait for a couple of hours till you're slurring.
Meanwhile I'm going for a run. My first one in over a month and since I got sick.
Now I know this is not up to your high standards but I doubt I'll even do 5k in 30 mins.

[vetran]

I've read a fair bit on this topic, WW1, (and WW2) over the years. The "Lions led by Donkeys" quote is probably an exaggeration, attributed to Alan Clarke. And some historians over the years (obviously of a nationalistic bent) have gone the other way. But no evidence-led, dispassionate analysis concludes that the British generalship in WW1 was competent.

Books I've read include "Catastrophe" by Max Hastings (anything by him or Beevor is a must) who thinks Britain was right to go to war in 1914 but slates the leadership, and few other histories.
"Mud, Blood and Poppycock" makes the opposite case, but seems to be more of a nationalist polemic than a sifting of the evidence.
But Mallinson's book, mentioned in a post above, is the most even-handed and he really digs deep into the evidence from a military point of view. He comes to the same conclusion as Hastings.

Probably attributable to Alan Clark - no as usual you are wrong, it is a rewriting of ancient proverbs and trotted out by the Russians including Karl Marx/Engels a mere 20 years before WWI. It was then reused as German propaganda.

Nice to see a reputable source celebrated, though a columnist for the Mail is probably not your best choice considering how you hate the rag so much. Also he claims to be an expert in both wars yet has no Military training? He does also favour the second world war.

Max Hastings for the Daily Mail | Daily Mail Online

Lets wait till Richard Littlejohn starts writing history shall we?

Beevor is mainly second world war historian & Author? Which books did he write that challenge this theory? After Winchester He did 5 years in the Army so probably a better background. Though after Hang em high Hastings maybe you should be digging out Dr David Starkey or Lucy Worsley to compete?

Biography – Antony Beevor


Now Gordon Corrigan spent longer in the Army though like Beevor he did go through Sandhurst where many of the tactics are explored by experts.
Gordon Corrigan - Wikipedia

Interesting his book Mud Blood & Poppycock was favourably reviewed by a lecturer at RMA Sandhurst and who has been a modern History Professor at many Russell Group Universities

The title 'Mud[...etc]' gives a hefty hint as to the book's content: a highly effective rebuttal of the "Lions led by Donkeys" school... Corrigan is a combative, persuasive and very readable historian.' -- Gary Sheffield THE INDEPENDENT (2/8/03) '

Following his MA, Sheffield became a lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 1985, and studied at King's College, London under Brian Bond for a part-time PhD awarded in 1994.^[3] In 1999 he became a senior lecturer in the Defence Studies Department of King's College, London and Land Warfare Historian on the Higher Command and Staff Course at the United KingdomJoint Services Command and Staff College.^[3]
Sheffield is one of the leading proponents of his generation of the "revisionist school" of thought with regard to the conduct of military operations on the Western Front by the British Army during the First World War.^[4] Far from the post-war popular cultural image of the generals who commanded the campaigns being inadequate to the task and this being the cause of excessive casualties to the troops under their orders, he has argued the direction of the war by the British General Staff was fundamentally sound and the high casualties suffered by the British Army were unavoidable given the scale and nature of operations and the circumstances under which they were conducted.^[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_S...ld_(historian)

He has a couple of Books now on my reading list the first "Forgotten Victory: The First World War, Myths & Realities", seems to chime with Corrigan's.

Here is the BBC quoting him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46064486

The historian said it was not right to judge him, either in personality or approach, by 21st Century standards.Having presided over the horrific slaughter of the Somme offensive in 1916 and the equally bloody battle of Aras the following year, Haig had undoubtedly learned valuable lessons, Prof Sheffield said.
These paved the way to ultimate victory in 1918, with a series of victories unmatched in Britain's military history, he claimed.
"It makes little sense to compare him to any other previous general because actually warfare changed so profoundly during the First World War," Prof Sheffield said.
"He was a war manager as much as anything else, managing this vast army, helping it to train, equip, as well as being a general on the battlefield."

Obviously the whole idea is rubbish because this oddball who obviously knows nothing about history liked it and described Sheffield's book as - "An iconoclastic tour-de-force"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Previously, he was a professor at Harvard University and New York University, visiting professor at New College of the Humanities and senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford.

So you have a Tabloid Columnist and a second world war expert on your side. I have a long serving officer & Historian backed up by trained officers & History professors from many of the most prestigious Universities in the world.

[sasguru]

wibble

I did predict as the start of this thread that you would dig without addressing the points made and so it proved.
Fact is you have a limited IQ so your brain farts are worthless.
It's why you sit in your underwear in your garden and are happy with your 5K bonus on top pf the 40k you earn.

I've actually read and digested all the books you quote, you haven't. Ignorant fook.

HTH, BIDI.

[vetran]

I did predict as the start of this thread that you would dig without addressing the points made and so it proved.
Fact is you have a limited IQ so your brain farts are worthless.
It's why you sit in your underwear in your garden and are happy with your 5K bonus on top pf the 40k you earn.

HTH, BIDI.

Ah so you have definitely lost so you start to insult people again.

You failed to provide the original source of the quotation being between a few thousand years and 70 years out I corrected you.

Hmm you said no serious historian supported the theory Corrigan suggested and quoted a tabloid Columnist and maybe a WW2 expert (who maybe disagreed but you can't explain how), I showed you that a that a lecturer at Sandhurst / Kings College & Harvard professor agreed with Corrigan.

Which bit do you need explained again?

Do you want to ask Piers Morgan what he thinks? Maybe Katie Price?


Interestingly someone mentioned the traits of a psychopath today and I kept nodding thinking of you.

Everything You Wanted to Know About the Science of Psychopaths

Psychopathy researchers found that psychopaths often have these common traits:

• lack of empathy, guilt, conscience, or remorse
• shallow experiences of feelings or emotions
• impulsivity, and a weak ability to defer gratification and control behavior
• superficial charm and glibness
• irresponsibility, and a failure to accept responsibility for their actions
• a grandiose sense of their own worth

what does the congregation think?

[sasguru]

Ah so you have definitely lost so you start to insult people again.

You failed to provide the original source of the quotation being between a few thousand years and 70 years out I corrected you.

Hmm you said no serious historian supported the theory Corrigan suggested and quoted a tabloid Columnist and maybe a WW2 expert (who maybe disagreed but you can't explain how), I showed you that a that a lecturer at Sandhurst / Kings College & Harvard professor agreed with Corrigan.

Which bit do you need explained again?

Do you want to ask Piers Morgan what he thinks? Maybe Katie Price?


Interestingly someone mentioned the traits of a psychopath today and I kept nodding thinking of you.

Everything You Wanted to Know About the Science of Psychopaths




what does the congregation think?

Give it a rest. Everyone on here, even the Brexiters and your fellow travellers think you're a moron, given their responses to your posts.
No one reads your drivel any more. I certainly dont.

[vetran]

I realised I was talking bollocks and just insulting people

so I added this.

I've actually read and digested all the books you quote, you haven't. Ignorant fook.

HTH, BIDI.

Luckily original preserved it before you edited.


So do explain why the lecturer at RMA Sandhurst and incredibly accomplished Professors disagree with you and your proffered tabloid journalist expert?

[sasguru]

Luckily original preserved it before you edited.