The First Cut is the Deepest
Two-hundred years ago this year, Allied forces led by the Duke of Wellington brought peace to Europe after more than twenty years of Revolutionary anarchy and Napoleonic conquest, a peace that lasted for an impressive four decades. For a continent scarred by centuries of constant conflict, this was no mean feat. It could be argued that Waterloo was the foundation stone of the British Army’s revered reputation; the Navy already had it, and now the foot-soldiers of what was poised to become the most powerful nation on the planet had it too.
Fast forward to the twenty-first century, through two costly and controversial foreign wars, and the British Army is not only low on morale, but increasingly low on numbers. The most recent plans to reduce the armed forces by 2020 include the proposed redundancy of 20,000 troops, 6,000 Navy personnel and 5,000 RAF personnel. It could be said, purely in terms of self-defence, that the cuts to the Royal Navy are potentially the most damaging of all to an island nation; protecting the country with a ring of naval steel around its coastline has traditionally been the top military priority, though since the Battle of Britain 75 years ago any real threat is more likely to come from the air than the sea. Then again, naval vessels are handy for ferrying soldiers to whatever part of the world they’re wanted, not to mention providing valuable refuelling platforms for RAF planes during overseas wars.
The parliamentary vote not to put British boots on Syrian soil, one Ed Miliband is happy to take credit for, may have been celebrated by many as a wise move in avoiding another Iraq or Afghanistan, but in retrospect it can be viewed as a sober acknowledgement that the British Army will not be in a position to participate in the kind of conflict Syria could have become for western forces. Put bluntly, soldiers get killed in wars, and every dead soldier needs replacing; if a war drags on for as long as the two the British Army have been involved in this century did, a regular supply of fresh legs is required; and if the numbers have been depleted by cuts, the well will eventually run dry.
At Waterloo, opposing troops looked each other in the eyes, the way soldiers always had done; if you fought an enemy, you literally fought him, either on foot or on horseback. Cavalry charges may look magnificent in paintings and on the big screen, but can any of us really imagine the impact of two densely packed lines of huge bloody horses slamming into each other whilst their riders wielded their sabres to slash at every enemy uniform in sight? Around 22,000 Allied troops were either killed or wounded at Waterloo, whereas Napoleon suffered the loss of between 24,000 and 26,000. The numbers are almost incomprehensible; the carnage the day after almost inconceivable.
The increasing advance of technology in warfare, which really came of age during the First World War, with the introduction of the tank and aerial bombing (not to mention chemical weaponry), gradually drew a distance between opposing armies, one that has continued to grow in the hundred years since. Today, the money saved on training troops is largely being diverted into the defence industry, independent of military control and one that relies on the appliance of science to conflict, rendering the traditional battlefield virtually redundant.
If drones providing long-distance annihilation at the flick of a switch are the way of warfare in the twenty-first century, then it makes economic sense to invest in the technology that enables them to be the modern equivalent of a cavalry charge. On one hand, this could be seen as a positive move, in that less ‘cannon-fodder’ will be required, thus less lives will be lost (at least non-civilian ones, anyway). But where does this leave the men who have sacrificed lives to ensure the job they’ve been sent to do is done? Are they even necessary in an era that seems to be drifting closer to conflict becoming a non-contact sport? When one considers the demoralising cuts inflicted upon the armed forces over the last five years, it would appear not.
Pay freezes have also played their part in the unsteady nature of a military career these days; one could be cynical and regard the drive to incorporate more reservists into the Army at the expense of regular personnel as the worst kind of cost-cutting exercise, giving us part-time forces on the cheap. Or is it essential that a landmass as small as ours has to have a large standing army? After all, we are no longer committed to the plethora of peace-keeping missions that once justified the numbers, whether in former colonies or even on our own doorstep in Northern Ireland. The rare failure to fall in line with American intentions that was the non-campaign in Syria meant that we could no longer be relied upon to play our part in the world police force either; so what purpose do our armed forces serve these days?
Back to the Napoleonic Wars, the enduring reputations of the British Navy and British Army that grew from game-changing victories at Trafalgar and Waterloo were ones that were enhanced by two World Wars a century later, damaged somewhat by Suez and Ulster, revived by the Falklands and the First Gulf War, and experiencing a more ambiguous outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan. These reputations, if measured by bravery alone, were largely justified. And what cuts to both Army and Navy fail to take into account is just how intertwined civilian history and military history are to the people of this country.
On a basic personal level, the armed forces have been the constant gardeners of our family trees. We all have fathers, grandfathers or great-grandfathers who served in conflict. Their stories are our stories, part of the shared hand-me-downs that constitute our collective DNA as a nation. People don’t refer to the Army as ‘our boys’ for no reason. They may be engaged in wars we don’t agree with, but we cannot dispute their guts and their willingness to undergo experiences most of us will thankfully never endure because they believe what they are there for is a just cause. The questionable moral motivation of politicians who are ultimately responsible for sending troops to some far-flung foreign field shouldn’t – and mostly doesn’t – transfer blame onto the shoulders of the soldiers; they are only obeying orders, of course, and doing what they’ve been trained to do.
It’s no wonder so many civilians have been appalled by the treatment troops have received courtesy of the cuts – one minute, braving enemy fire and the next, being served with an effective P45. And the level of care dished out to the ones who returned home either mentally or physically damaged has been little short of disgusting. The people of Britain have taken it personally for the reasons already given, though the strong feelings for the forces in this country don’t appear to register with the bodies who have both asked these men to do their duty and have thanked them for doing so by directing them to the dole queue.
From the sword to the musket to the cannon to the machine-gun to the atom bomb and to the drone, the weapons of war change; but the men of war don’t. That’s worth bearing in mind when informing a soldier, sailor or airman his country no longer needs him.
Petunia Winegum
-
April 28, 2015 at 9:54 am -
I firmly believe that large standing armed forces are a very good thing for us to have. Not to be sent on wild, misguided foreign adventures, but for domestic security i.e. defence. How many of us would feel comfortable taking down all the fences and hedges that seperate us from our neighbours, relying purely on polite, civilised behaviour to stop them wandering onto our property if they felt like doing so. No one in their right mind would leave doors and windows open in the belief that theives would not take advantage.
As for the cost of maintaining large armed forces, well we waste £12 billion/year on overseas aid and a similar figure in EU contributions. Money that could and perhaps should be spent on defence.
It takes several months to train a soldier, sailor or airman up to a basic level, and years to a higher level of proficiency. We never know when, and under what circumstances we might suddenly need their services. Highly trained and motivated men and women cannot be produced out of thin air overnight. We are living in potentially dangerous times, not necessarialy from external military threats, but from internal civil unrest. To quote Renatus “Si vis pacem, para bellum”, “If you want peace, prepare for war”.
-
April 28, 2015 at 10:01 am -
* How many of us would feel comfortable taking down all the fences and hedges that seperate us from our neighbours, relying purely on polite, civilised behaviour to stop them wandering onto our property if they felt like doing so *
Worked on our “council estate” circa 1963.
-
April 28, 2015 at 7:43 pm -
Have you noticed that the people who inflict ‘open plan gardens’ on the neighbourhoods they design always live in houses with whacking great fences, hedges and electric gates round them?
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 2:44 pm -
But our current ‘fences and hedges’ are not properly maintained anyway.
Maybe the solution would be to merge the Border Force into the military, leaving the soldiers, sailors and airmen (and women, of course) to take primary responsibility for protecting our national perimeter from all external threats, using whatever technologies, techniques and equipment they need to achieve that objective.
With the associated budget-fudging, that would also help to deliver the 2% of GDP target – although no-one else seems to bother too much about that.
And finally, rule that the MoD ‘overhead’ should never employ more than 20% of the total fighting-force manpower nor be paid more than 20% of the fighting-force personnel budget. I can almost hear the rumblings of multiple distressed ‘admirals without a fleet’ as I type….
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 9:58 am -
There’s a rather strange “advert” the BBC are running on the wireless just now about the advent of “Women’s Football”. The excited lady says that it all started when all the able-bodied men were sent off to fight in the First World War. Then, in a slightly outraged tone she comments how “some people” found it unacceptable for women to play football.. *shock-horror*. The mind boggles about what goes on in the heads of meeja-folk. Fingers crossed that they can send all the women to be shredded in the great mincer next time and we lads can get on with the footie.
-
April 28, 2015 at 10:37 am -
It’s not true that womens’ football started during WW1 – there were womens’ teams in the 1890s, and reports of all-women annual games in the 1700s – but the growth of female employment in heavy industries during the war certainly helped the formation of factory teams and organised leagues. Some factory bosses actively encouraged this, believing that it would improve morale and, hence, production; the famous Dick Kerrs Ladies team was a product of this – the “ladies” were paid 10 shillings a match each by their employers.
But yes, some people *did* find it unacceptable that women should play football. This led to the FA’s 1921 ban on womens’ matches at FA grounds. Part of the FA Council’s resolution reads:
“Council felt impelled to express the strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and should not be encouraged.” -
April 28, 2015 at 4:08 pm -
There is also a trailer running at the moment for ITV’s Home Fires series set in WW2. The trailer contains a female character saying “…for none understands the true cost of war other than women”.
Because the blokes in the front line having body parts blown off wouldn’t have a clue obviously.
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 10:24 am -
On the historical front, wasn’t it the case that Wellington was preparing to give up at Waterloo and grant Napoleon the field, but then up went the cry, “The Prussians Are Coming! The Prussians Are Coming!”.
Where did it all go wrong…
-
April 28, 2015 at 10:35 am -
The Prussians certainly played the part of the cavalry, if only in shortening the length of the battle. Von Blucher became such a hero to Brits that he spawned a craze for flamboyant moustaches. If he was around now, he’d probably endorse gentlemen’s grooming products.
-
April 28, 2015 at 12:05 pm -
Funnily enough, by complete coincidence I was watching the C4 Secret History edition on the Charge of the Light Brigade, and the whole Crimean campaign exempfilied what happens when a neglected army tries resting on the laurels of victories of decades past. The army comander, Lord Raglan, had lost an arm at Waterloo, thirty-nine years previousluy, but hadn’t been in a battle since.
-
April 28, 2015 at 9:59 pm -
Wellington was certainly not preparing to abandon the Battlefield. He had been in contact with the Prussians through the night of 17th/18 June and knew all along that they were marching to the Battle. Napoleon didn’t know any of this until his army was caught in a trap…
-
April 29, 2015 at 9:02 am -
“Scant praise is given in English language books to Blucher and von Bulow, whose forces determined the outcome. Wellington, Orange and their patched-together armies’ heroics will be deservedly told for millennia to come and yet – there’s more to the story. As Wellington cracked some time after the battle, “There’s plenty of glory to go around”.”
http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/files/allen_waterloo.asp-
April 29, 2015 at 3:14 pm -
“I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them.”
That is from the Duke of Wellington’s official Report of the battle, blatantly ignoring the Prussian contribution…
-
April 29, 2015 at 3:33 pm -
Petunia, the author, remarked elsewhere that Blucher moustachio’s became suitably popular at the time.
It might also explain another reason why Prince Albert the German was so darned popular when Vicky plighted her troth.
Gradually the French wormed their way back into our affections it seems, and there was no room for the Boche.-
May 2, 2015 at 8:13 pm -
A large number of Germans were already on the field before von Bulow showed up, Blucher arrived towards the end of the day. They were in the KGL, Hanoverian and Brunswick contingents. There is, currently, a movement led by German nationalists to highlight their contribution. The Dutch and the Belgians want a share of that pie too. The attempts to blacken Wellington’s reputation and achievement are part of this nationalist zeal and shouldn’t be taken too seriously.
Would the Anglo-Dutch army have stood if the Prussians had not turned up? Who knows but it is likely that Boney would have not succeeded either way as his army took a ferocious beating before the Prussians arrived …
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 10:43 am -
I though it was boots on the ground in Syria, our wise,learned and worldly experienced, leader of Her Majesty’s ,Loyal Opposition,was opposed to ? Or have I got both bits wrong?
-
April 28, 2015 at 10:47 am -
April 28, 2015 at 10:48 am -
You’re right. I’ll change it. Syria, Lybia – what is it with these bloody foreign names, all sounding the same?
-
April 28, 2015 at 11:01 am -
Careful you don’t end up in Labia.
-
April 28, 2015 at 11:05 am -
I haven’t visited there for a while!
-
April 28, 2015 at 3:30 pm -
I like Labia, was there last Saturday , nice and warm, friendly to. Had a great welcome!
-
-
-
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 11:27 am -
> Then again, naval vessels are handy for ferrying soldiers to whatever part of the world they’re wanted, not to mention providing valuable refuelling platforms for RAF planes during overseas wars.
Petunia can you explain how a naval vessel, which isn’t an aircraft carrier can act as a refuelling platform for an RAF plane. Even then an aircraft carrier can only take planes which are designed for it, which is almost certainly no RAF plane. OK enough with the sarcasm this particular part of your post makes no sense. You should note that our Government has cleverly arranged to build an aircraft carrier, but not any planes which can land on it until 2020 I believe. So they are equally clueless.
-
April 28, 2015 at 11:42 am -
And even then, we might have the planes, but we might not have the bombs to go in them….
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-35-cant-carry-its-most-versatile-weapon-until-at-leas-1688616599
-
April 28, 2015 at 12:25 pm -
We should have gone with a navalised STOBAR Typhoon from the outset. That way there would have been no service gap for Fleet Air Arm pilots.
-
April 28, 2015 at 12:36 pm -
The plan to put F-35s on the carriers is stupid. F-18s not only exist now, but they laughably cheaper. They are also just as good for blowing up pick up trucks in the desert, which is the only thing they will be used for.
-
April 28, 2015 at 1:49 pm -
“Petunia can you explain how a naval vessel, which isn’t an aircraft carrier can act as a refuelling platform for an RAF plane. ”
We led the world at one time …..
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/
-
April 28, 2015 at 3:12 pm -
* We led the world at one time ….. *
If we hadn’t been so busy with the Olympics in 2012, maybe we could have celebrated whupping Yankee arse and burning Washington.
That last should have put the “Preppers” on our side at the very least…
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 2:56 pm
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 12:29 pm -
You rightly point out that the cuts to the RN are the most damaging of all. The Navy for an Island nation is not a luxury – it’s an imperative. The sea therefore is our first line of defence – and look how that strip of water called the English Channel has been England’s Moat. At least 3 times in the last 450 years. Notwithstanding the above, very few people understand Sea Power, the projection of power. Put a carrier (with planes) off someone’s coast and you are creating incredible pressure on them. The US Navy understand Sea Power, our miserable politicians have absolutely no bloody idea. The Navy is also ideal for protecting the transports that either a) carry troops or b) carry their equipment. Thirdly the Navy has also been about protection of our trade.
For many decades – virtually every house in the country had somebody who was in the Navy, supported the Navy, knew a family that had a son in the Navy, had been in the Navy themselves or worked for the Navy. The Navy was a microcosm of Britain itself. So just like the Army, they are “our boys” too and we support them through thick and thin. Well, the people do, the government find them an embarrassment, especially when injured, and can’t get rid of them fast enough.
At BRNC there used to hang a board that said quoted the preamble from the Articles of War – it read – “ON the British Navy, under the good providence of God, the wealth, safety, and strength of the kingdom chiefly depend”
If we forget that -we’re stuffed.
I think it only fair to declare an interest. I served 23 years in the RN, 21 of those in submarines.
-
April 28, 2015 at 12:30 pm -
“You should note that our Government has cleverly arranged to build an aircraft carrier”
I suspect that these new aircraft carriers are actually for the forthcoming EU navy.
Anyone betting against?
-
April 28, 2015 at 1:51 pm -
“I suspect that these new aircraft carriers are actually for the forthcoming EU navy.”
Or, these new aircraft carriers are actually for the forthcoming EU airforce?!
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 12:40 pm -
The Basra and Helmand operations were disasters in military terms, leaving everything else to the side. The only good to come of them is that the US will no longer want us around in any of their idiotic adventures in anything other than a token capacity.
-
April 28, 2015 at 2:17 pm -
The endless cuts to defence in terms of personnel and equipment are a disgrace, particularly when politicians of all hues seem to want to commit the forces to more and more tasks at the drop of a hat. And what do we see? Putin flexing Russia’s resurgent military strength in a most ominous way. Europe as a whole has been so busy passing the buck to the US after WW2 that it is dangerously exposed. And of course there are threats from all over the globe now, in this ever shrinking world. Folly.
-
April 28, 2015 at 3:10 pm -
The last time we had to defend ourselves militarily was after a Military Junta invaded the Falklands. Most folk in Britain seem to think we shouldn’t have done that (especially the evil sinking of the Belgrano and slaughter of the innocents on board) and quite a few of the rest wish we hadn’t. The biggest threat to the UK seems to be coming from Scotland just now, but I doubt the army or the navy are going to be of much help.
-
April 28, 2015 at 3:33 pm -
Trust Putin more than wee Jimmy krankie
-
April 28, 2015 at 3:36 pm -
Vlad the Bad certainly makes a darn sight more sense and he’d have to get past the Germans first…
-
April 28, 2015 at 9:18 pm -
Vlad the Bad (done you jus love him?) is a strong leader.
Give me an alternative strong leader in Europe. Merkel maybe – but who else?-
April 28, 2015 at 9:51 pm -
Hollande appears to be the most keen on launching military adventures overseas just now. France seems to be getting a lot more va-va-boom for it’s money, since their defence budget is almost the same as that of the UK and we are told we can barely garrison Aldershot.
-
April 29, 2015 at 9:31 am -
Maybe the French haven’t yet factored in litigation costs. Could this be beginning to bite? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24576547 – daresay the figures have risen since 2013
‘…the MoD has earmarked a total of £130m for litigation – including 5,827 legal cases – in 2012-13; under £70m was spent on legal action in 2008-9.As part of this, the MoD now employs around 310 lawyers and legal consultants at a cost of £36m a year,…’
-
April 29, 2015 at 9:51 am -
A historical prosecution for blowing up “Rainbow Warrior” and killing eco-warriors would be tres amusante.
-
April 30, 2015 at 9:17 am -
Looks like the French are catching up with the modern world finally. Tres coincidence.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/french-soldiers-accused-raping-car-children-150430031734446.html
-
-
-
-
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 4:19 pm -
April 28, 2015 at 4:22 pm -
” Most folk in Britain seem to think we shouldn’t have done that (especially the evil sinking of the Belgrano and slaughter of the innocents on board) and quite a few of the rest wish we hadn’t.”
Well, I for one do not belong to that group, if indeed it actually exists. The Belgrano wasn’t on a pleasure cruise, and sinking it sent a clear, unambiguous message to the Junta.
-
April 28, 2015 at 5:29 pm -
Lest some forget:
http://historylists.org/other/list-of-6-british-ships-sunk-during-the-falklands-war.html
Both servivicemen/women AND merchant-marine made the ultimate sacrifice.
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 7:54 pm -
Most people think we shouldn’t have defended the Falklands do they? In that case, I’m not most people.
-
April 28, 2015 at 9:57 pm -
I think most (60%-ish) agree with the Falklands in general but tis said only 36% thought sinking the Belgrano was “right”.
Only 42% would support doing it again nowadays.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/fjcjgj8uaj/YG-Archives-YGIbarometro-FalklandResults-100412-Summary_WLogo_corrected.pdf-
April 29, 2015 at 8:40 am -
Moor, I think that may be a case of ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’. My recollections from the time are that whilst there was a small and noisy minority who jumped up and down and shouted that the sinking of the Belgrano was an outrage, the majority accepted that in times of war it’s wise to remove threats to your own armed forces whenever you can. A very large enemy battleship is a threat, so when opportunity arose, it was sunk. I don’t recall anybody taking active pleasure in the resulting death toll, despite the Royal Navy having suffered losses, but there was general acceptance that it was a justifiable action in time of war.
As for opinion polls today, I’m sure there are ways to ask the right questions in the right places to get the answer you’re looking for. Is war ‘right’? I suspect most people would say it’s best avoided. But when your nation and it’s dependencies are attacked or invaded? Is it ‘right’ then? Maybe you’d get a statistically different answer.
-
-
April 29, 2015 at 7:45 am -
Agreed.
Argentina had invaded in pursuit of armed settlement of centuries old disputes from the days of colonial expansion. The Falklands were not a threat to Argentina, economically or militarily.
Belgrano was a threat regardless of it’s location when sunk. Removing it from the equation seems a no-brainer to me. Regardless of whatever plans the JUNTA may have had, the casualties must be laid at their door.
The odds were stacked against the Brits I would have thought, but we went there to win, so why take the risk of leaving that threat in place?
Good job it wasn’t the Isle of Wight- what would the handwringers have done then?
Won’t happen with Gibraltar- they’ll be sold out, in time.-
April 29, 2015 at 10:19 am -
I think examination of the photo of the sinking Belgrano, and a some understanding of what a cruiser is, should clarify the Belgrano incident. Observe the guns turned to broadside and some elevated. Some guns turned broadside would be a rational thing to do in the early stages of capsizing, to provide a counterweight. The only reason for elevation would be to open fire. At what? Note that the Belgrano was not steaming towards the taskforce at the time. Well, it was either running away, or broadside on. Guess what? Broadside on, and long range, guns elevating? That’s what you do when you are about to open fire and your opponent can’t take advantage of the larger target that you present. Note that guns as on the Belgrano have a range that is over the horizon (similar to HMS Belfast). There simply isn’t any point in doing so unless you have knowledge of what is there, because you can’t see by eyesight or radar – although a high flying aircraft could give you a fix, and that could even be an airliner. (Some fun can be had in working out the distance to the horizon from varied elevations above the sea, although this works best on a clear day – it’s less in mist. From an aircraft you are looking down ). Or a security breach. My money is on the latter, with some Argentine-lover in the US military giving them the heads up.
Count the ships in the Task Force that could survive multiple hits from large calibre shells coming out of the blue, and you’ll get to the same total as me: zero.
HMS Conqueror saved some large elements of the task force that day, doing the job assigned of keeping an eye open for the cruiser and doing something about it if, and only if, it posed an immediate threat. It did, and it was dealt with entirely appropriately. It wasn’t a callous action, but an action to save British life. That’s not going as far as binao does, although I share that view.
To paraphrase the horribly maligned hero Harris “All the ships and men in the Argentine Navy aren’t worth the bones of a British Serviceman”.
You’ll be bleating next about the poor bloody Germans.
-
-
-
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 3:11 pm -
As an ex-Merchant Engineer Officer, I shudder to think of the probable excuses when the next Armed forces debacle happens.
When a boatload of Navy personnel tamely surrenders to a bunch of f””** Iranians, whilst being armed with fully automatic weaponry with which to defend themselves: all the while one twit crying over the loss of his bloody iPod; just think of the paragraphs written in this sad, sad future!https://mikecunningham.wordpress.com/2007/04/06/iran15-royal-navy0/
-
April 28, 2015 at 3:29 pm -
After the legal eagles had finished, and banged up “Marine A” for the heinous crime of killing the enemy on the battlefield, the notion of this country fighting a military war is a complete joke. Bombing civilians from a safe distance and calling them dead terrorists is of course different, because terrorists are evil innit.
-
April 28, 2015 at 5:31 pm -
Seconded.
-
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 3:14 pm -
But we’re members of the European Army now, doncha know? Thanks to Dave (and others)….
-
April 28, 2015 at 5:47 pm -
Historically the British have been very brutal with their armed forces, recruiting when necessary and discarding when things were done.
The British element of Wellington’s Army at Waterloo was inexperienced compared to the one that had fought its way across the Iberian Peninsular to the final (and unnecessary) battle at Toulouse. Those veterans had either been dispatched to America for the War of 1812 or sent home and, in the case of many, were demobbed.
When the Treaty of Amiens was signed, bringing a temporary halt to hostilities between Britain and France in 1802/03, the Royal Navy was cut back with large numbers of sailors demobbed only to be recalled when things flared up again.
We demobbed many thousands after the conclusion of both World Wars. We’ve done the same since the end of the Cold War.
As for looking after the ‘veterans’, that is something the State has only begun to do in bulk relatively recently. Yes, the care could still be better but the current situation is better than what rank and file veterans from the time of Nelson or Wellington could expect.
Do we need to maintain the Armed Forces at the size they were? No. Have the cuts been made in the right places? Probably not. Does the British State still act with brutal efficiency when it comes to slimming down its military wing? Yes.
-
April 28, 2015 at 6:14 pm -
‘Yes, the care could still be better but the current situation is better than what rank and file veterans from the time of Nelson or Wellington could expect.’
That is true; maimed veterans begging on street corners were familiar sights in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars. And Wellington (in)famously referred to the non-officer class of the British Army as ‘the scum of the earth’.-
April 28, 2015 at 8:21 pm -
That oft quoted line (which isn’t the whole thing) is purported to relate to the aftermath of the Battle of Vitoria. Wellington had wanted to harry what was left of Joseph Bonaparte’s Army but his troops broke ranks and looted Joseph’s baggage train instead. It is estimated that £1m (at the value of the time) disappeared in to the pockets of soldiers that afternoon.
-
-
-
April 28, 2015 at 6:08 pm -
“the weapons of war change; but the men of war don’t.”
Well yes and no Petunia. The attitude of the Poor Bloody Infantry doesn’t change much, but their training certainly does. The Squaddie of Wellington’s Army where men were trained to fight and kill as by volley fire or bayonet charge in Line or Square is a far cry from today’s soldier. Even one of my cousins, an ex Royal Marine of the 1960’s, says that his training would be next best thing to useless in a modern, highly fluid environment. Interesting fact No 2079a; Did you know they are integrating the ‘sport’ of ‘Free Running’ into Marine training?
I will concede that there is still the stale odour of soldiers as ‘disposable assets’ leaking from Whitehall. That has definitively not changed. We in Canada on the other hand have substantial ‘Veterans benefits’ from subsidised care to special car insurance for ex service personnel. See via this link: http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/audiences/veterans/
-
April 28, 2015 at 8:38 pm -
And I thought the first duty of a government was to protect the nation.
I had a full military career. Perhaps I was deranged but I was motivated by patriotic duty.-
April 28, 2015 at 10:40 pm -
We’ve lost our sovereignity. They’ve done it by stealth, knowing that we would have voted against it, if we’d known what they were up to…..The last vestiges of it remain in HRH. What will happen when she sheds her mortal coil? I can’t see Charlieboy stepping up to the plate. The younger generation think it’s all normal. But they’ve been indoctrinated for years by the marxist curriculum at school.
-
{ 60 comments… read them below or add one }