Thursday, 19 June 2008

Correlli Barnett and Blair

I have long disagreed with Barnett's take on many aspects of the Great War, but nonetheless he is an historian who continues to provoke and challenge. It was Barnett who pointed out that you can no more have a 'War on Terror' than you can have a 'War on Rifles' or a 'War on Spears', terror being a weapon and not an enemy if you take his meaning. In this morning's Mail he writes:

As a military historian, I have to say that it turns my stomach to see veterans on television with sawn-off stumps instead of legs and yet bravely facing the future, while Tony Blair himself seems utterly untouched by such human consequences of his part in the Afghan adventure (has he ever visited a military hospital?).

It sickens me all the more that while our wounded and their families struggle to cope, Blair's bank account gets ever more swollen with director's fees and American lecture fees, and he himself becomes ever more swollen with self-love.
Now that's one analysis of Barnett's I'd not argue against.


Bill Quango MP said...

He does seem to have absolved himself of any blame.
The war seemed a good idea at the time; it didn't turn out that way but hey-ho...
It was Mr Blair who almost singlehandly took the country into a war. You might think he would be slightly concerned that it is still going on.

Correlli Barnett has a new book to write.

Willy Wombat said...

I don't know about Correlli Barnetts take on the Great War but I found his analysis of the squandered opportunities in the UK post WW2 in 'The Lost Victory' and his analysis of general incompetence in the 39/45 war in 'The Audit of War', which was lost by the Germans, rather than won by the British to be two rather accurate and well researched books