3 ms·

WW2 was an existential struggle for all parties involved. No stone was left unturned in the pursuit of victory. Most wacky ideas never lead to anything. A lo

WW2 was an existential struggle for all parties involved. No stone was left unturned in the pursuit of victory. Most wacky ideas never lead to anything. A lot of wacky ideas seem like sure bets in hindsight. In 1939 things like constructing fully welded ships was futuristic delivering meaningful bombs with rockets was science fiction and making bombs by splitting atoms was pure fantasy. By 1945 we had liberty ships, ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Quite so, that's rather my point. He backed the really wacky ideas if he saw potential, and saw potential in so much. I don't believe May or Corbyn, or any of the current generation of professional politicians of any nation, could have got close to that role with any amount of advisers or instructions. Churchill was an amateur scientist, and amateur lots of other things. He was interested in the world, a life outside politics, and in technology, in ideas. May would win the war by keeping people on message. Except that's how one gets Panzers in Parliament Square. Tanks. The clearest example I can give of that Mr Churchill not knowing when to keep his nose out of things that don't concern him. One notable time he would not be told to butt out. They almost certainly would never have arrived in WW1 without him. When would war have ended, 1920, or later? The naval blockade was working, but so very slowly. The Americans, joining in 1917, still duplicated for themselves every mistake of the Allies in 1914 and 1915, except compressed into a far shorter time span. Machine guns without mobility made it inevitable. It needed an idea guy. I hope that doesn't sound too cliched, I'm far from Churchill's biggest apologist. Churchill adopted tanks as his pet project. As First Lord of the Admiralty, whilst running the Navy, by taking funding from naval things. He formed the Landship Committee, and appointed a naval architect. The Army had thought them pointless. They were initially called land ships because the navy were the only ones who actually did see the point. The Army saw the point after first use. Then wanted lots more of them. The rest, as they say, is history and quite a few tanks have been built since. Edit: What provokes downvotes here? Surely not for comparing current politicians poorly?
pmoriarty 8y ago
"Most wacky ideas never lead to anything. A lot of wacky ideas seem like sure bets in hindsight." I was just reading how a French inventor offered one of the first submarines in existence as a gift to Napoleon. He refused it. Imagine if France had instead started massively supporting submarine research and development instead. They could have had a couple of hundred year lead on the rest of the world in submarines and perhaps dominated the seas from then on. Of course, even then it wouldn't have been so simple, as there'd likely be technology theft and simple inspiration by others that would make their lead not so great. But the potential to make a great difference was there and it was squandered by an otherwise extraordinary leader.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Quite so, that's rather my point. He backed the really wacky ideas if he saw potential, and saw potential in so much. I don't believe May or Corbyn, or any of the current generation of professional politicians of any nation, could have got close to that role with any amount of advisers or instructions. Churchill was an amateur scientist, and amateur lots of other things. He was interested in the world, a life outside politics, and in technology, in ideas. May would win the war by keeping people on message. Except that's how one gets Panzers in Parliament Square. Tanks. The clearest example I can give of that Mr Churchill not knowing when to keep his nose out of things that don't concern him. One notable time he would not be told to butt out. They almost certainly would never have arrived in WW1 without him. When would war have ended, 1920, or later? The naval blockade was working, but so very slowly. The Americans, joining in 1917, still duplicated for themselves every mistake of the Allies in 1914 and 1915, except compressed into a far shorter time span. Machine guns without mobility made it inevitable. It needed an idea guy. I hope that doesn't sound too cliched, I'm far from Churchill's biggest apologist. Churchill adopted tanks as his pet project. As First Lord of the Admiralty, whilst running the Navy, by taking funding from naval things. He formed the Landship Committee, and appointed a naval architect. The Army had thought them pointless. They were initially called land ships because the navy were the only ones who actually did see the point. The Army saw the point after first use. Then wanted lots more of them. The rest, as they say, is history and quite a few tanks have been built since. Edit: What provokes downvotes here? Surely not for comparing current politicians poorly?

pmoriarty 8y ago

"Most wacky ideas never lead to anything. A lot of wacky ideas seem like sure bets in hindsight." I was just reading how a French inventor offered one of the first submarines in existence as a gift to Napoleon. He refused it. Imagine if France had instead started massively supporting submarine research and development instead. They could have had a couple of hundred year lead on the rest of the world in submarines and perhaps dominated the seas from then on. Of course, even then it wouldn't have been so simple, as there'd likely be technology theft and simple inspiration by others that would make their lead not so great. But the potential to make a great difference was there and it was squandered by an otherwise extraordinary leader.