Talk:Correlli Barnett

Economics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Historiography Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces: /  Military historiography task force

Name

What is the origin of his first name? Badagnani 07:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements on the Iraq War

His statements on the Iraq War should be added. Badagnani 07:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is now a hopelessly unbalanced article with far too much information about his views on modern events and very little on what he is really notable for, his work as a historian. Unfortunately, I don't know enough to rebalance it. Dabbler (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

correct and misses the point.

Corelli Barnett is almost masterful in his correct evaluation of "Us and Them" and how it has tainted British society for a century.

He missed the point about the use of the British army though. Under the various military acts of Parliament beginning with Lloyd George in 1917 (gazing over his shoulder at the Russian Revolution and French Army mutiny) , legally the British Army is only required to protect a government from its own citizens. This is a civil war and it is under no obligation to fight overseas.

In the meantime armies are expensive and have to be kept busy doing something. The Roman Army built roads between campaigns.

To give the military a much experience in as realistic a situation as possible, it is deployed overseas in "trouble spots" to keep it busy rather than idle in UK barracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This article portrays the rambling thoughts of a confused bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A913:8894:F049:F2CA (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Politics section

This section contains what appears to be WP:OR cited to Barnett; many paragraphs are uncited or with citation needed tags. The quotes to Barnett are quite extensive. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Add: in these two sources, Barnett's views are presented as right-wing: Attlee: A Life in Politics and From Dynasties to Dotcoms. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)