Musket - Whichever one?? - 01 Dec 14 - 11:59 AM

1: On the reading books thing - from input so far into this discussion, putting aside all the attempted deflections feverishly introduced by the Muskets to distract - I believe that Keith A of Hertford is a damned sight better read up on the subject than any of the Muskets, Jim Carroll, Steve Shaw or Greg F.

2: "you will see for yourself that it wasn't as men had been led to believe it was at the front?"

Really??? WOW !!!! I never would have ever guessed that !!!!! Now I really would be interested to hear of all those occasions where when armies were all marched off to war in which it was explained with such astounding clairvoyance that everyone KNEW beforehand what it would be like "at the front". In fact Muskets I'd like you to tell me any previous war in the history of mankind prior to 1914 where you come across the concept of Fronts for men to be at? Please show me any story, article or paper where anyone was told of any Front in July or early August of 1914.

3: "the military tactics being drawn up late 1914 could never have delivered peace by Xmas anyway,"

Good heavens you do surprise me Musket - by the way Musket dear, I know that you have been asked to provide evidence to back this up before but where on earth did you get this "over-by Christmas CRAP from?? Certainly not from Sir Edward Grey the man who took Great Britain to war, and certainly not from Lord Kitchener the Secretary of State for War - I mean Muskets, you don't go to war at the end of the summer in 1914 with your army of 80,000 against an enemy numbering over 1 million and expect it to be over by Christmas do you? You don't put into operation a plan to raise a citizens army of millions at the beginning of August and expect them to be trained and equipped in time to defeat what was considered to be the best army in Europe by Christmas do you? I mean Muskets it just simply does not make sense - "Over-by-Christmas" under such circumstances totally ridiculous, isn't it?

4: Reasons for fighting the Germans had not been adequately explained?? Anyone with half a brain (I know that would automatically exclude the Muskets; Jim Carroll; Steve Shaw & Greg F even if their collective brain cells were counted) in either Great Britain or Germany could have predicted with ease that the two nations were on a collision course from any time from 1899 onwards. The whys and wherefores were constantly in the newspapers of the day, which oddly enough Muskets all those huddled masses read and ate their chips out of. The fact that at the end of the twentieth century's first decade Germany posed an ever growing threat to Great Britain and her Empire would come as no surprise to anyone.

5: "Kitchener inspired propaganda"

What Kitchener inspired propaganda?? You mean him advising the British Government that the war would last a minimum of three to four years and involve raising armies numbering in the millions? (So much for "Over-by-Christmas" Eh?? - Oh of course he didn't say which Christmas - Silly me.

6: "the early influence of The Kaiser, there were diplomatic opportunities to avoid Western powers being dragged into the demise of the Austro Hungarian Empire. Opportunities that were not taken as the government had been assured that a military campaign would deliver total success."

Would that be the early influence where the Kaiser stated that even if Serbia and Russia conceded on every single point then the war should still go ahead?

Yes there was a brief period of four days late in July 1914 between the 28th and 31st in which war could have been averted but the actors in that drama did not include Great Britain as the focus at that point was solely for Serbia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany and Russia - The Kaiser deliberately let that opportunity slip. And I do so hope that in referring to - "the government being assured that a military campaign would deliver total success." - that you are referring to the German Government and NOT the British Government because if you are referring to the latter you had best come up with something to substantiate that preposterous claim.

7: "Then we count the bodies, examine the "waves of men over the top" tactic and assess that against "well led."

Yes we did count the bodies, the facts speak for themselves in a war where at the beginning reconnaissance was carried out by cavalrymen and at the end it was carried out by aircraft, the aeroplane having only just taken to the sky in 1903, and only crossed the channel in 1909 that by 1918 could bomb targets hundreds of miles distant. I would give you the count of bodies once again, but the fact that "our" body count was markedly less than either those of our closest allies or those of our enemies does not seem to register with you. But if fighting over a fixed period of time, on the same battleground, under similar conditions when A's body count is X, B your ally's body count is X + 57% & C your enemy's body count is X + 230% - Then I would venture the guess that out of combatants A, B & C - all the indicators are that A was the best led of the three.   

8: What draconian methods were used to maintain order? We now know that your myth of "Red Tops" (FFS) steadying the ladders and lining up in the trenches forcing men "Over-The_Top" (A Red Top by any chance gay Englishman Musket?) at gun point has been well and truly exploded - you were offered the opportunity to come up with just one instance of this ever happening throughout over four years of war and you singularly and spectacularly failed to do so - so be a good chap and put that one to rest - it never happened.

9: What "constant reminders of court martial and what that could entail and forcing men to watch executions of their own mean't."?

From an Army of ~440,000 men in July 1914 the British Army expanded out of all recognition into a citizens Army - the first that ever existed in Great Britain - of ~5,300,000 and out of those 5,300,000 what was it 17 shot for Cowardice? 306 shot for desertion? So I ask you again what constant reminders. Oh and please do tell of the instances where men were lined up and forced to watch executions - I mean apart from those detailed as the Firing Squad that is - but there again they would have to be there wouldn't they?

10: "Of course, you can always just say they were well led and the white feathers, coercion and carnage were trivial irrelevances."

On the balance and judged on the times yes in general they were well led, their commanders were more imaginative and did learn lessons learned far better than either their French Allies and their German enemies. "White Feathers" were a trivial irrelevance, ever regarded as such by many at the time - lots of first hand accounts of those instances.

What coercion? Compulsory conscription only introduced in 1916 and even then initially it was only for single men and only in Scotland, Wales and England. In Ireland, the Colonies, the Dominions and in India there was no conscription - All volunteers.

As for the carnage? Well you would have to address that point to the enemy - it is the sort of thing that they are fully expected to do - but as the figures showed "our boys" weren't to shy at inflicting it either - the sort of thing you learn in a kill or be killed environment Muskets?

11: "You can have a book burning and include all the first hand accounts written down."

Feeling the cold?? IIRC it was the Germans advancing through Limoges in 1914 who took great delight in burning the University Library and a later generation of Germans did the same in 1933. After both Great Britain had a major role in defeating both regimes who sought to enslave Europe.

Have you read extensively?? I somehow greatly doubt that - you simply have not at any time displayed the depth of knowledge of either the events or the period to indicate that you have "read extensively". You appear to have no grasp of detail that you automatically would have had you in fact read extensively and studied the subject under discussion, hence the rattling out of all the clichéd sound bites, long disproven myths and gross misrepresentations. When they fail to impress and are substantively dismissed you resort to introduction of distractions and crude name calling.