Many historians conclude that the generals were incompetent in many ways, including a callous disregard for the safety and welfare of those in their charge. Dereliction of duty, as Sheffield, a historian, noted.

If Keith A of Hertford repeats his mantra enough times, he thinks others might believe him. The evidence, fields of the fucking things, says otherwise. The hours of carving on thousands of war memorials say otherwise. The evocative words "lest we forget" says otherwise.

Incompetent military thinking goes back as long as you can think. From bad planning by the French at Agincourt, our less well known fuck ups of the time, through to the Crimea, via Galipoli and the whole of the western front, via small fishing boats rescuing the soldiers poorly led and planned in WW2 to Suez, Cyprus and NI, all the way to poor planning and inadequate equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's before we look at military incompetence at MoD in learning to spell the word "budget." Any chance of recruit training without coroner fucking inquests?

So... Why, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, should anyone believe that military top brass just happened to become competent for four years out of a few hundred? Especially four years when all over Europe, a whole generation were butchered and damned, to coin the phrase.

It's funny to read the bullshit and aggressive bollocks of Teribus and Keith A of Hertford, but their silly point scoring and cap doffing attitude is displayed here on a very serious subject. And displays rather poor taste. Some here actually know what they are talking about. A pity they are derided by ignorance.