BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:05 AM

Ah Raggy posting as an anonymous GUEST - if you are ever accused of doing so again please don't deny it.

But none the less as promised:

The subject matter is WWI. Here is a quotation from someone

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Now this good little pleb would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1: Identify who it was that stated the above?
2: Who is the "YOU" mentioned in the quote?

The answer to question 1 was Guest Raggytash
The answer to question 2 is me - Teribus

The quote comes from a message I received from Guest Raggytash on the 17th November 2015. The message was one asking for help and advice, which I gave.

As to the hypocrisy charge please take a look at the forum exchanges between Raggy and myself since that message and then judge whether what Raggytash says person to person in private reflects what he states when posturing on the open forum. Judge for yourselves whether in public Raggy considers me to be obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum.

Now then Raggy go off and read your book.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:58 AM

"If you don't answer then in my next post I will - you bloody two-faced hypocrit.
Every time you paint yourself into a corner you beat a hasty retreat ad refuse to respond - on the profit made from ceramic poppies, on the War, on every single point about the Irish Famine - despite constant requests, you remained silent - making you a "bloody two-faced hypocrite".
Let's see how you get on with Loos, Gallipoli, the early days of The Somme and the wrong ammunition cock-up - won't hold my breath though!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:53 AM

Out of all your posts on this subject Jom your contribution of 25 Nov 15 - 08:33 AM has one little bit right at the end that actually sums up the reality of the First World War in a nutshell:

"It was simple carnage and all your bluster doesn't make it anything else."

And Jom neither Keith A, or Lighter, or a number of others (myself included) have ever tried to state that it was anything other than that.

Yes it was simple carnage it was a static war fought for the first time ever on a truly industrial scale, so just for once in your life look at the entirety of it.

Taking all of the main combatant powers who were there from the start in 1914, Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire suffered fewer fatalities and casualties than any of the others. What do you put that down to Jom? As a percentage of everyone mobilised in the main combatant armies deployed on the western front casualties amongst the British & Empire forces, French forces and German forces were ~35%; ~75%; ~70% respectively fatalities in the British & Empire forces were the least by quite a margin.

In 1914 on the western Front between Germany, France and Great Britain, who had the smallest army? Can you explain how that army survived through 1914 to become one of the largest and most effective armies in the field by 1918?

In the spring of 1918 once the Germans had transferred the bulk of their armies who had been fighting the Russians, who was it they threw against? In 1914 it had been the major threat - the French. In 1918 the Germans saw the greatest threat to them as being the British. Now how did that come about Jom?

In 1918 the Germans from March onwards into Summer mounted five major offensive operations aimed primarily against the British in northern France. Yes they pushed the line back almost to their 1914 high water mark, but in August 1918 only 21 days after their last gasp attempt at victory in the west Haig went over to the offensive and 100 days later the war was over - Tell me Jom does that look like poor leadership? Certainly does not to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:30 AM

I have oftened questioned your intelligence. If you cannot figure out who posted that without a name how the hell can you pretend to understand WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM

Who's "ME" GUEST? How many different GUESTs post on Mudcat? And how do any of us who do use constant cookies to identify ourselves tell which GUEST is which.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:50 AM

Talking of hypocrisy I seem to recall you were not going to respond to me.

It's one of the few things that you've typed that I really wish you were correct about.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:42 AM

Ragged Arse - The point under discussion as raised by Keith A what seems like ages ago now concerned Great Britain and the British Army. Don't you dare try moving the goalposts now - Haig did not coimmand the Allied War effort - the French did, on the western front both the French and the Germans lost more men than the British - Tell me and everyone else just how the hell that could have been Haig's fault, tell me just how thoise deaths came about because of poor British military leadership?

I will ask you one more time:

The subject matter is WWI. Here is a quotation from someone

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Now this good little pleb would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1: Identify who it was that stated the above?
2: Who is the "YOU" mentioned in the quote?

If you don't answer then in my next post I will - you bloody two-faced hypocrit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:33 AM

"Ehmm Jim you have been told time and time again "
No we haven't - you explain Loos (think you said it wasn't a defeat on a previous thread)
You explain Gallipoli
You explain the armament cock-ups
You explain the catastrophic losses at the opening of the Somme
You explain how any of these can be put down to "good" leadership"
You explain how "good leadership" was ever anything more than forcing masses of young men to be cut down by other young men they, knew or had any argument with
You haven't so far - neither has anyone else.
If you want to make a plea for good butchery, you may have a point.
You have the figures of casualties for these glorious battles - explain how any of them can be put down to "good leadership"
It was simple carnage and all your bluster doesn't make it anything else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

Try re-reading the post yesterday at 07.07pm and then come back and tell me that the Allies (we were fighting with others on our side remember, you tried to place all the blame on the French yesterday) lost more men than the axis forces.

And THAT is the crux of most of the discussion, you and your sidekick don't seem to care about the humane issues.

No, we WON the war, jolly good, well done lads, we taught those pesky Hun's a thing or two didn't we. What? all those bodies, oh never mind them we'll get someone round tomorrow to have a tidy up. Now then chaps who's for polo.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM

Where's that GUEST who was going on about "Howlers" when you need him?

"You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why? - Jim Carroll

Ehmm Jim you have been told time and time again - get your head round the fact that as far as you are concerned anything about any subject on earth that you haven't come up with simply does not feature, anything told to you that fits your view must be taken as being "gospel" without any check being made by way of verification.

But here it is again by Dr Gary Sheffield:
"He(Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature."

The British Army and its Divisional Commanders started learning in 1914 and continued to learn throughout the war. Fortunately for the rest of Europe the German Army and its Commanders DID NOT exactly the same thing stopped them in their tracks on the Marne in 1918 as stopped them in their tracks in 1914.

"Gallipoli casualties totalled 89,000"

And on two occasions during the Dardanelles Campaign had the Allies advanced the intended aim of the campaign would have been accomplished, Turkey would have been knocked out of the war and a secure supply rout to arm the Russian Army would have been secured. It came that close to being a complete success. 1915 both in overall command of the troops at Gallipoli and at Divisional level at Suvla you have examples of poor British Generals - Neither of them were Douglas Haig.

"At Loos, the "good leadership amounted to:
By 28 September, the British retreated to their starting positions, having lost over 20,000 casualties, including three major-general
British casualties at Loos were about twice as high as German casualties.
8,000 casualties out of 10,000 men in four hours
British casualties in the main attack were 48,367 and they suffered 10,880 more in the subsidiary attack, a total of 59,247 losses of the 285,107 British casualties on the Western Front in 1915"

This was the first big British attack, they had carried out a smaller one earlier in the year at Neuve-Chapelle. Basic rule of thumb is that if you attack a defended position you must outnumber the defenders by at least 3:1 - why do you think that is Jom? You have read, or maybe you didn't bother, from a man who was there, right in the thick of it as an Artillery Observation Officer. At Neuve-Chapelle and at Loos, Haig's advice and placement of the reserve required to achieve the breakthrough that was there in both battles were ignored by Haig's superior officer General Sir John French who was simply too timid and as a result of that timidness and inability to think and act quickly was dismissed from his command and replaced by Haig and from that point on the British Army didn't look back, it went from strength to strength employing new tactics that continually evolved and improved upon.

"On the first day of the Somme there were 57,470 British casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed - the highest by far of all the combating armies (Germany was a runner-up with between 10 and 12 thousand)"

On the first day of the Somme eh? 1st July 1916. So on one day in a war that lasted for 4 years and 3 months you have managed to find one day when the British Army suffered more casualties. Congratulations Jom. Now what was the position once the campaign and the battle drew to a close in November 1916 - talking about the entire battle here Jom not just ONE DAY of it. The 1st July 1916 might have been a bad day for the British Army but 1916 was a bad year for the German Army - a year they never recovered from. 1916 to the First World War was what 1943 was to the Second World War - after those years in both those conflicts the allies knew they were going to win and for the first time in both the Germans stared the spectre of failure full in the face.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM

"In the past year or so I have read a good deal regarding WW1. None of which is so simplistic as you and the professor would have us believe."

IF that indeed is the case then your contributions do not reflect that fact. Nobody has ever pretended to make or put forward the case that anything to do with the conflict was simple, but plain facts and truths as stated by myself and by Keith A are correct - evidenced by yourself and your pals being unable to refute anything we have stated.

One thing that puzzles me Raggy, IF as you say that over "the past year or so I have read a good deal regarding WW1." why do you post to this thread stating that you know very little about the subject? Is that because you find it difficult to take things in, or were you simply being "economical with the truth"?

"go and polish your Masters boots or something, there's a good little pleb."

The subject matter is WWI. Here is a quotation from someone

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Now this good little pleb would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1: Identify who it was that stated the above?
2: Who is the "YOU" mentioned in the quote?

After you have done that you can go back to your book.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 05:53 AM

"That is the findings of the military historians."
No it isn't - not all of them by any means - you refused to read the list of nearly 200 you were given because it was "tto large"
You dismissed the historians who actually said it was ba
dly led because they wer "dead" or "not real historians" or obscure and "didn't sell their books in "real" bookshops"
You ave refused even to comment on the actual examples of bad leadership on the grounds of your now self-confessed ignorance (having claimed you have made a "lifelong study of the war"
You have sought out out-of-contexts quotes fro, less than half-a-dozen historians which you have not read, nor do you understand (or more likely - have deliberately distorted).
Historians are not gods - their opinions as to the justification of this colonial family squabble which ended the lives of millions of young men are worth no more than those on historians who describe th war as a waste of human life - historians don't deal in the ethics of colonial wars - it is not their field.
Sheffield is an employee of the military establishment making his views of the history of the war suspect and the morality of the war useless yet he continus to be one of your gallant less-then-half-dozen witnesses!!
Yoiou sais you studied thewar - you didn't
You claimed to have read a book by one of your historians - you obviously haven't, and you refuse to respond to what she actually says.
As I said - the most dishonest contributor to this forum by far.
Your only support for your case is from a bullying, blustering no-mark who would like us to believe he has a service record but in fact never got nearer that the sink in a ships galley.
You have no case - you have never had a case yet you continue to justify the decimation of a generation - and you call those who fought in it "liars" if what they had to say challenges your jingoism.
It seems the war isn't the only thing lacking ethics.
Jim Carroll

.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:57 AM

You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why

Yes I can.
That is the findings of the military historians.

all you can do is provide yet another cut'n-paste

Yes. Quotes of historians unequivocally rejecting your views.
I do that because I can.
You can produce nothing to support your baseless assertions.
There is nothing out there for you.

Your views derive solely from your extreme class war politics.
I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some, any, support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:38 AM

You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why - that is mindless.
You claim you have made a life-long study of the war yet all you can do is provide yet another cut'n-paste which you have hastily sought out which in no way explains the fiascos that took place (which you have just been given)
That is both mindless and dishonest
Owzatt - you're our
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:18 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zq2y87h

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM

Sheffield,
"When Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig died in 1928, the major controversies about his reputation were still to come. His death was a cause for national mourning; a moment that loomed as large in the nation's consciousness as the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997. For many, the achievements of Haig and his fellow commanders was worthy of that tribute."

"The British generals of the First World War were not an homogenous group. They performed a variety of functions and roles and they did so to differing degrees of effectiveness. A few were incompetent, most were not, all were operating under incredible pressure. "

"Haig led his armies to decisive victory in the 1918 Hundred Days offensive that ended with German capitulation on 11 November. The contributions of other Allied armies must be recognised; indeed all Haig's offensives need to be seen in this context. Battles earlier in the war, such as the Somme in 1916, saw heavy loss of life but were also strategic successes for the Allies. Haig argued they created the conditions for the victories of 1918 by wearing down the strength and morale of the German army. I agree with this assessment - traditional victories were not possible in trench warfare, so attrition was a vital and valid method."

"The British army, like all other armies, began the war using outdated tactics. These were progressively replaced by cutting-edge methods incorporating the latest technology, including artillery, air power, machine-guns, gas, and tanks. By 1918 Haig's forces had evolved a war-winning weapons-system that enabled them to defeat the German Army in battles such as at Amiens in August that year. As for casualties, win or lose, Western Front battles were costly in human life. A French commander, General Mangin, rightly remarked, 'whatever you do, you lose a lot of men'."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:09 AM

More selective quoting from Keith A of Hertford.

Not true.
I provided whole paragraphs and linked to the whole article.
I can produce many more examples of him saying the same.

As I said, Dr Gary Sheffield concluded that senior military leaders were both callous and incompetent.

As you lied, actually.
General French has come in for some criticism, but who else?

You say you(?) disagree with Sheffield's conclusions on Haig.
The fact that other historians do agree will make that easier for him to live with!
What is your opinion worth when it is rejected by all the people who actually know anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:00 AM

"I am not an historian and make no claims about history."
Yes you do - you claimed that you have made "a life-long study of World War One" - a claim that nobody here has made, yet, having claimed that the war was well led, you decline to comment on badly conducted campaigns that
Gallipoli casualties totalled 89,000
At Loos, the "good leadership amounted to:
By 28 September, the British retreated to their starting positions, having lost over 20,000 casualties, including three major-general
British casualties at Loos were about twice as high as German casualties.
8,000 casualties out of 10,000 men in four hours
British casualties in the main attack were 48,367 and they suffered 10,880 more in the subsidiary attack, a total of 59,247 losses of the 285,107 British casualties on the Western Front in 1915
On the first day of the Somme there were 57,470 British casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed - the highest by far of all the combating armies (Germany was a runner-up with between 10 and 12 thousand)
The leadership of the war was appalling (if anything, Blackadder payed it down!!) - sacrifice as many young many young lives as possible - that is not leadership simple butchery.
You claim to have made a lifelong study of the war - you have now admitted you lied - you know nothing of this war and you continue to excuse the death of many millions of young lives.
All historians do not back your claims - you have misquoted less than half a dozen of them and you have now scurried back behind historians who you have obviously not read, - not one single one of them
Your bullying blustering galleymate is exactly the same - now refusing to answer on the grounds that the questioner "knows nothing" (same as you, apparently.)
Your campaign to justify the bloodbath is about as well-conducted as was the bloodbath itself.
Your case becomes more and more idiotically dishonest.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest if you must know
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 03:07 AM

More selective quoting from Keith A of Hertford. As I said, Dr Gary Sheffield concluded that senior military leaders were both callous and incompetent. He also mitigated on the basis you can't be stupid and wrong all the time, although Haig did have a good stab at it.

I am aware, as someone who reads a bit of Mudcat banter that there are a few people under the umbrella name Musket. I am also aware through reading that they seem to have the usual suspects weighed up. But isn't it amazing that anybody who points out (it isn't difficult) the glaring outrageousness of such people get accused of being Musket.

I don't know any of them but I'm sure they must be laughing if any of them read this. I see a similar complaint in other threads by someone at the same level of intellect and reason as Keith A of Hertford. Are you sure it's Hertford and not somewhere in Scotland?

For the record, I have read Sheffield's assessment but disagree on some of his conclusions. His verdicts don't always follow his own evidence, an elementary mistake but understandable if your pressure comes from book publishers. He got it right but looked for too many exceptions with which to sanitise a rotten lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:16 PM

Just for you Teriblunder. In the past year or so I have read a good deal regarding WW1. None of which is so simplistic as you and the professor would have us believe.

Anyway I'm in the middle of a good book a the moment, not related, so I'm going back to that.

Do try and keep your promises, go and polish your Masters boots or something, there's a good little pleb.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:58 PM

But Raggy how on earth can I fail to respond when you, who have clearly stated that you know little about the subject, keep attacking things I have stated with information that is completely inapplicable and irrelevant to the point you are trying to attack - or do you always compare apples to oranges?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:43 PM

Do I really need to remind your poor little tired brain that you said just a few days ago you were not going to respond to me. I do wish you would keep your promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:35 PM

Ah Raggy, having to shift goalposts now I see. You and your pals challenged the conclusions drawn by a number of historians who specialized in the study of the First World War who with respect to Great Britain's involvement who stated that in general the British Army was well led (NOTE THAT SMARTARSE - British Army NOT Allied Forces).

Now toddle off and come back with what the British casualties were in comparison to the other major combatants who fought on the western Front.

You and your pals who have all said that they know little about the war really should do some real reading about it before you flounder about desperately trying to find facts presented in such a manner that fit YOUR preconceived notions - so far all that you have established beyond any doubt is that you are on a hiding to nothing.

And you have the utter gall to accuse others of being pathetic - f**kin' unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

Total Casualties WW1

          killed            Wounded          Missing       Total

ALLIES    5,000,000         13,000,000       4,000,000   21,000,000

Axis      3,300,000          8,300,000       3,600,000   15,200,000

But that doesn't matter to the likes of Teribus and Keith BECAUSE most of them were FOREIGNERS and WE won.

YAR BOO SUCKS, NAR NAR NA NAR NAR!

Truly, truly pathetic.

SOURCE:HISTORY LEARNING SITE,

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:20 PM

GUEST with regard to your post of 24 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

The first bit and the "made up" quote from Sheffield - Well maybe it wasn't made up maybe some "man-in-the-street" in the city of Sheffield said it but certainly not Dr Gary Sheffield the historian whose specialty is the study of the First World War - Keith A has quite comprehensively just blown that little invention of yours out of the water.

Let us therefore have a look at rest of your post.

"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."

What Mantra? I recall he listed three points that represented the current prevailing historical opinion with respect to Great Britain's involvement and prosecution of the First World War, he put those points up for discussion and was attacked for doing so on the basis that those points of view had been formulated by Keith A himself - not really his fault that his moronic attackers could not read and comprehend basic English. The "evidence" you are emotively trying to refer to are the graves, which are to be used as the metric for judging the competence of those who led the British Army? If that is the case then please explain why those who commanded the French and German Armies do not feature? After all of the three main protagonists fighting on the Western Front the British suffered the fewest killed and wounded, was that down to the poor quality of their leaders?

"Incompetent military thinking goes back as long as you can think."

Hate to burst your bubble but:

"Incompetent thinking in all walks of life, both in peace and in war goes back as long as you can think."

Only trouble is that looking back through those ages in terms of military thinking Great Britain's Army and more importantly her Navy did rather well when asked to act in defence of the realm.

When it comes to incompetence and waste related to Government Ministries and their "budgets", why highlight the MOD (After all their "Budget" is tiny compared to those of the real wastrels) C'mon GUEST tell us about the billions wasted in Health, Welfare and Education. On Coroner Inquests I don't think our hospitals come out too well there especially the Stafford Hospital - tell us the number of deaths deemed to be excessive due to lack of care over a two year period - IIRC it was roughly three times our entire Afghan fatalities which were spread over 13 years of combat - Incompetence you prat with those figures it meant that you were safer on foot patrol in Sangin District of Helmand Province in Afghanistan in 2007 than you would have been if you were admitted to that hospital's A&E Department the same year.

"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."

What evidence to the contrary? The achievements and innovations introduced by the British in those four years were astounding considering the starting points for each of the main 1914 combatant nations. And if victory is any metric by which to judge military success and most people who DO KNOW about such things would say that that is an important, if not THE most important, marker then over those hundreds of years you were wittering on about earlier on, then we have done far, far better than many we have had to come up against - and believe me GUEST there IS overwhelming evidence of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM

Magaret Macmillan,

The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

Teribus, dear boy, as I have refrained from contributing anything at all to the substantive in this thread, I would thank you for not dragging me in for your contumely as if I have. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:38 PM

What Sheffield really says,

"One undeniable fact is that Britain and its allies, not Germany, won the First World War. Moreover, Haig's army played the leading role in defeating the German forces in the crucial battles of 1918. In terms of the numbers of German divisions engaged, the numbers of prisoners and guns captured, the importance of the stakes and the toughness of the enemy, the 1918 'Hundred Days' campaign rates as the greatest series of victories in British history.

Even the Somme (1916) and Passchendaele (1917), battles that have become by-words for murderous futility, not only had sensible strategic rationales but qualified as British strategic successes, not least in the amount of attritional damage they inflicted on the Germans."

"He(Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM

Rag,
And only idiots like you believe everything that you read.

I believe the historians when they all say the same thing.
Only an idiot would imagine that they knew more about history than they do!

Jim,
If that is true If you claim the war was well led -

I am not an historian and make no claims about history.
I do claim that all the historians say our leadership was competent, and they do know about all those issues you listed.

Guest,
Dereliction of duty, as Sheffield, a historian, noted.

No he did not.
You made that up. A silly lie from a silly man ashamed of his identity (Musket.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest - if you must know
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:18 PM

The person behind the anonymous moniker Teribus appears to be someone who should restrict their internet usage if they can't get beyond dismissing anyone who doesn't share his personality disorder.

Regarding the original post, I feel it is jingoism these days on the back of what was commemoration of those the original cenotaph standers actually knew.

Old men who cannot come to terms with not being heroes in the eyes of those who see as as abhorrent coupled with politicians and clergy for whom war is convenient. Look at how we are forgetting welfare, NHS, social care and equitable spending in the last week because the government, thankful as ever to ISIS, are taking the opportunity to spend what they have on boosting their ability to control people, security and yes, irrelevant military spending that is neither designed nor competent to deal with disillusioned communities and countries we fuck with.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:05 PM

Well, apart from, once again, I have never disputed any historical facts, I don't carry on arguing with someone who I have already stated adds nothing to the discussion do I teribumkins?

Who's the fool now?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

"only idiots like you believe everything that you read.

Some of us read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come to a reasoned conclusion based on ALL the evidence we have digested, not just the evidence that suits our preconceptions.

You have shown time and time again you are incapable of such reasoned analysis."

Do we believe everything that we read? I don't believe much of what A.J.P. Taylor wrote about the First World War. I certainly do not believe or agree with the conclusions drawn by many of the 1929/1969 "revisionists" (Especially the likes of Alan Clark who like Jom just "Made Up Shit") Why? Because others followed who studied and researched the period armed with far better knowledge and new and far better information from a far greater, varied and wider range of sources - and their conclusions were vastly different from the idiotic likes of "Donkeys", "Blackadder Goes Forth" and "Oh What A Lovely War" (I know the latter was dear to the heart of someone once married to Ewan MacColl - which means that Jom has swallowed all that shit ""hook-line-and-sinker). Would those be the sources that some of you (For some read "The Musktwats", Raggytush, The Rotund Balding Gnome and Steve Shaw) "read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come" up with a load of complete and utter bollocks that doesn't even withstand the most cursory challenge. All in all it seems a bit strange because to date we have:

1: Dave the rotund gnome
2: Ragged Arse
3: Steve Shaw

All professing that they all know very little about the First World War, yet here we have Ragged Arse stating that he believes that they have "read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come to a reasoned conclusion based on ALL the evidence we have digested" Well I would have said having considered and digested that information that over the course of the last 18 odd months we've been discussing this subject that by know if indeed you had done as you have stated you have done, you would ,or should by now know a great deal about the subject - and yet you don't, in fact you are as clueless today as you were when all this started as an attempt to bully and drive Keith A from this forum - an attempt that I am pleased to say has failed spectacularly.

As for the bit about just believing the evidence that suits your preconceptions - that is precisely what you have done throughout. Do you actually want me to detail the stuff that you have claimed as being true yet cannot provide a single shred of evidence to back up your statements. Not once have you been able to challenge a single thing stated by either myself, Keith A, Lighter, GUEST# and others. All you have succeeded in doing is to make yourselves out to be complete and utter fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said I may not know much about history, but I do know about humanity. Haig and Co. may have been the best generals in the world, with the backing of historians and the adulation of the press but they still callously sent thousands of men to their deaths. OK, call them the heroes that won the war but don't forget the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:27 PM

Keith
**** Paxman - **** your historians
You claim to have "made a life-long study of WW1
If that is true If you claim the war was well led - YOU EXPLAIN SEBASTAPOL, LOOS, THE FIRST DAY OF THE SOMME, THE AMMUNITION COCK-UP
you have persistently hidden behind historians you have nott red by misquoting or only partially quoting them
When this is pointed out to you, yo ignore it, go on with your claims, the claim that nobody else had given proof you have lied.
You are the most dishonest and shameless contributor to this forum
If you have "made a lifelong study of th war, explain the aboove, and tell us why the war was well led and not the simple bu#tcchery of sending men to be slaughtered as fast as they could get them under their command - where are the tactics that made it a "well conducted war" as you pair of clowns claim?
Failure to answer these points - not a mythical historian - YOU - will confirm what we already know - that the pair of you are mindless jingoists
By the way - which one of you is General Melchett and which Darling?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM

And only idiots like you believe everything that you read.

Some of us read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come to a reasoned conclusion based on ALL the evidence we have digested, not just the evidence that suits our preconceptions.

You have shown time and time again you are incapable of such reasoned analysis.

Oh, by the way, don't bother to tell me the 3 points again I've heard them all before.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM

Rag, you and Jim cling to your myth of incompetent generals.
Only sad old class warriors still believe that, and because they are just sad old class warriors.

You will find no single historian who believes that.
Again you are arguing against the historians about history.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM

And how many armies have you commanded Raggy?

Et tu, T-Bird?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM

You seem to forget you are not replying to me. Haven't you anyone to tug your forelock to today.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:47 AM

And how many armies have you commanded Raggy? How many battles fought with you in command where others have picked the time, the place and the enemy?

I would venture to guess that the answer to both of the above would be NONE - Yet for someone who says they know very little about the War and the period you trot out that rubbish ( Raggytash - 24 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM)

In the vast expanse of your relevant experience Raggy can you tell me how many Generals have resigned in time of war whilst on active service? IIRC "resignation" is not an option open to them, they can protest and complain all they like, they can act and seek dismissal but if done they face the music for it when they reach home.

Oh and for your information on the Somme the horrendous British losses were restricted to one area of quite an extensive front. Joffre insisted on feeding more men into that particular area but Haig refused, instead he reinforced commanders who were making ground and at the end of the battle:

"British and French forces had penetrated 6 miles (9.7 km) into German-occupied territory, taking more ground than any offensive since the Battle of the Marne in 1914."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

He was a General for ***** sake not the teaboy.

You create a fuss, a big one involving governments . You say these bastards are killing all my troops.

You do not stand by and let it happen day after day, week after week, month after months.

OR you resign.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM

Well then GUEST - 24 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM if you are the same prat who posted at 08:02 AM if it was all Haig's fault because he was in Command then it must surely follow that the person who's actual fault it was has to have been the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and at all times from August 1914 until November 1918 he was a Frenchman - Or didn't you know that? You'll be telling us about REDTOPS next.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:47 AM

GUEST - 24 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM

And AFTER November 1916 GHOST?

- German Army had lost the best they had and just simply could not replace them

- That German Army considered by many throughout the world as being the best in the world had been beaten by Britain's first ever citizen army, who now knew with 100% certainty that they would win.

- That German Army come September of 1916 began constructing the Hindenburg Line to their rear and in November 1916 retreated to their new DEFENSIVE position

- The German Commander Falkenhayn was sacked and replaced.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM

Brilliant, blame the French it was all their fault !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:32 AM

"Astonishingly, the grave errors committed by the British High Command at the Battle of Loos were not learnt from and were to be repeated on the first day of the Battle of the Somme which ended on 1 July 1916 in the greatest disaster in the history of the British Army."

Hmmm grave errors committed by the British High Command? Or grave errors imposed upon the British High Command at the insistence of the French Generals who when all said and done were at all times formed the Supreme Allied Commanders in France.

At Loos in August 1915 Haig told Sir John French that the area assigned for his First Army's attack by Joffre was far from suitable (As described by the French General), Haig also advised Sir John French that for the plan to have any chance at all for success the Reserves had to available instantly so therefore had to be held close to the front. Sir John French ignored Haig's advice - As you will no doubt refuse to take my word for it then read the words of a man who was there:

"A great deal of nonsense has been written about Loos. The real tragedy of that battle was its nearness to complete success. Most of us who reached the crest of Hill 70, and survived, were firmly convinced that we had broken through on that Sunday, 25th September 1915. There seemed to be nothing ahead of us, but an unoccupied and incomplete trench system. The only two things that prevented our advancing into the suburbs of Lens were, firstly, the exhaustion of the "Jocks" themselves (for they had undergone a bellyfull of marching and fighting that day) and, secondly, the flanking fire of numerous German machine-guns, which swept that bare hill from some factory buildings in Cite St. Auguste to the south of us. All that we needed was more artillery ammunition to blast those clearly-located machine-guns, plus some fresh infantry to take over from the weary and depleted "Jocks." But, alas, neither ammunition nor reinforcements were immediately available, and the great opportunity passed.
— Richard Hilton, who was present at the battle acting as a Forward Artillery Observation Officer.

In March 1915 the British First Army under Haig attacked at Neuve-Chapelle, All objectives were taken but Sir John French kept the reserves too far to the rear so that they could not deployed when they were needed to exploit the break through - The Germans mounted numerous counter attacks and lost heavily - Jom listen to this next bit, something that none of your 1929 to 1969 historians and playwrights ever heard about because it wasn't known till much later once German records were researched and translated - Neuve-Chapelle so frightened the Germans that it became policy after this battle that for the German Army when facing British Troops the lines of defence had to be doubled in strength and prepared in depth. That was the factor that met Haig's First Army at Loos and once again they very nearly succeeded. Two fuck-ups to Sir John French so he was sacked and replaced by Haig (Under the Buggins's turn system prevalent in the pre-war British Army the job should have gone to Robertson, but he had no experience of combat in France against the Germans, Haig had by now given the Germas a fright on two occasions so at Robertson's insistence Haig took command of the Army in France and he accepted the job of Chief of the Imperial General Staff)

The Somme in 1916 again was a fight picked for the British Army in France by British Politicians at home [David Lloyd George] and French Supreme Commanders with the primary objective of relieving pressure on the French defending Verdun. As at Loos Haig argued that to attack on the Somme was to attack at the wrong place place - Haig wanted to attack in Flanders in 1916, but again as at Loos Haig was over-ruled. The attack had to be made in conjunction with the French and that meant the Somme. However things were going so badly for the French at Verdun that roughly half the French troops who were supposed to have been attacking with the British on the Somme on the right flank of the British were withdrawn and sent to Verdun instead, as the "junior partner" Haig had no say or leverage in the overall scheme of things. The German Commander in the west in 1916 Falkenhayn started the year off promising to bleed the allies white using simple attrition - by the end of 1916 it was the Germans who had been bled white and Falkenhayn was dismissed - the Germans after 1916 knew that they could not defeat either the French or the British on the western front until after they had defeated the Russians in the east. The 1st of July 1916 might have been a bloody day and a disaster for the British Army, but 1916 ended up as being a bloody year for the German Army and a year that they never recovered from, we on the other hand did. It also caused the Germans to build and withdraw to the Hindenburg Line

And as you mentioned Passchendale Jom here we have another instance of David Lloyd George's meddling. Lloyd George completely mesmerized by the promises of the planned Nivelle offensive ordered Haig to attack at Passchendale in order that the ports on the Belgian coast being used by German U-boats could be captured, Haig argued that the ground on the Somme would be better for the tanks he know had at his disposal - Once again the advice and opinion of the man tasked with doing the job was ignored by those sitting hundreds of miles away from the action.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:23 AM

I doubt any of the people you refer to have read Jim's assessment so how can you say they reckon it is shit?

Evidence, references, citations... Come on, we are waiting.

Actually, there were quite a few mistakes. Enough to fill a book. What shall we call the book? I know what, let's call it Donkeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM

Somme 30th June 1916
Aide: What do we do tomorrow General?
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 1 July
Aide: General we got 57,470 casualties 19,240 killed what do we do tomorrow General
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 2 July
Aide: Load more casualties General, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 3 July
Aide: Load more casualties General, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 4 July
Aide: Load more casualties Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 5 July
Aide: Load more casualties Sir, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 6 July
Aide: Loads of dead and maimed Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 7 July
Aide: We've lost a shed of men Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 8 July
Aide: Loads more wounded and killed, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 9 July
Aide: Same as yesterday Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 10 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 11 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the

Somme 12 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 13 July
Aide: Loads more dead and maimed Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 14 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 15 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 16 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 17 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 18 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 19 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 20 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 21 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 22 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 23 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 24 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 25 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 26 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 27 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Some 28 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 29 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 30 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 31 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top


And so on all through August, September, October and into November.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:55 AM

Jim, it was you who decided that Paxman was relevant to this thread.
Rag, he was just the presenter.
The history content came from the University of East Anglia.

Not the perogative of either Historians

Er, it is history Jim. Who else's prerogative? (You think it is yours obviously!)

You've been given examples over and over again - why the hell should I dig out more for you to ignore

You have not. Quotes from the historians all support my views (that is where I got them!) and rubbish yours.

And Jim, in a four year war of a kind never known before, mistakes inevitably were made.
You will find no historian who finds the British leadership incompetent or less effective than that of any other of the armies involved.
You have your opinion, and the people who have studied all the evidence say it is shit.
Sorry Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:18 AM

Anotehr incident deal#t with by Paxman was the Battle of Loos - again a fiasco caused largely by underestimating the opposition - neatly summed up here -
"The failure at Loos led to the removal of General French from his position as commander-in-chief of the British Army and he was replaced by General Haig on 19 December 1915. Despite the severe setbacks, volunteers continued to swell the ranks of Kitchener's New Army which was fortunate because by March 1916 the British sector of the front extended from Ypres to the Somme, the French having abandoned Artois to fight in the infernal cauldron of Verdun.
Astonishingly, the grave errors committed by the British High Command at the Battle of Loos were not learnt from and were to be repeated on the first day of the Battle of the Somme which ended on 1 July 1916 in the greatest disaster in the history of the British Army."
Dare we mention Gallipoli?
Would you likje to tot up the number of dead that resulted because of these cock-ups
Good leadership my arse.
It was the job of the leaders to send the soldiers they had at their disposal (excellent word to describe their job) over the top in enough numbers to make headway - how long did it take to take Passchendaele, how many lives were expended and what was gained at the end of it?
That is good butchery, not good leadership.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:54 AM

"That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;"
Not the perogative of either Historians or TV presenters
"If that is true give an example."
You've been given examples over and over again - why the hell should I dig out more for you to ignore
You really aren't important enough with your quaint jingoism to put in any more time - you fake the attitudes of historians you haven't read and you ignore everything they have to say.
By the way - Paxman dealt with some of the military disasters of the war caused by shoddy leadership - the "wrong shell" fiasco by Kitchjener being a prime example.
Another case of your taking somebody out of context to back up your jingoism
Jim Carroll