BS: Armistice Day (debate)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:18 AM

I'm not going to repeat it. Just that you don't have to look more than a couple of sentences in...


Generally, how can any views be debated in this thread? It is based on posting snippets from other sources and challenging people to defy the subjective view of someone who isn't even in our debate?

You'll never get anywhere with this approach. Some of us are capable of forming views based on years and multiple opportunities for learning. A bit difficult when you are up against someone who needs the comfort blanket of an off the shelf opinion of someone who isn't part of this debate so cannot be questioned.

Something about organ grinders and monkeys.....

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:50 AM

Here are the sentences you refer to.

"Like one of Field Marshal Haig's family whiskies, Max Hastings is a dram that steadily improves with age.
His own trenchant views on war, and caustic opinions of the commanders who ran them, tended to obtrude too obviously in his early works, suggesting that if only he had been present at key military conferences costly errors would have been avoided.
However, Hastings's recent massive volumes on his specialist subject, the Second World War, have shown why his position as Britain's leading military historian is now unassailable."

None of it refers to his work on WW1.
Has has done no previous work on WW1, so your claim is rubbished.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 07:17 AM

Some of us are capable of forming views based on years and multiple opportunities for learning.

Some of us a capable of reading history, and forming views based on established historical fact.
Some of us do not regard sitcoms as an opportunity for learning.

A bit difficult when you are up against someone who needs the comfort blanket of an off the shelf opinion of someone who isn't part of this debate so cannot be questioned.

Hastings is only one of the many historians I have referred to.
You made a false claim about him.
I exposed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 08:15 AM

I was going to say you are delusional, then perhaps not reading your own words, then perhaps less nice thoughts.

Then you defended bigotry on the pope thread.

Good day to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 09:40 AM

Classic!
When losing argument, switch to personal attack, making up smears.

My only contribution to the pope thread was to ask these questions, without any comment.

"Does that include those gays who oppose it?
Does that include those who have no issue with sexuality but just have the traditional view of what the institution of marriage is and should be?"

Not defending or attacking anything, just asking.

On this thread, I argued just 3 things.
1.That overall the army was well led.
I know this from reading history.

2.That Britain had to try and stop the invading German armies.
Again, that is not questioned by historians.

3.People mostly volunteered because they understood that.
This is from The Daily Mirror on the day war was declared.

"Why There is War.
The following statement was issued from the Foreign Office last night: Owing to the summary rejection by the German Government of the request made by His Majesty's Government for assurances that the neutrality of Belgium would be respected, His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin has received his passport, and His Majesty's Government has declared to the German Government that a state of war exists between Great Britain and Germany as from 11pm on August 4."

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 09:46 AM

Daily Mirror headlines on day war declared.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror01_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 11:03 AM

Keith A of Hertford does appear to enjoy being hoist by his own petard. He defends the "masters of war" in a manner that goes some way to explain why simple folk were taken in by the jingoistic propaganda of the government(s) of the day, leading to the awful waste of life that is nowadays somehow celebrated. So long as you are an innocent victim of the winning side. If you were on the losing side, your luck by mere geography makes you evil in the eyes of fools.

Great Britain shall be celebrating going to ear next year. Those of us who find that somewhat odd and distasteful heed look no further than Mr A of Hertford to see why it makes sense to the British government.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket noting
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 11:08 AM

Poor bugger. I bet he had a bloody iPad too!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 03:05 PM

He defends the "masters of war"
I do not defend anyone.
I base my views on the findings of historians.
That is how rational, intelligent people come to understand times before their own.
Where do your views come from?

simple folk were taken in by the jingoistic propaganda of the government(s) of the day,

Who are you to call other people simple?
Read the Daily Mirror headlines I linked to.
They had clear, dispassionate information about what was happening, and made decisions based on facts just like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:35 PM

leading to the awful waste of life that is nowadays somehow celebrated.

Celebrated?
You must be a mad person.
Or an American.
In Europe this tragedy still haunts us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:51 PM

"That is one more historian to add to my list."

More unmitigated BS from him who reads only the first couple of sentences (by his own admission).

"All this is fair enough, if hardly original. (The late John Terraine was making the same point back in the 1960s.) But in Hart's worm's-eye view there is a danger that the real grand strategic significance of the year is lost. Broadly, the troops that Ludendorff rushed to the Western Front for his offensives after Russia's collapse could not compensate for the great inexhaustible drafts of fresh blood pouring across the Atlantic into France, as the United States rode to the rescue of the exhausted Anglo-French. The psychological impact of America's arrival in the war on allies and enemies alike can hardly be over-emphasized.
Nevertheless Hart is a clear, down-to-mud writer who refuses – as some of his revisionist colleagues do not – to pretend that war is anything other than unmitigated Hell. He has chosen his sources well – from both sides of the lines – and his book is a magnificent tribute above all to 'the man who won the war': the British Tommy."

Reading a little more (I know it's difficult for you, but worth the effort), he is hardly in the Max ("Blimp") Hastings, or the K.a of H. school of revisionist history.

In fact the bottom line is that he is much closer to Owen and Sassoon than to 'Orrible 'Astings, who believes it right to execute shell shocked servicemen.

If "Maximum Penalty" had his way, half our Falklands and Gulf veterans would be dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:57 PM

"Those of us who find that somewhat odd and distasteful heed look no further than Mr A of Hertford to see why it makes sense to the British government."

And why, 100 years on, we still MUST remember, to prevent such warmongers and their pet revisionists from persuading another generation to become sacrificial lambs to their territorial ambitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 04:54 AM

I am not going to be drawn into discussing the US contribution.
It was welcome indeed and hastened the end.

Your historian defended Haig.
The other sentiments were from the reviewer.
I welcome the recognition given to the Tommy.
I came to this thread in anger at their denigration as ignorant, jingoistic dupes.
They were not.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 05:32 AM

More about Hart's book.
He is on my list.

"The historiography of the Great War has changed dramatically in recent times. Serious students have long since abandoned the Lions Led By Donkeys approach to the war and academics like the late Paddy Griffith and Professor Gary Sheffield have championed the formal approach to our understanding of how the conflict was really fought. But in many respects this new thinking has hardly left the lecture room. Working as a battlefield guide with thousands of members of the public one does not have to be a mind reader to know where the majority of those who start the tour stand when it comes to the command and conduct of battles like the Somme: slaughter, butchers, tin-pot generals are all common phrases. After a few days of looking at the ground, hearing the problems of command with little control, seeing how the conflict was ever evolving and how much training went into the later battles, most returned changed, and not a little challenged on many levels. That is what the First World War has long needed in print – the whole war in a broad brush stroke but with no attempt to dilute. And perhaps Peter Hart's book is it."

"As we move into the unknown territory of the Great War Centenary we need books like Hart's. We need to know that the war was a conflict the veterans were not ashamed of, we need to know where it's commanders sit in the wider picture but equally we need to understand what a catastrophe it was: to his credit, unlike some revisionist historians, Peter Hart does not exclude the human element."
http://ww1centenary.net/2013/04/02/ww1-books-the-great-war-by-peter-hart/

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 05:42 AM

By 1918 the British had mastered a new kind of industrial warfare, the nature of which no one had understood in 1914, and which, with tanks and aircraft, heavy artillery and integrated arms, tipped the balance against defensive trench warfare and played the decisive role in the final victory.

Such a thesis is at loggerheads with the idea of the war as futile butchery (and of Haig as the British butcher) that is summed up by the interwar "literature of disenchantment" (Robert Graves, Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen) and expressed, for most people nowadays, by Owen's haunting poetry. Yet the military historians, to their chagrin, feel that they have lost this battle and that Owen's "pity of war" vision commands popular perceptions of the conflict.

Perhaps Hart's book will contribute to a sea change in our understanding of the war during the years of the centenary. It has a lot to recommend it in this regard. Much of the "revisionist" British military history has been written in a narrowly national framework, whereas the fighting in the two world wars was, by definition, transnational and has to be explained as such, not least regarding the "enemy"
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/the-great-war-by-peter-hart.html

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 06:18 AM

"Much of the "revisionist" British military history has been written in a narrowly national framework, whereas the fighting in the two world wars was, by definition, transnational and has to be explained as such, not least regarding the "enemy"

A point which you, in your adamantine "Germans evil, British good" point of view, would seem to have misunderstood completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 09:04 AM

The regime in Germany was autocratic and anti democratic and yes, worse than the democracies it sought to enslave.
1914 as 1939.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 08:26 AM

Some extracts from a relevant piece in The Guardian.
(I assume Musket has no objections to that publisher)
It predates anything Hastings published on WW1.

"Lloyd George's war memoirs, like the writings of Siegfried Sassoon, belong to the category of "literature of disillusionment". The Goat had thought differently in August 1914. Initially sceptical, he rapidly came to see, like the rest of the cabinet, that Britain was faced by a grave threat to national security. Modern scholarship gives little support to the accidental war thesis. The drafters of the Versailles treaty had it broadly right after all."

"The first world war began for two fundamental reasons. First, decision-makers in Berlin and Vienna chose to pursue a course that they hoped would bring about significant political advantages even if it brought about general war. Second, the governments in the entente states rose to the challenge. At best, Germany and Austria-Hungary launched a reckless gamble that went badly wrong. At worst, 1914 saw a premeditated war of aggression and conquest, a conflict that proved to be far removed from the swift and decisive venture that some had envisaged."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/08/first-world-war-causes-deliberate-accident

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 08:51 AM

I notice the main antagonist in this thread has introduced the term "democracy" to support his idealistic simple position.

Perhaps he can make use of his access to Google once more and tell us which year The United Kingdom recognised universal suffrage and became a democracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 09:21 AM

Democracy is an evolving process.
In 1914, Britain and others were committed to it.
The brutal, militarist regime in Berlin was committed to its destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 09:31 AM

BBC history site.
"An Allied victory led to the maintenance and even extension of liberal democracy in Europe. A German victory would have snuffed it out. When the German army appeared to be on the verge of victory in spring 1918, the Kaiser crowed that this was the vindication of monarchy and autocracy over democracy."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 07:29 PM

English state education between the late 1880s and 1914 ended at age 14, many teachers taught the farmers sons (lucrative) and used the sons of the labourers as whipping boys (source, my father's memories of the time), and the military definition of literacy at the time was "able to write own name".

Sure they all knew what they were getting into. They could figure out the posters on every wall.

Oh, wait a minute, THAT was the propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 02:01 AM

They could read and write perfectly well.
They had access to a free press.
Look at the Daily Mirror headlines I linked to.
The reasons for war dispassionately and accurately set out.
They would be on the newsstands and shouted in the street by the vendors.
It was common knowledge.

It is you who are ignorant, not them.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 02:45 AM

Read about James Tate.
He left school at 14 but was working as a clerk when he lied about his age to join up.
Read his letters. Highly articulate and literate.

He was eventually sent back from the front because of his age, but he rejoined when he was old enough.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/humanfaceofwar_gallery_08.shtml

The Daily Mirror, outbreak of war.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror01_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 07:32 AM

And who would "they" be Mr Hertford?

My Grandfather was in a reserved occupation and couldn't volunteer for military service unless he left his job first. He used to tell us of the disgust people had for him and others and how the government came out with a badge for them to wear as the propaganda was so successful.

He said he could start a pillow factory with all the white feathers he was given.

He also said that history will ultimately be kinder to those who failed their men. He was a canny man my Granddad.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 07:51 AM

One of my grandfathers was in a reserved occupation.
He applied twice to be released but was refused.
My other grandfather was given a white feather on his wedding day, despite being in the Navy!

The government did not need to encourage these things.
People desperately afraid for loved ones at the front resented any they perceived to be shirking their duty.

All this is well documented.
Some people were reluctant to serve.
Conscription was eventually required.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 05:47 AM

Critics believe the Government is formulating its plans based on a
narrow view, articulated by war poets such as Wilfred Owen, Siegfried
Sassoon and Robert Graves and later cemented in popular culture by
Joan Littlewood's hit musical Oh! What a Lovely War.
According to this interpretation, it was a futile, avoidable and
unnecessary war, the brutality of which was made worse by the
incompetence of the generals in charge.
In recent years, this has been increasingly challenged, with
historians arguing that, like the Second World War, it was a fight for
survival against a Germany bent on European domination. As such it was
neither accidental nor futile but just and necessary.

"But there has to be something beyond remembrance and wreath laying.
Otherwise we have failed these men. They didn't join up to die. They
joined up to fight for freedom."
Maj Gen Mungo Melvin, president of the BCMH, said: "The generation who
fought thought it was a war worth fighting, and the commission takes
the view that there was a great deal of sacrifice, but none the less
it was fought with reason.
"British soldiers, sailors and airmen fought for their country, for
freedom and a set of values they felt very deeply about. These aspects
are often overlooked."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10037507/Historians-
complain-Governments-WW1-commemoration-focuses-on-British-defeats.html

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 05:50 AM

Sorry, premature ejaculation.

"Critics believe the Government is formulating its plans (for centenary commemoration) based on a
narrow view, articulated by war poets such as Wilfred Owen, Siegfried
Sassoon and Robert Graves and later cemented in popular culture by
Joan Littlewood's hit musical Oh! What a Lovely War.
According to this interpretation, it was a futile, avoidable and
unnecessary war, the brutality of which was made worse by the
incompetence of the generals in charge.
In recent years, this has been increasingly challenged, with
historians arguing that, like the Second World War, it was a fight for
survival against a Germany bent on European domination. As such it was
neither accidental nor futile but just and necessary.

"But there has to be something beyond remembrance and wreath laying.
Otherwise we have failed these men. They didn't join up to die. They
joined up to fight for freedom."
Maj Gen Mungo Melvin, president of the BCMH, said: "The generation who
fought thought it was a war worth fighting, and the commission takes
the view that there was a great deal of sacrifice, but none the less
it was fought with reason.
"British soldiers, sailors and airmen fought for their country, for
freedom and a set of values they felt very deeply about. These aspects
are often overlooked." "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10037507/Historians-
complain-Governments-WW1-commemoration-focuses-on-British-defeats.html

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 06:24 AM

Cripes, are you lot still at it?

"The past is a foreign country" where things are done differently for reasons we can only guess at.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 08:52 AM

desperately afraid for loved ones at the front

Ah yes, but who SENT them to the front, and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 09:05 AM

Who sent them?
Their country.
Why?
To prevent their country and others being enslaved by a cruel, brutal, militarist, tyranny.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,DPerson626
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 01:46 PM

There will be hundreds of reasons for WWl given and most will probably have some merit, but for me Armistice Day was the day when we had a parade down Main Street in which the community notables rode, the High School band paraded and the veterans of that terrible war marched, some wearing those wrap around leggings of the Army at that time.

I was a child of the Great Depression, born in 1928 and raised by poor, working class parents who should be nominated for sainthood. The Armistice Day parade was an excuse for the entire community to come together, and the most striking part of it, for me, was the flag passing by. When that happened the people on both sides of the street stood a little straighter and everyone placed their hand over their heart in salute to the colors. I miss that.

People back then loved their country. Not for anything it did for them, in fact it did very little to hlp them, and they didn't expect it to, but they loved their country just because it was their country. We could use some of that today.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 02:00 PM

To prevent their country ...being enslaved by a cruel, brutal, militarist, tyranny.

So you actually believe Germany had a snowball's chance in hell of invading occupying and taking over the British Isles?

Now THERE'S your problem.....

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 02:52 PM

That"Cruel, brutal, militarist,tyranny" had trade unions, a free press, the first social welfare system in Europe, as well as a democratically elected parliment voting rights for all adult males(not just property owners). As to the "autocratic monarch" he was the oldest grandson of Queen Victoria, lest we forget....

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket BIG GRIN
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 03:06 PM

Eyup Keith!

Haven't looked at this thread for a while, what with being disgusted by your support for the worm Akenhateon and all that.

I was curious as to whether all the dissent to the new official government line was just me?

Seems like you are still the majority of your own delusion. You know, as you cling to numbers of opinions in your substantiating jingoistic revision, perhaps you might count the number on this thread, exclude me if you must, who point out the flaws in your / journalists attempts to rewrite history?

There was a time when if Victoria and, I think I was told, two offspring died in the same accident, (they often were on the same train) then the Kaiser would have been King. Patriotism and tyranny.... Wonderful bed mates.

I notice you concede above that the Tommies were so happy to sign up, they didn't need conscription of course, but introduced it anyway. No need to execute innocent youngsters either but cruel, brutal, militaristic tyranny being what it is eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 03:09 PM

... whereas Tsar Nicholas was a classical tyrant. (Yes, the kaisers were no better morally, but had less personal power.)

It is not countries who prepare wars, not simple soldiers either, but governments and pressure groups. Citizens who love their country (whatever that means) must demand from their governments responsible politics before any war. Not appeasement or pacifism, but peacefulness and peacemaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 03:45 PM

perhaps you might count the number on this thread

On matters of History, I will be swayed by a few professional historians over any number of ignoramuses such as yourself.
As you say, "historians should know better"!

The historians all refer to the sad fact that the general population still believe the old discredited myths.

What is this "new official government line" you have just made up?
The historians are bemoaning that the government seems determined to pander to the old myths still believed by the great unwashed.
You should be pleased Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 03:59 PM

I will be swayed by a few professional historians

Correction: Read "a few professionial ignoramuses"

Against any superior number or real historians who hold the opposing view.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 05:22 PM

Against any superior number or real historians who hold the opposing view.

How many have you found Greg?
None right?
Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 05:58 PM

Make of it what you may, Tsar Nicholas II bore a remarkable resemblance to his cousin, King George V. Neither were likely to be confused for their Cousin Willhelm II. It seems very much like they were more connected to each other than to the social and economic realities which they held sway over.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 02:47 AM

Musket thinks that "historians should know better" (like he does!) and Greg describes them as "professional ignoramuses."

We have a simple choice.
Should we believe the historians, or these two swaggering buffoons?

Tough choice!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:35 AM

"The historians all refer to the sad fact that the general population still believe the old discredited myths."

Is it just barely possible that the reason for that is that the general public are correct, or are you now claiming that the general public are too ignorant to know what is going on?

I seem to remember you having difficulty with that concept when it related to farm labourers, who made up the bulk of Haigh's cannon fodder.

Maybe those historians aren't the only ones in the army who are in step.

Maybe they are the ones who aren't, and the "discredited myths" are the truths they are trying to hide.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:49 AM

I think that on matters of History, historians know more than us.

We learn our History from historians, if we are intelligent.
Otherwise we create a false History based on our preconceptions.

To the people of 1914, it was current affairs not History.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 08:15 AM

Ok Keith.

Let's start a thread discussing historians. Even better, those describing c20 military history.

WW1 has been flogged more than a dissenting Tommy so let's turn to WW2.

The game is simple. You cut and paste a historian then call anyone disagreeing with a professional historian thick.

Fancy starting with David Irvine? Or is it Irving? Must get facts right when Keith is around. Otherwise he picks you up on detail to hide him being clueless on the actual subject. ...







You get worse. You do.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 09:06 AM

"Great Britain shall be celebrating going to ear next year." - GUEST, 29th Nov 13 - 11:03 AM

Where's "ear"? And where ever it is, isn't it relative? Or did you actually mean to make the ludicrous and totally incorrect statement that - Great Britain shall be celebrating going to war next year - which is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Several European Nations will be commemorating the 100th anniversaries of the events that marked the passage and course of the "Great War" - to those who actually had to fight through it and live through it, they would tell you that there was nothing at all "great" about it - apart from the horrendous degree of suffering caused.

But in general having followed the discourse Keith A of Hertford is basically right on the money:

1. That overall the army was well led.

The British Army in general was well led it was the only allied army left capable of mounting any serious offensive effort by the early summer of 1918. After Verdun the French were finished and the American contribution in 1918 was only symbolic, their main contribution was psychological.

2. That Britain had to try and stop the invading German armies.

Again, correct. The corner stone of British foreign policy since 1700 until our entry into the EEC has been that no single country in Europe should be allowed to become undisputed masters of Europe. The 75,000 strong BEF in 1914 stopped the Schlieffen Plan in its tracks, although contemptibly small in numbers they were still the most effective infantrymen on the planet (Look up what the firing exercise known as the "mad minute" was to give you an idea). All through the course of the war the British mounted offensive after offensive and beat off the subsequent German attacks including their last gasp attack in the spring of 1918 against the British Fifth Army under General Hubert Gough when the German Armies from the Eastern Front were moved West, the British gave ground but did not break and run, costing the Germans some 230,000 casualties.

3. People mostly volunteered because they understood that.

As part of that view on the "Mastery of Europe" that no European conqueror should control the waterways and coastline of Europe opposite the Thames Estuary - hence the creation of the small state of Belgium and the Treaties signed to guarantee its Sovereignty. I had two grandfathers who fought in the First World War and both were fully aware of why they fought, to suggest that the vast majority were conned into fighting a war that had nothing to with them is idiotic. Newspapers actually contained news in those days and people of all classes did read and understand them.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 11:12 AM

A great pity that history, the people of Europe and my Granddads didn't have the wonderful learning, understanding and faith in jingoism that the mighty Teribus and Keith A. hole of Hertford portray.

Just think, if it wasn't for newspapers reporting news, we might have had to resort to propaganda. If it wasn't for education, universal suffrage and cosmopolitan thinking by all those people with world views, we might have had to resort to things that recent revisionists play down, such as

Marches through towns to impress young ladies to get their men to join them.
Recruiting sergeants waiting outside pubs to get them whilst pissed.
Women being told of their duty to give white feathers to any man without a uniform.
Draconian punishment for being shell shocked.
Capital punishment for those for whom the penny had dropped.

After all, every soldier knew their duty. Sadly, many thought so.

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 01:54 PM

The corner stone of British foreign policy since 1700 until our entry into the EEC has been that no single country in Europe should be allowed to become undisputed masters of Europe.

So was the declared policy of all other powers including German, and their newspapers offered "news" that the other countries were now trying to become such masters. As someone mentioned upthread, the French and British governments did not really trust each other either - let alone Belgium. Alliances were forged in order to win, not by moral criteria.

Frenchmen in 1914 (including two of my grand-uncles) were certainly right to defend their country once the disaster was there. This must not lead us to glorify or "celebrate" their government - as my grandmother, their sister, clearly understood and later told me. (She also told me that the British soldiers had a completely distorted image of continental Europe - but that should not be news to anybody.) Of my distant German relatives I know nothing at all, but I read that German and Austrian soldiers were about as convinced of their cause being good, as French and British were.

Newspapers were among the main culprits, and often they did not have to lie, just to select. (I wrote that before, sorry.)

"Well led" in terms of military technique is a completely different category. Its moral component is about weighing human lives against chances for victory. Not easy to decide by philosophy and in practice. However, the idea of sacrificing lives to defend one's society's claims is anchored deeply in our genes, simply because those who did not have those genes were exterminated long before the others had even evolved to become homo sapiens, and sophisticated inter-society morals were invented. "Right or wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 03:35 PM

If only the professional Historians could understand History like you Musket.
How silly they must feel.
They really should know better like you do.

Just who do you think you are you posturing, pretentious fool?

Troubadour.
the "discredited myths" are the truths they are trying to hide.
Do you not see how mad that is?
A conspiracy of all the historians to hide the truth!
Why would the government or anyone care what historians say about events of a century ago?
Why would Historians go along with it?
Why would no-one expose and denounce them?

How is that easier to believe such bizarre constructions, than that historians are just publishing their findings and research like historians do?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 03:50 PM

If only the professional Historians could understand History like you Musket.

You mean your 6 per "professional historians" out of thousands, correct?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 03:57 PM

Nope.
500.