BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:52 AM

I know that there are currently two other threads running wrt the "Great War" but this post specifically applies here.

Tomorrow a letter written home by General Sir Walter Congreve VC is being put on public display.

The letter mentions the Christmas Truce that the General witnessed and reported on. Congreve himself did not walk out into "No-Man's Land" as he thought the presence of a General would prove too tempting an opportunity for the Germans and that shots might be fired.

He did send someone to report back to him and the exchange is recorded by Congreve as follows:

"'My informant, one of the men, said he had had a fine day of it & had smoked a cigar with the best shot in the German army, then not more than 18.

'They say he's killed more of our men than any other 12 together but I know now where he shoots from & I hope we down him tomorrow."

'I hope devoutly they will.' (Congreve's comment)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 04:57 PM

"Hands off that coffin, or I'll break your leg"
Did I say that - shit, I apologise wholeheartedly?
What are you on Mac?
It seems it's you who needed the rabies shot - too late now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 04:20 PM

"Hands off that coffin, or I'll break your legs..."

Don't you feel a bit embarassed?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 03:08 PM

"I tried to reason with Jim and Musket."
That quote was written lass than four hours ago - we were not here - you were sliming behind our backs - you are a lying shit
You are totally out of your head
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 02:35 PM

That quote was posted 30 Dec 13 - 04:40 AM this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 02:31 PM

"That old post was about you two."
That "old post" is about three hours old
You are insane, aren't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 01:54 PM

That old post was about you two.
Look back and see.
Musket, my beliefs are those of current historians.
You imagine you know more than they do, but you do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 12:47 PM

"I tried to reason with Jim and Musket."
Don't yo dare bring me into this you obnoxious little shit.
Your "REASONING" is to scream "thread drift" whenever you find yourself in a corner
You have been told over and over again that you have no authority on this Forum - your contempt for democracy seems about as equal as your contempt for the country you claim to be proud of.
Leave me out of threads I have chosen not to participate in or I'll report you, you slimenball
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Musket
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 12:17 PM

No. It's about another excuse to push disgraced jingoism.

You make a mockery of the millions of men who died for reasons other than what they were told to believe and forced to comply.

You have never tried to reason. You trawl the internet grasping at snippets of out of context bullshit and call anyone a liar who has the sense to see through you and it.

You are a bloody disgrace Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM

I tried to reason with Jim and Musket.
"You are now rehashing the current WW1 thread arguments on this thread.
Why?
This one is about the Xmas truce. "

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 11:34 AM

Yes.
There was an earlier thread debating the war, but when this one was started as ever some people could not restrict themselves to one thread and insisted on changing the subject of this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 11:04 AM

Strange that this thread about this remarkable episode of peace in the middle of conflict has been mostly submerged in a pretty pointless and frequently ill-tempered battle royal, a bit like a funeral where the guests fight over the custody of the coffin.

But I came across an item in a website of the old school which I felt like posting. We always seem to think about the Truce in terms of soldiers exchanging ciggies and impromptu football, and this is a reminder of another aspect:

"Two OBs killed at the end of December 1914 were buried during the "Christmas truce" with German officers present to pay their respects. In two separate places along the front, Lt Bernard Bernard Warwicks and Lt Richard Nugent Scots Gds."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 12:34 PM

They discussed the question of why the soldiers kept fighting.
Why they did not desert.
Vengeance was suggested by several.
Sheffield said that from his extensive research on contemporary diaries and letters, the main reason British soldiers fought was to save Britain from the fate of Belgium and N.France.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Mar 14 - 12:05 PM

I wonder if anyone else saw "The Pity of War" BBC2.
In it, Nial Ferguson put forward his ideas, and then debated them with a very impressive panel of historians.

Re the British Army, he is very clear that it prevented an early German victory, and that in the end it was the British Army that won the war.

His idiosyncratic theory is that a German victory would not have been a disaster.
One after the other the panel rubbished his view that there was anything benign in what they intended for Europe and the world.

It is still available on iPlayer.
Is anyone else interested enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 11:27 AM

Ah Grishka so the link you linked us to for reference required us to trawl through linked video clips

My link was meant as a service to those who did not know what Keith was referring to. I think we all know what Hastings stands for ideologically. If my post of 24 Feb 14 - 01:23 PM was given to misunderstanding, my later posts should have made my point sufficiently clear. Essentially we are all repeating ourselves.

Basically I do not give a toss about the Arab/Israeli conflict,...

Although once more you failed to catch up with my argument, this is good to know, for any previously unsuspecting reader.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:45 AM

Ah Grishka so the link you linked us to for reference required us to trawl through linked video clips to enable us to find bits that prompted you to give your opinion on them which in your post you present as being those of Max Hastings - getting more ridiculous by the minute.

The First World War started because of what happened in Sarajevo on the 28th June 1914 and the actions and positions adopted by the Austrians and the Germans in the following month - and there was not a single thing that Great Britain could have done at any point from 1900 onwards that could have altered what happened.

Germany and Austria were to blame for the war they could have prevented it happening at anytime during the period 28th July to 31st July 1914 - They didn't as a matter of choice that was entirely theirs!

Basically I do not give a toss about the Arab/Israeli conflict, they've had 66 years to sort something out and they have failed spectacularly to do so. What the "so-called" Palestinians say they are fighting for now is less than they were offered and rejected in 1947 - as far as I am concerned they can all blow each other to bits tomorrow, the more complete a job they make of it the better.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 10:10 AM

That finger pointed at Germany too.

Hardly anyone doubts that "Germany" could and should have avoided the war. Also, the defenders of the Palestinian political class (Hamas or Fatah) are very few. It is either a fallacy or (more often) a propaganda trick to suggest that therefore the respective enemy is completely justified.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:48 AM

In the programme, the question of who could have averted the war was addressed in depth.
That finger pointed at Germany too.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:19 AM

3: Completely missed the bit that you obviously invented where Hastings offers the opinion that Britain could simply opt out of the war - Where did Hastings say that? Rhetorical question Grishka - He didn't say anything even remotely like that - So you revert to the tactic of attributing to him things that he never said (Hardly fair - or honest).

You also missed the point that I made. Hastings says (in one of the video clips linked on that page the other day) something to the effect "Now some argue that Britain should simply have stayed out and leave the continent to the Germans, but this would have been worse because ..." - the point is that he pretends this to be the only existing alternative, and in his arguments convey an impression as if British foreign politics had started in 1914.

In the current video clip, the crucial question "could Britain have averted the war" is addressed. Hastings says he discussed "the puzzle of 1914" with Sir Michael Howard to decide about that. The latter mentions conferences and secret diplomacy - all presumably based on correct facts, but with no chance a priori to answer the question as I understand it. See my earlier messages to this thread.

4: "The simple logic is "the enemy was evil, so we must have been right" ... and will be right in all future wars, since evil influential people will be found in all countries, if we decide to search for them."

Haven't a clue where this came from? In the context of what was stated in the link you provided the sentence quoted above is the most idiotic and simplistic thing I think I have ever read in connection with any historical event.

I was talking about the simplistic logic suggested by Hastings' rhetorics, particularly in the video clips. He is mainly concerned with evil and stubbornness of leaders in Germany and Austria, arguing that these countries were to blame for the war. The question I find more interesting is "Who could have averted the war/s with reasonable results, and is thus guilty of not having done it?".

By an eerie coincidence, I watched an interview with Benyamin Netanyahu the other day, where he justifies the Israeli settlements currently being enlarged. He said something like "We have destroyed our settlements in the Gaza Strip, and are still being attacked - so why bother?" If that were the ultimate art of peace making, nuclear wars would have exterminated mankind long ago.

So you revert to the tactic of attributing to him things that he never said (Hardly fair - or honest).

You misunderstood my remarks, as I said. I have no issue about individual journalists, and no "tactics", just my own points to make. Again I must emphasize that the dispute is not (primarily) about facts, but about ideology and rhetorics. Netanyahu was probably not lying about the rockets from the Gaza Strip, he was just indulging in war rhetorics where peace rhetorics would be in the strong interest of his country and all other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 02:48 AM

Musket, had you forgotten about your honour, or was it your legendary modesty that prevented you mentioning it before?

You will concede that NHS is not famous for its lean and efficient bureaucracy, but for being overburdened with paper shufflers like yourself enjoying a Champagne lifestyle that hard-pressed nurses and doctors can only dream of.
The most suspicious thing about your Dr. was the number of posts he was able to make while supposedly holding a clinic.
I reckon each of your office hours posts is subsidised by NHS to the tune of about a hundred quid!

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 02:10 AM

Grishka, having opened your link and read your post I can only surmise that you must have copied the wrong article in your link:

"Pure Hastings. Note in particular that his world starts in July 1914, and the only alternative he considers is Britain suddenly opting out of the war."

1: July 1914 is not mentioned at all - the "trigger", the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 quite naturally is.

2: The German Schlieffen Plan is alluded to in the following:

"He also argues that once the Germans decided to invade France through neutral Belgium, it was impossible for Britain, mindful of its own position within Europe and a guarantor of the small state's neutrality, to simply stand by."

So in reality, as some details of the Plan were leaked, then here is a reference that means that "Pure Hastings" world as far as this programme goes starts in 1905.

3: Completely missed the bit that you obviously invented where Hastings offers the opinion that Britain could simply opt out of the war - Where did Hastings say that? Rhetorical question Grishka - He didn't say anything even remotely like that - So you revert to the tactic of attributing to him things that he never said (Hardly fair - or honest).

4: "The simple logic is "the enemy was evil, so we must have been right" ... and will be right in all future wars, since evil influential people will be found in all countries, if we decide to search for them."

Haven't a clue where this came from? In the context of what was stated in the link you provided the sentence quoted above is the most idiotic and simplistic thing I think I have ever read in connection with any historical event.

At what point does Max Hastings identify any of the participants as being "evil"? Rhetorical question Grishka - He doesn't.

Anyone who has studied the history of the British isles going all the way back to the time of Alfred the Great of Wessex would have been able to state what was in Britain's best interest as perceived by those in government at the time in response to the events of that summer in 1914. That, allied to Britain's treaty obligations to Belgium did mean that the First World War was completely unavoidable.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

"I am fucking important. Important enough to know what I am talking about."

Not when it comes to this subject you don't and you have demonstrated that quite clearly

As to the "I am fucking important." crack - Only to yourself dear, a veritable "legend in your own lunchtime" you sure as fuck don't impress me.

As to our honours system particularly those awarded to civilians for good works, I wouldn't be too over-awed or impressed by their past selections. "Sir Jimmy Savile" immediately springs to mind, not much Care being exercised within the NHS when he was around eh Tosser?

You did sign off as Tosser didn't you - it does after all describe you to a T?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 03:56 PM

From Grishka's link.(my itallics)
"Through conversations with the world's most eminent World War I scholars and military historians, including Sir Michael Howard, Sir Hew Strachan, Professor John Rohl and Professor Margaret MacMillan, Max explores the key questions surrounding the outbreak of the war and the necessity for Britain to step in."

Not some of the most eminent, THE most eminent.
But what do they know, right Musket?
BBC History ?
"Jackanory" !!

Which letters should we put after your name Your Importanship?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 01:53 PM

Er. Teribus. Less of the bollocks. Keith is right. I am fucking important. Important enough to know what I am talking about. Prince Charles reckoned my gong made me important and he is more famous than you, thank you.

If defence ever wants to take on The NHS deficit they're welcome but until their incompetence is sorted, and the fool Hammond is ducking his responsibilities, I'll stick to advising a public purse spender that is fit for purpose and normal people are rightly proud of.

Tosser

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 01:23 PM

Here is the announcement with a summary. Pure Hastings. Note in particular that his world starts in July 1914, and the only alternative he considers is Britain suddenly opting out of the war. The simple logic is "the enemy was evil, so we must have been right" ... and will be right in all future wars, since evil influential people will be found in all countries, if we decide to search for them. Frightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 10:54 AM

Aha - thought you were talking about acclaimed Ken Burns film, not History According To The Personal View Of Sir Max.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 10:36 AM

"I'll use the term well led to describe the leaders in The NHS, where the term is outcome led rather than propaganda led." - Musket

I would rather think that metric applies itself even more to leaders, both political and military in time of war - I mean for a nation at war what could be more important than the outcome of that war.

Musket you really are a complete and utter arse at times.

Land Rovers?? That all you've got to carp on about? Chevy 3/4 Toners and Willy's Jeeps were good enough for the LRDG and the SAS operating in what was the most heavily mined environment of the Second World War - By the way there is no such thing as a "mine-proof" vehicle (They've been making anti-tank mines for decades)

Reduce the wasteage in the NHS and Welfare Budgets alone and you would double our current Defence Budget.

Between 2005 and 2008 you would have been safer on foot patrol in Sangin District, Helmand Province, than you would have been as a patient admitted to Stafford Hospital's A&E Department.

Gref F Wrong War??? Max Hastings on the Great War - sounds pretty much like the right war to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 10:23 AM

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 09:26 AM

Wrong war, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 04:35 AM

No more Paxman.
Tomorrow 9pm BBC2 "The Necessary War"
"a beautifully composed film" Radio Times.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 04:50 AM

I have no pretensions or delusions of grandeur, unlike you.
Insignificant I am, but I read the words of people who know.
Historians and military historians.

In your arrogant, egotistical fantasy world you actually believe you know more then professionals whose life work it is.
"Those historians should know better" you said.
I accept that they know more than I do, and they definitely know more than an unread, politically motivated but very important administrator like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 04:20 AM

Excellent. Quoting one of the authors to one of the authors. My days at The Healthcare Commission weren't wasted then if you can read it. Find my comments to Francis and really make me feel important, as insignificant Keith calls me.

Oy Keith? Who's an important administrator? Do we have any on these threads? Most important administrators are, to my knowledge, busy racking up deficits at The Ministry of Defence. Probably digging up evidence of how well led our soldiers are and were. Probably still processing the invoices for the Land Rovers we lost to land mines ...

No, I'll use the term well led to describe the leaders in The NHS, where the term is outcome led rather than propaganda led. I'm rather proud to support them in a small way.

A million clinical episodes every 30 hours. If 0.0001% were bad outcomes it would be enough to fill a copy of The Daily Ma*l every day.

WW1 outcomes however.

Well led? Mmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 10:04 AM

Our doctors and nurses.
Lions led by arses?

"The NHS trust which runs Stafford Hospital will be sentenced today for safety breaches which led to the death of a diabetic patient in 2007.

The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust faces an unlimited fine after pleading guilty to failing to ensure the safety of Gillian Astbury, who lapsed into a diabetic coma after a fall.

The Trust, which was at the centre of a public inquiry into its "appalling" standards of care between 2005 and 2009, admitted an offence brought under health and safety law at Stafford Magistrates' Court last October.




At the earlier hearing, the Trust acknowledged it had failed properly to manage and organise hospital services, including patient information systems and processes for communication between staff members"

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 03:29 AM

"Perhaps Gove could take a leaf out of The Dept of Health's book with healthcare regulation. The regs are all outcome based. Apply that to this situation and an inspector would conclude the following;

"Yes, I have reviewed your evidence to say the men were well led and knew what they were letting themselves in for, but the outcome is that they are dead. Lots of them dead in fact. If your evidence of process was robust, there wouldn't be so many dead.

I am issuing a compliance action for gross incompetence, served on the armed forces and politicians of the day, and express no confidence in the cover up being attempted by present incumbents."

Now what were those figures from just one of the NHS Trust Hospitals again?

Oh yes three years 400 to 1,200 deaths, now the reason they cannot actually quantify them couldn't possibly be because of any cover up by managers, administrators and staff could it?

Three years entering a NHS Hospital in the West Midlands of England as an emergency admission and the death toll is 400 to 1,200

Eleven years serving as a combat infantryman in Afghanistan and the death toll is 446 IIRC.

Stafford Hospital:
- Investigation by the Healthcare Commission (Resulting in inadequate explanations - resulted in?)

- A full-scale investigation which reported appalling conditions and inadequacies, resulting in the trust's Chief Executive being suspended on full pay, until he finally left with a rather large "golden handshake". By the way this sterling example of one of the NHS's great captains did not give evidence to any of the enquiries because of health problems (You couldn't make it up could you?) - Bet he didn't book himself into the Stafford Hospital for treatment. On leaving his Chief Executive's post at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust he was appointed to head up another Quango in 2012 (There's a good chap keep drawing the dosh and try not to fuck this one up).

- In July 2009 the Secretary of State for Health announced yet a further independent inquiry into the care provided by the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust, resulting in 18 local and national recommendations and?

- In February 2010 the Secretary of State for Health announced yet another independent inquiry covering all Foundation Trusts looking at the bodies responsible for their commissioning, supervision and regulation.

Now eventually getting back to the topic under discussion and using the parallels introduced by Musket, take a look at how well you think things would be handled by such capable leaders were they dumped with the same challenges that faced the British Army between 1914 and 1918.

You have four years, in that time you must increase the size of the NHS by a factor of 16 (Within two years you must have succeeded in increasing the size of the NHS by a factor of 10), you must build the required infrastructure, manufacture and build all the equipment, recruit and train all the staff covering medical, surgical and administrative disciplines. How do you reckon they would do considering that simultaneously while doing all of that they must also deal with a major pandemic?

Oh and Musket the one thing that you forgot to mention was that potentially everyone in the Army sent to the Front could get killed, only 1 or 2 in 10 did, depending upon which set of statistics you take.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:31 AM

This gave me a bit of a chuckle Christmas, particularly as you are the only contributor to this thread who has been caught out lying and deliberately misrepresenting things:

"Now piss off and stop polluting this forum with your obsessive lying
Jim Carroll"

Shouldn't that more accurately written as follows:

"Now piss off and stop polluting this forum with your obsessive lying Jim Carroll."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:22 AM

Musket, dear chap, of course according to your standards I am not worth arguing with - I don't agree with you. That is the same way you grade your sources of information - you discount anyone or anything that contradicts you.

By the way in time of war would you let us all in on how the conflict for command is resolved between their "duty of care" and the necessity of ordering men into harms way where everybody involved knows in all probability that there will be casualties? Rhetorical question Musket the answer to which is that the former ("Duty of care) doesn't exist. Any wise commander will protect and husband his forces in order to keep them intact as a fighting unit (As the BEF did in France in 1914)

Funny thing is the NHS is based entirely round a "duty of care" and yet it manages to kill and subject to risk what appears to be an ever increasing number of people in addition to those who might be reasonably expected to die due to their medical condition.

The NHS has no idea whatsoever how many Dr, Harold Shipman's there are or have been - Britain's most prolific murderer with at least 250 murders ascribed to him (He was charged and found guilty of only 15, it was two year investigation into his activities that uncovered the others) - The only Doctor ever convicted in Britain of killing his patients.

Cost overspends (Guys Hospital Phase III - what should have cost £29 million ended up costing £152 million)

The Hospitals are filthy super bugs abound.

As for "duty of care" explain QALY (A crude method of making life and death decisions) to us Musket

Scandals such as Alder Hey (Organs taken from dead children without consent), Bristol (Heart surgery), "Post Code Lottery" and the more recent Stafford (Increased incidence of mortality among those admitted as emergencies - get this for numbers involved - between 2005 and 2008 the estimated figures of between 400 and 1,200 more patients died than would have been expected - Musket those people would have been safer on foot patrol in Helmand). In the case of Stafford who has been called to account for it? Nobody, in fact they were promoted, for example "Cynthia Bower, who was from 2006 chief executive of NHS West Midlands, was recruited to run the Care Quality Commission quango."

Now speaking of this Quango - Care Quality Commission:

"The group charged in England and Wales with checking if the care delivered by the NHS is genuinely safe and fit for purpose is the Care Quality Commission, or CQC. Although the CQC describes itself as the "independent regulator of all health and social care services in England", it is in fact "accountable to the public, Parliament and the Secretary of State for Health." and much of its funding comes from the taxpayer. At least one chairman, one chief executive and a board member of the CQC have been singled out for attention by a UK Secretary of State for Health.

There is therefore the potential for a conflict of interest, as both the NHS and the CQC have the same leadership and both are highly susceptible to political interference."

Isn't that the crowd you worked for Musket? Wouldn't crow too much about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 05:50 PM

By pure quirky coincidence I was on my way from the study to the downstairs bathroom by way of the lounge where the TV was on. I just caught a trailer where Mr Paxman was saying 'This is where I and Blackadder disagree...'

I must admit to not following the series that closely (I have it on, but generally am not interested enough to concentrate on it) but that one liner is going to be interpreted by so many people in so many ways I must make sure that I watch the next one closely!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:19 PM

Musket, who has posted "bollocks" about the NHS and what exactly was it?
Jim, "your posting the %80 figure was that the soldiers returning went with the conviction you claimed they left with"

No.
I merely said that over 80% came home, which was correct.
Because they survived, many left a record of their thoughts.
The majority continued to believe the war to have been necessary, as you yourself do, and to support their leadership.
Witness the tens of thousands who stood in the streets on that Winter's day when Haig was buried.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:11 PM

You tell us you are a very important administrator, but what background do you have in military tactics?
Is the answer none?
Experts in that field, military historians, tell us the the British Army was effectively and competently led in WW1.

You are entitled to your opinion, based as it is on nothing but your own non-existent knowledge.
I am more influenced by the thoroughly informed, expert opinion of military historians.
Why would anyone be remotely interested in your opinion of something you know nothing about, and reject that of people who have made it their life study?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:05 PM

By the way, your tabloid inspired bollocks about The NHS was interesting. It at least shows you aren't worth arguing with, as it is a waste of time educating pork. Ignorant pork by pork standards for that matter.

Why should I take your military observations seriously when you can come out with disgraceful irresponsible statements that bear no resemblance to the truth 60 million people know to be different? You don't work for The Daily M*il perchance?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:00 PM

"In that post I say that over 80% came home"
My point was you lied and are still lying - your posting the %80 figure was that the soldiers returning went with the conviction you claimed they left with - you have consistently claimed that I have challenged the figure - you are a liar on both counts
I did not think for one moment you would either withdraw you claim or apoligise - you don't do that sort of thing
Your posting again
Over 80% of soldiers made it home, so we can be sure what they thought
Now piss off and stop polluting this forum with your obsessive lying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:00 PM

"In that post I say that over 80% came home"
My point was you lied and are still lying - your posting the %80 figure was that the soldiers returning went with the conviction you claimed they left with - you have consistently claimed that I have challenged the figure - you are a liar on both counts
I did not think for one moment you would either withdraw you claim or apoligise - you don't do that sort of thing
Your posting again
Over 80% of soldiers made it home, so we can be sure what they thought
Now piss off and stop polluting this forum with your obsessive lying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 11:48 AM

The NHS saves lives, and does it rather well overall. A few never events and a few staff the other 1.3 million staff are ashamed of, but The NHS is something to be proud of. The donkeys in WW1 killed their lions despite their duty of care. Sending waves of men over the top eh? Imagine what they would have done if they weren't good leaders. {chortle}

My point, aimed at anyone with intelligence really so bear with me and see if you can pick anything up from what I say;

The outcome was the shocking brutal loss of life. The process was supposedly "well led." It can be as well led as you like, but the outcome shows it wasn't well led.

Thanks for pointing out they weren't white crosses. I had no idea zzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 10:22 AM

In that post I say that over 80% came home.
I was right.
What is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 10:22 AM

"It looked like the assurances we see in the works of Hastings, Sheffield and others, spewing statistics to prove the outcome bears no relationship to the cause.

The countless white crosses in Mute witness stand..... To what? Being well led?"

Not really sure what all the waffle about the NHS was about - totally meaningless - we are after all discussing whether or not an army was well led or not - Anybody with a modicum of common sense can tell you that for all the £billions that has been thrown at the NHS in terms of organisation and administration it is a moribund farce and totally inefficient - in short a bloody disgrace.

"Countless white crosses in mute witness stand??"

Well for a start no British or Commonwealth troops lie under any "white crosses" there are none - only plain white headstones of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. But there again Bogle has always been good at anti-war rhetoric and sentiment but never really very good at detail.

But taking it at face value, what those white headstones and the black German crosses show is that their young men died at three times the rate that ours did - so I ask you again, if number of headstones/crosses is your metric, which side was better led?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 09:07 AM

"I never claimed anything like that."
Will you stop ******* lying - this is exactly what you said and this is my only response to you %80 clam - I have never disputed the figure, nor do I
If you haven't got the intelligence not to lie about things that are easily retrievable, - at least have the decency to put your hands up to it when you are exposed as the lying little toad that you are.
Not only are you continuing to lie about what I have said, your posting shows you as a liar about claiming that you have only commented on three items.
You lied then and you are lying now.
I made a mistake about the executions, acknowledged that mistake and aplogiesd - it is highly understandable that you failed to recognise the apology - you appear to be unable to tell the difference between them and "snivelling", as you have described it.
The wrong powrred shells were sent - I acvknowledged that as soon as it was pointed out, and I also added that it didn't make the slightest difference to those who were slaughtered and humiliated at mMons because they had been sent the WRONG AMMUNITION
Kitchener resigned and withdrew his resignation - it's all in the book should you ever get round to reading one.
Only a slimy little weasel like you and Trooper Tommy would attempt to make some sort of capital out of slips - especially when they have been acknowledged
By the way - you have shown no sign whatever of having watched yhe programmes, any more than you have of having read a book - as for "a life-long study - please do not repeat that while I'm drinking coffee - Pat has never got the hang of the Heimlich Manoeuver
Carry on lying - diiis-miiiss
Jim Carroll
I am curious to see how you will attempt to explain this away, you don't go in for "snivelling" do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 03:07 PM
Diaries were forbidden but soldiers kept them anyway.
The Imperial War museum has thousands.
Rob Naylor said he has one kept by his Grandad, so that was a silly thing to say Jim.

Letters were censored for locations and activities.
If a soldier was nervous of expressing disillusionment, he would just wait until he got leave.
He would not need to lie in his letters. Just not mention it.

Over 80% of soldiers made it home, so we can be sure what they thought.

So you are talking bollocks again.
All the historians are not fools who need you to explain their job to them.
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)


From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:08 AM

Where - what are their findings?
Sources and links only accepted - not bullshit jingoistic claims by you
You have made claims on the basis of these diaries - where did you get your information - sorry a rhetorical question - you made them up as you make all your 'information" up.
"Over 80% of soldiers made it home, so we can be sure what they thought"
What did they think?
Stop lying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:33 AM

I suppose my time working as a regulator gives me at least some way of looking at such terms as well led.

I wrote a damning report once that basically said that the board of a hospital trust carried out its assurance programme and declared that it was well led. I pointed to the patients lying in their own excrement, high incidence of mortality outliers, infection rates, staff turnover, yadda yadda.

They had a different view to well led than I did it seems. But they had plenty of evidence to try to persuade me otherwise. The Dept of Health seemed to agree with me rather than them, which was fitting as they had asked me to go in and see what assurance looked like. It looked like the assurances we see in the works of Hastings, Sheffield and others, spewing statistics to prove the outcome bears no relationship to the cause.

The countless white crosses in Mute witness stand..... To what? Being well led?



Yes, yes, Keith. Artistic licence. They are rectangular grave stones zzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 08:11 AM

"I challenged your fantasy figure that %80 of the soldiers went away with your equally fantasised claim of their reasons for going in the first place"

I never claimed anything like that.
I did say that "over 80%" survived.

Of courses I watched and rewatched the programmes.
Not like you with the sound off to add your own commentary supporting you.
You imagined it said that objectors were executed.
You imagined it said wrong sized shells were made and supplied.
You imagined it said Kitchener resigned and he was sacked.

I gave statements made to camera by the presenter, slowly and deliberately in true Paxman style.

The British people and army supported the war.
The army was a "devastating" fighting machine.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 07:34 AM

Well Musket I would suppose it would all depend upon what you accept as being "Well Led"

1914: A tiny force outnumbered and attacked by a force outnumbering them 2:1 that managed to delay that attacking force not just once but twice and yet stayed intact as a fighting force to turn and join up with the French to fight on the Marne and stop the German master plan in its tracks? I would say that that force would have to have been well led and well handled or it would have ceased to exist at the first encounter.

The tiny force that was the BEF of 1914 was rapidly expanded so that by 1916 it had over 2 million men in France - Are you honestly attempting to put forward the argument that such a feat can be accomplished by an Army that is badly led and organised?

Those 20 yards you slowly paced out, did you run the thousands of yards made initially and then slowly pace back the yardage lost in the numerous and costly counter-attacks launched by the Germans?

The assaults of 1916 at Verdun and on the Somme that succeeded in bleeding the German Army on the western front white would seem to indicate that it was the Germans who were badly led? Correct me if I am in error here but at the end of 1916 it was the Germans who replaced Falkenhayn, their Army Commander. In 1916 it was the Germans who first began to whisper about the need to sue for peace, not the Entente powers.

Innovation and Generals such as Monash, Plumer, Rawlinson, evolved a completely new way of fighting that broke the deadlock of trench warfare. Is that possible in an Army that is badly led? The Germans, with every apparent military advantage on their side, had been trying to do that since August 1914 - and they had totally failed at every attempt. It was this supposedly badly led British Army that succeeded.

From 1916 onward the Germans knew that every bite the Entente powers took out of their line the Entente powers would hold. Only the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917 allowed the Germans to briefly regain the initiative on the Western front and mount one last ditch effort. What is it they say about repeating your mistakes Musket? Something about the idiocy of repeating something you know doesn't work yet expecting a different outcome? That is precisely what the Germans did in the Spring of 1918, and once again the British and French Forces before them fell back intact, and in good order, to absorb the blow, only to go on the offensive themselves 21 days after the German effort was totally spent. That campaign, called the "100 days offensive" ended the war. Now you tell me which of the two sides was better led in 1918 - the Germans who charged to failure or the British who charged to victory?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 07:34 AM

"I read History so I knew."
Yeah - sure, you do - just like you watch television documentaries.
"What about the 80% figure you challenged me about?"
I challenged your fantasy figure that %80 of the soldiers went away with your equally fantasised claim of their reasons for going in the first place
There has never been a dispute on how many soldiers returned, and if there was, where exactly does that dispute fit into the only three points you have made (or are you about to add a forth?
A reminder:
You have only made statements on:1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;
3: That the British army was not badly led.
Feckin' pair of clowns
Jim Carroll