BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 04:41 AM

"Just another of your made up fantasies."
Your an arsehole Keith
You said yourself that all countries maintain a control on what is said during wars.
The British Government attempted to impose total control on what was made public by law, abandoned the idea and put information control in the hands of the military - everything that published had their blessing.
Coupled with the fact that the popular press in its entirety supported the war and imposed a strict self-censorship of what was published, the public got to know only what the Government wanted them to know - all on record if you ever bothered to read a book.
Your Daily Mail red-herring is exactly as I described - go and read it up.
This evasive nonsense reall has gone far enough as far as I'm concerned.
You have presented an old Empire Days analysis of the war pontificating on and denying many of its aspects that are established fact.
You have surrounded yourself with a team of mythical historical fairies who have never commented on, let alone supported the neanderthal views you have put forward.
You have lied about doing so and have retreated to three point which you claim to be the only things you put forward.
Whenever you are stymied, you scurry behind your phantom friends - this is now the only argument you ever have on all subjects you involve yourself in - "they said it first, I'm only the messenger" - utter and transparent bollocks.
You have been presented with three excellent programmes on te war - each of them cutting the legs from under your case, and have the temerity to claim they support your case.
You have no support - you never had - your war-gaming, gun-nut friend can ionly be considered a liability - he'll be showing us his gun next - he's done that before!!
Yo are a meglomanic nut who has openly declared himself to be "infallible"   
The war has been shown to have been little more than a bloody fight between acquisitive powerful Empires - the fact that their leaders were related makes it a family squabble using the youth of Europe as pawns in their bloody game.
Whoever started it (no argument there) it was ill-conceived, prematurely entered into and badly executed (execution being the operative word as afar as the millions of young men who were sacrificed).
Those who sent those lads to war lied to them to get them to join up, and when that ceased to work, gave them no alternative but to go.
At home, as far as the better-off were concerned, life went on as normal.
The families of those who fought were exploited - many of them became homeless because of that exploitation.
On the front, military advances were planned on calculations of how many lives could be sacrificed.
Dedicated soldiers, some decorated war-heroes who became disillusioned were punished for expressing their views - Sassoon was declared mad by the military for voicing what is now an accepted fact.
You have referred to him and others who were there as "liars" - you have challenged accepted history of the entire war on the basis of a few cut-'n-pastes on a handful of specific subjects - you have never once given anything from your own claimed "lifelong study" - not once.
You appear never to have read a book - on the war - on anything - all cut-'n-pastes - Ireland, Palestine, Travellers, British Fascism, Syria, Islamic "implants"... all cut-'n-pastes.
You appear not even to have watched the tree programmes - everything you have put out seems to have come from the BBC handout "Paxman to camera"   
"Infallible my arseum"
All any of us has got from our indulging you in your self-obsession is the satisfaction of knowing that nobody takes you seriously nor ever will again after your recent performances.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 04:41 AM

"Just another of your made up fantasies."
Your an arsehole Keith
You said yourself that all countries maintain a control on what is said during wars.
The British Government attempted to impose total control on what was made public by law, abandoned the idea and put information control in the hands of the military - everything that published had their blessing.
Coupled with the fact that the popular press in its entirety supported the war and imposed a strict self-censorship of what was published, the public got to know only what the Government wanted them to know - all on record if you ever bothered to read a book.
Your Daily Mail red-herring is exactly as I described - go and read it up.
This evasive nonsense reall has gone far enough as far as I'm concerned.
You have presented an old Empire Days analysis of the war pontificating on and denying many of its aspects that are established fact.
You have surrounded yourself with a team of mythical historical fairies who have never commented on, let alone supported the neanderthal views you have put forward.
You have lied about doing so and have retreated to three point which you claim to be the only things you put forward.
Whenever you are stymied, you scurry behind your phantom friends - this is now the only argument you ever have on all subjects you involve yourself in - "they said it first, I'm only the messenger" - utter and transparent bollocks.
You have been presented with three excellent programmes on te war - each of them cutting the legs from under your case, and have the temerity to claim they support your case.
You have no support - you never had - your war-gaming, gun-nut friend can ionly be considered a liability - he'll be showing us his gun next - he's done that before!!
Yo are a meglomanic nut who has openly declared himself to be "infallible"   
The war has been shown to have been little more than a bloody fight between acquisitive powerful Empires - the fact that their leaders were related makes it a family squabble using the youth of Europe as pawns in their bloody game.
Whoever started it (no argument there) it was ill-conceived, prematurely entered into and badly executed (execution being the operative word as afar as the millions of young men who were sacrificed).
Those who sent those lads to war lied to them to get them to join up, and when that ceased to work, gave them no alternative but to go.
At home, as far as the better-off were concerned, life went on as normal.
The families of those who fought were exploited - many of them became homeless because of that exploitation.
On the front, military advances were planned on calculations of how many lives could be sacrificed.
Dedicated soldiers, some decorated war-heroes who became disillusioned were punished for expressing their views - Sassoon was declared mad by the military for voicing what is now an accepted fact.
You have referred to him and others who were there as "liars" - you have challenged accepted history of the entire war on the basis of a few cut-'n-pastes on a handful of specific subjects - you have never once given anything from your own claimed "lifelong study" - not once.
You appear never to have read a book - on the war - on anything - all cut-'n-pastes - Ireland, Palestine, Travellers, British Fascism, Syria, Islamic "implants"... all cut-'n-pastes.
You appear not even to have watched the tree programmes - everything you have put out seems to have come from the BBC handout "Paxman to camera"   
"Infallible my arseum"
All any of us has got from our indulging you in your self-obsession is the satisfaction of knowing that nobody takes you seriously nor ever will again after your recent performances.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 03:00 AM

The other thing regarding the shell scandal that Christmas has not mentioned of course is the fact that Lord Northcliffe owner of both The Times and the Daily Mail went after and singled out Kitchener with such vigour was because he held Kitchener directly responsible for the death of his nephew. Ultimately Northcliffe was told to back off by the War Cabinet. In all this mud-slinging Northcliffe was aided and abetted by General French, commander of the BEF who was involved in his own private pissing contest with Kitchener, with the end result that the problems being faced were totally misrepresented to the public by the press (Same thing was done by the Press with regard to WMD and Iraq in 2002 and 2003) - the problem in 1915 was not that the army did not have enough shells, the problem was that the army did not have enough of the right type of shell for offensive operations.

If you have an army establishment of 247,000 regulars and 145,000 reserves then you obviously do not have munitions manufacturers churning out munitions for a force five times that size (Ultimately eight times that size) - something our current government has chosen to conveniently forget, and they too will be caught out in the same way - such facilities and capabilities have to be built from scratch and that takes time, it was therefore perfectly logical and reasonable that a separate Government department was set up to look after this problem - Ministry of Munitions - It remained active from 25th May 1915 to the 21st March 1921.

So let's see, in 1914 a tiny armed force was sent to France, where they did not select what battles they had to fight as the initiative lay with the much larger German armies who were attacking them. Quite contrary to what most "experts" at the time believed, that tiny armed force that consisted of 80,000 men, very skillfully managed to delay the advance of the Germans and remain intact as a fighting force much in the same way that Wellington kept his tiny force alive in Portugal and Spain as a force in being. During those early encounters in Belgium and France the weaknesses in the nature of Britain's field artillery were not made evident as at the time they were exactly what was needed to fight a series of highly mobile rearguard actions in retreat. The French contribution to the First Battle of the Marne, where the Schlieffen Plan was defeated, completely dwarfed the British (39 French Divisions to 6 British) so it was not until 1915, when the British went over onto the offensive that anything was seen to be wrong. By 1916 there was no shortage of shells and no shortage of guns for the now much expanded British Army, there were problems with quality control and fuses but they were quickly identified and rectified. The Battles of the Somme and Verdun although costly ended all hope the Germans ever had of achieving a victory on the Western Front.

Fast forward to March 1918 and you see how "on-top-of-things" the Ministry of Munitions had become:

21st March 1918 to 18th July 1918 - German Spring Offensive:
The Germans last gasp attempt in the West, the British lost 1,300 artillery pieces and 200 tanks - and didn't even notice the loss as they were all replaced within a month without having to reduce the level of reserves held.

That capability then enabled the launch of what is known as "The 100 Days Offensive" by British, Belgian, American and French troops that finally ended the fighting on the western front. It started on the 8th August 1918, only 21 days after the end of the largest German offensive of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Feb 14 - 02:29 AM

You repeat your ridiculous claim that the army had control of the press!
They had none.
Just another of your made up fantasies.

Read my posts of yesterday, and your own link.
Here is another extract, "Newspaper publicity was also critical of Kitchener's call for volunteers for the army."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:42 PM

programme 2, 7 minutes in.
Paxman voice over,

The patriotic Daily Mail decided it was time to break ranks, launching a sensational attack on the War Secretary, Lord Kitchener himself.

Paxman to camera,

On may the 21st 1915, a fortnight after the Lusitania, The Daily Mail published an editorial, "THE TRAGEDY OF THE SHELLS   LORD KITCHENER'S GRAVE ERROR."

(The headings were shown in capitals)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 02:49 PM

Jim, the shell scandal was exposed by The Daily Mail.
Programme 2, 7 minutes, Paxman to camera,
"It (Daily Mail) alleged that the British Government had sent the wrong kind of shells to the Western Front and thereby caused the death of British servicemen."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 11:59 AM

Your point on the daily Mail
The pape totally supported the war effort and criticised that the Government had not prepared for war earlier, its only other 'clash' with the government was in making public the story that Germans were rendering down corpses of the enemy - such information was thought likely to disturb the troops
The Government attempted to take total control of the press but instead put it in the hands of the military - control by proxy.
The ramblings of Tommy Tin Soldier were all covered in last night's programme - any problems - write to the BBC (or Keith's historian, who is a leading advisor)
I suppose this is the nearest you pair of morons are going to get to discussing the devestating attack on the handling of the war in nights programme
By the wway Chockie - 'twas the government aent who identified the two gaoled women as Suffragettes - get someone to read the posting if you can't manage it yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 07:54 AM

From a BBC History piece linked to by Jim.

"Despite many myths after the war, there was in 1914 no fully developed British government organisation or plan for propaganda or the manipulation of public opinion. Just as with the army recruiting drives, so the posters, newspaper proclamations and claims of German 'atrocities' were the product of a complex mix of spontaneous action, national and local politics, and business initiatives. Only as the war continued did the government start to extend its grip on propaganda and public opinion, as on many other aspects of society"

"The power of the national press (London-based except for the Manchester Guardian) was so great that as long as it avoided outright confrontation with the government, it was left to be largely self-regulating. The policy of most national newspapers was that of the governing class itself: to support the war effort, but to reserve the right to criticise government policies. The government paid much less attention to the regional or local press, which was largely free to write what it wanted. In particular the habit continued, established in earlier wars, of soldiers' letters being passed on to local newspapers for publication."

Jim's link again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/war_media_01.shtml
Thanks Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:50 AM

Ah Musket I am pleased to see that Keith beat me to it in providing information relating to the Western Front Association. I, and many others, would consider them to be well informed, impartial and objective.

On the other hand I take it then that in accordance with your rules - only you and those who agree with you are to be considered experts and authorities on any particular subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:42 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 02:57 AM "

Now that has got to be the most confused rambling and self contradictory twaddle I have ever read.

The military controlled the press, the Government controlled the military = censorship.
The Daily Mail was an avid supporter of the war effort.

Contradiction Number 1:
But Christmas this Shell Scandal that you keep banging on about – how did that come to the attention of the British Public? Wasn't it by courtesy of "The Times" and the very "Daily Mail" you mention? Surely if they had been under strict rules of censorship the story would never have been published - True??

"You have yet to produce one scrap of evidence that one single historian supports your jingoism - not one. All you have produced is fine tuning to certain aspects of the war on different by different unconnected historians."

Of course Christmas it would be far, far better if you actually pursued this discussion in English but we will persevere. What jingoism?

"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 army was well led."

So far the consensus of most historians who have studied and covered the subject support the contentions made above by Keith.

"Last night's programme was a damning indictment of how the war was being conducted on the home front."

These Christmas are absolutely priceless:

"Inadequate sea defences failed to prevent U-boats from devastating British shipping - putting Britain in a state of siege."

Ah Christmas and previously how common had it been for a nation's merchant shipping to be attacked by submarines? Or was this a completely new and unheard of phenomenon? Now come on Christmas let's be honest, did Great Britain and the Admiralty rise to the challenge? Did Great Britain starve? I know Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire did. Of course the challenges wet met and we overcame the threat. Tell me Christmas what proportion of Merchant Vessels in 1914 carried wireless?

"A squadron of German planes flew into Britain undetected in broad daylight and bombed London - Londoners thought they were British planes and waved at them until the bombs dropped."

And the civil population that had been bombed by aircraft before in order that the British public should have been alarmed were located where Christmas? By the way what body existed to detect them? How far advanced do you think measures were to combat this sort of threat? What measures were put in place:
- Black-out
- Evacuation of children
- Listening posts
- Home based air defence fighter squadrons
- Anti-Aircraft Artillery
- Special ammunition

Air-raid casualties suffered in Great Britain were as follows:
"Air-ship raid casualties = 1,914. Killed = 556.
Aircraft raid casualties = 2,908. Killed = 857."

On the basis of industrial man-hours expended, and the use of valuable and scarce resources, both the airship and heavy bomber campaigns were extremely extravagant. It has been calculated that the total costs to the German exchequer of all the 115 airships that were constructed was over five times of the cost of the damage inflicted by the raids on the British infrastructure.

"Rationing was introduced; the 'People's Cookbook' was issued advising the less well off how to prepare meals from inferior scraps of meat and grain - the more well off were advised to refrain from eating grain, leave that for the poor and continue with their usual diet.

Despite this, the well-off diet was not affected in any way - they continued to eat bread and cakes."

So in short Christmas, the people did as they were advised to do. Pssst Diet is one thing portion size is another.

"Food hoarding, despite being made a punishable offence, was common among the wealthy.

A wealthy poplar author, Marie Correlli was found to be hoarding food, charged and fined."

Ah so the law was enforced. By the way Christmas, how was food hoarded in those pre-refrigeration and freezer days? Stocking up on tins, dried fish and salt pork perhaps - the diet of the elite?

"The newspaper 'Herald' sent in an undercover reporter into a well-known restaurant in London - he was able to order anything he wished and was urged to eat as much bread as he wanted with his meal.
He reported leaving the restaurant and finding starving women huddled in nearby doorways."

Bread once baked has to be eaten, it does not keep. I see the undercover reporter did not feel sufficiently moved to supply said starving women with bread or a meal then?

"Prostitution was rife and syphilis became a major problem among the troops.

When was it not?

"Soldiers were coming on leave and finding that back home there was no sign that there was a war on - life had not changed in any way except among the working people - whose sons were fighting at the front.

The reports of what was happening at home given by the returning troops began to spread dissention among those fighting the war."

Contradiction Number 2:
So there was dissention?? (partisan and contentious quarreling??) spread amongst the troops at the front because things hadn't changed on the home front? Is that what you are saying Christmas?

"The Government began to stamp down on on any sign of opposition and criticism in Britain.

A family of three women opposing the war, Suffragettes, pacifists and Socialists, were suspected of harbouring fleeing pacifists."

Those the same Suffragettes who wandered about handing out "White feathers" to young men in civilians clothes?

"Siegfried Sassoon, a passionate patriot and decorated war hero became disillusioned and began writing damning indictments of the war.
The military spread the rumour that he was insane, and when he was wounded they confined him in a mental institution in Scotland treating shell-shocked patients, instead of a regular military hospital.

Not really true that is it Christmas? Why is there nothing here about the fact that Sassoon refused to return to duty AFTER the end of a spell of convalescent leave. At what point and who in the Army spread any rumour about Sassoon being insane? (Just more stuff that you have made up) The choice was a simple one either court-martial him or treat him for neurasthenia, the authorities chose to do the latter, the decision coming down from the Under-Secretary of State for War at the time Ian Macpherson.

Discharged from Craiglockhart Hospital Sassoon and Wilfred Owen who Sassoon had met there returned to France. Promoted to Lieutenant Sassoon spent some time in Palestine and returned to France in the summer of 1918 where he was wounded again, this time by "friendly fire", he was shot in the head by a British soldier near Arras. Sent back to England to be treated (in a regular military hospital Christmas) he was promoted acting-Captain, he eventually relinquished his commission on the 12th March 1919.

This was Siegfried Sassoon at war Christmas:
Sassoon's periods of duty on the Western Front were marked by exceptionally brave actions, including the single-handed, but ultimately pointless, capture of a German trench in the Hindenburg Line. Armed with grenades he scattered 60 German soldiers:
He went over with bombs in daylight, under covering fire from a couple of rifles, and scared away the occupants. A pointless feat, since instead of signaling for reinforcements, he sat down in the German trench and began reading a book of poems which he had brought with him. When he went back he did not even report. Colonel Stockwell, then in command, raged at him. The attack on Mametz Wood had been delayed for two hours because British patrols were still reported to be out. "British patrols" were Siegfried and his book of poems. "I'd have got you a D.S.O., if you'd only shown more sense," stormed Stockwell.

Sassoon's bravery was inspiring to the extent that soldiers of his company said that they felt confident only when they were accompanied by him. He often went out on night-raids and bombing patrols and demonstrated ruthless efficiency as a company commander. Deepening depression at the horror and misery the soldiers were forced to endure produced in Sassoon a paradoxically manic courage, and he was nicknamed "Mad Jack" by his men for his near-suicidal exploits. On 27 July 1916 he was awarded the Military Cross, later he was to be unsuccessfully recommended for a Victoria Cross

"The battle of Passchendaele was shown - a bloodbath - it took the army four months to advance five miles."

Of which the German General Staff wrote at the time that "Germany had been brought near to certain destruction by the Flanders battle of 1917 (Passchendaele)".

Dr Paddy Griffith, a freelance military historian and a prolific author on military history and tactics, educated at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, where he obtained a first-class honours degree in Modern History. He was a lecturer and then senior lecturer at RMA Sandhurst from 1973–89 said this of Passchendaele, " The bite and hold system employed and executed by Plumer and Rawlinson kept moving until November; the BEF had developed a workable system of offensive tactics against which the Germans ultimately had no answer."

That Christmas, was how effective that useless bloodbath was from the perception of our enemies.

"The only outright successes in the war were the newly acquired tanks."

Nope Christmas, the tanks only played a part in the success, the success lay in using the element of surprise, artillery, infantry, tanks, cavalry and aircraft all together – that was the outright success that broke the stalemate, attrition, and constraints of static trench warfare and it was done by the British, NOT the Germans, NOT the French and NOT by the Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:34 AM

The Western Front Association (WFA) was inaugurated on 11 November 1980, in order to further interest in The Great War of 1914-1918. The WFA aims to perpetuate the memory, courage and comradeship of all those who fought on all sides and who served their countries during The Great War.
The WFA was established by military historian John Giles, who enlisted the help of John Terraine, who had co-written the landmark television series The Great War, which was first broadcast in 1964. The Western Front Association does not seek to justify or glorify war. It is not a re-enactment society, nor is it commercially motivated. It is entirely non-political. The object of the Association is to educate the public in the history of The Great War with particular reference to the Western Front.
Since its foundation the WFA has grown over the years to in excess of 6,000 members worldwide. There are around 60 branches in the UK, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The WFA is a UK registered charity, numbered 298365.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 06:31 AM

Newspapers did not have to have reports censored.
If they did breach the Defence of the Realm Act, it would have to be tried in court.
Very liberal censorship for a country fighting for survival.
What country in the world did better?

Jim, those are my only three claims, and you agree two already.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Musket
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 04:59 AM

That's the problem with government censorship of the press. You'd have to ask the press if they had been censored, to which they'd have to reply...... Err..

See super injunctions for the civil equivalent.


zzzzzzzzzzzzz




Western Front Association. Hey! That sounds like an impartial objective organisation with no agenda to put forward Teribus!

"It must be true. I read it."


zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 04:40 AM

This is my only case.
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 army was well led.

No it isn't you are lying and even if they were they're all wrong and have been shown to be.
You have been given alist of all your arguments - I'll put them up later
Been reading your DAILY MAIL CLAIM INTERESTING READING
MORE LATER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 04:11 AM

Censorship.
From a 1915 government report.

"The object aimed at by the Government in its control of war news ought to be to facilitate the supply of information to the press quite as much as to prevent the publication of injurious matter. More is done by way of supplying news than is realised by some critics or admitted by others."

"There is no compulsory submission by newspapers of any class of matter for censorship. A newspaper commits no offence if it never submits anything to the censors at all. The offence consists in publishing something which can be proved in a criminal trial to offend against the Defence of the Realm Acts."
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/britain1906to1918/pdf/complete_g6.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:50 AM

I'd love to know what lies the Army told those volunteering to join it, or what lies and propaganda they forced the press to publish. (Please do not witter on about the "Over by Christmas" thing as I think we now know, because it can be clearly demonstrated, that that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either the Government or those who had anything to do with the Army)

Also can we now put this shell scandal thing to bed as well:

1: The British Army that entered the war in 1914 was trained in "fire-and-manoeuvre" and the field artillery that supported it was equipped accordingly. They did not "take-on" strong points and "fortressed" areas, they by-passed them and isolated them.

2: From the outset of the Great War, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) suffered from a general lack of artillery ordnance; both guns and ammunition. As regards ammunition, the problem was that in 1914 there was not any stock at all of high explosive shells (H.E.) in the British arsenals. Shrapnel shells (e.g. holding 375 balls - weighing 11 ounces - per 18-pounder shell) had served the British well in the Boer War, and it was assumed that it would be the ordnance of choice for future wars.

3: While the early defensive battles, i.e. battles where you are firing at formations of troops and cavalry advancing against you, seemed to support established military thought, later offensive battles fought by the British highlighted short comings:

-   The ineffectiveness of shrapnel against barbed wire
-   The ineffectiveness of shrapnel against even modest fortifications.

4: This spawned a scramble to rectify the matter by the production of large numbers of H.E. shells. This culminated in the political hiatus of the Shell Scandal of 1915 in which both Lloyd George and Kitchener figured prominently. (It was left to the former, now Minister of Munitions, to sort it out best he could. To his credit great improvements were made, but it was not until late 1916 that the overall shell supply problem was largely resolved).

5: Major problems that had to be overcome:
- Lack of man power caused by the massive enrollment of volunteers into the Army (Volunteers, Christmas, volunteers in their tens of thousands, in droves, not lied to, not coerced, not conscripted). 6,000 Belgian refugees, wounded ex-soldiers and 52,000 women by July 1916 plugged the labour gap and shell production hit 70,000,000 shells per annum.

- The need to rush into mass production caused problems right across the board and to ensure that material reached the troops at the front quality control was sacrificed on the orders of Lloyd George. The worst was the poor quality and inherently dangerous design of the British 'Fuse, Graze, No. 100' which went from initial design to massed production in 10 days in late 1914, these technical problems were not resolved until after the Battle of the Somme in 1916.

- In 1917, increasing numbers of a superior French percussion fuse known by the British as the 'Fuse, Direct Action, No. 106' were procured. This fuse had 5 separate safety devices and proved to be totally safe. It also had the advantages of exploding closer to the surface of the ground, giving a much more effective result: The British 'Graze, No 100' fuse had a tendency to only explode when it had deeply penetrated the ground, much diminishing its destructive effect.

(Source: Dr David Payne, Historian Western Front Association - Paper dated 17th October 2008)

The British did learn from their mistakes as they went along, they did rise to tackle the technical problems they encountered and it was the British military establishment that devised the method of "all arms combined and co-ordinated attacks" that broke the stalemate of the Western Front, NOT the French, NOT the Germans, NOT the Americans.

By the way - your examples that you put forward to argue your case Christmas - they are the personal opinions of those putting forward their view as they saw it, as they experienced it as they felt it, they are not liars or dissemblers and their stated opinions do not outweigh those of their contemporaries who experiencing exactly the same things voice contradictory opinions - but at the end of the day those opinions in themselves do not constitute what is the fact of the matter - that is determined by the end result of actions fought and taken.

I rather liked the comment by the anonymous GUEST about the writings of the likes of Owen and Sassoon being more relevant than those of any historian writing after the fact. Which means of course that if that is correct and applied universally then the opinions of the German Generals Hindenburg and Von Kuhl about battles such as the Somme and Passchendaele written at the time were correct and that the opinions of those such as Lloyd George written in the 1930s orthodoxy of "mud, blood and futility" can rightly be dismissed as myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:39 AM

Hey Keith!

Lay some of that smooth google on me baby! I'm getting withdrawal symptoms!

Whilst you are at it you can make yourself useful. Some on here are confusing the moral stance of conscientious objection with the medical condition known colloquially as shell shock.

No matter, the "well leading" officers had problems distinguishing when the senior officer on the bench placed the black cap on his head.

zzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 03:12 AM

The military controlled the press
No it did not.

This is my only case.
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 army was well led.

Jim himself acknowledges that "there was a necessity to fight."
That endorses 1 and 2.

Military historians are unanimous about 3, so who cares for the opinion of ignorant, unread people like Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 02:57 AM

"I said that the government did not control the press"
The military controlled the press, the Government controlled the military = censorship.
The Daily Mail was an avid supporter of the war effort.
You have yet to produce one scrap of evidence that one single historian supports your jingoism - not one. All you have produced is fine tuning to certain aspects of the war on different by different unconnected historians. Your case is entirely SMOKE AND MIRRORS - NOTHING MORE - YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT WHATEVER - NO CASE NECESSARY FOR ANY HISTORIAN TO ANSWER - YOU ARE A FAKE
Last night's programme was a damning indictment of how the war was being conducted on the home front.
Inadequate sea defences failed to prevent U-boats from devastating British shipping - putting Britain in a state of siege.
A squadron of German planes flew into Britain undetected in broad daylight and bombed London - Londoners thought they were British planes and waved at them until the bombs dropped.
Rationing was introduced; the 'People's Cookbook' was issued advising the less well off how to prepare meals from inferior scraps of meat and grain - the more well off were advised to refrain from eating grain, leave that for the poor and continue with their usual diet.
Despite this, the well-off diet was not affected in any way - they continued to eat bread and cakes.
Food hoarding, despite being made a punishable offence, was common among the wealthy.
A wealthy poplar author, Marie Correlli was found to be hoarding food, charged and fined.
The newspaper 'Herald' sent in an undercover reporter into a well-known restaurant in London - he was able to order anything he wished and was urged to eat as much bread as he wanted with his meal.
He reported leaving the restaurant and finding starving women huddled in nearby doorways.
Prostitution was rife and syphilis became a major problem among the troops.
Soldiers were coming on leave and finding that back home there was no sign that there was a war on - life had not changed in any way except among the working people - whose sons were fighting at the front.
The reports of what was happening at home given by the returning troops began to spread dissention among those fighting the war.
The Government began to stamp down on on any sign of opposition and criticism in Britain.
A family of three women opposing the war, Suffragettes, pacifists and Socialists, were suspected of harbouring fleeing pacifists.
A secret agent was sent to lodge with them and his evidence caused them to be arrested and charged.
At their trial, the prosecution did not produce the agent as a witness because he was found to have a criminal record and a record of mental illness - the Government shipped him to South Africa out of harms way.
Despite the fact that his was the only evidence the women were found guilty - the mother received a sentence of ten years hard labour and one of the daughters five years - the mother was released after the war but died within a year because of her experiences in prison.
Siegfried Sassoon, a passionate patriot and decorated war hero became disillusioned and began writing damning indictments of the war.
The military spread the rumour that he was insane, and when he was wounded they confined him in a mental institution in Scotland treating shell-shocked patients, instead of a regular military hospital.
He wrote that he understood that if he continued opposing the war he would have to spend the rest of his life there, so he toned his opposition down, was released and returned to the from "to be with my men".
The battle of Passchendaele was shown - a bloodbath - it took the army four months to advance five miles.
Another passionate supporter of the war and virulent anti-German, a clergyman, was there and began to damn the war in his diary describing it as futile and inhuman.
His sentiments were echoed by the troops he fought with.
Dissention began to set in at home and abroad, even among some politicians.
The only outright successes in the war were the newly acquired tanks.
The situation on the home front was quashing morale among the troops - an utter shambles
There was no comment throughout the programme as to whether the war as being conducted well or badly, but as those involved, like Paxman, are supporters of the War, we can draw our own conclusions.
OH WHAT A LOVELY WAR was played during the programme.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Feb 14 - 02:52 AM

The D notice is about censorship, which I acknowledged.
The government did not and could not make the papers print propaganda, and the censorship was not used to prevent papers attacking the government as demonstrated by the example given.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 10:27 PM

Still going strong, I see. And getting absolutely nowhere. A bit like the Great War.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 08:09 PM

Any one with a couple of WORKING brain cells

You've put your finger on the problem there, Guest, vis a vis Mr. Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:31 PM

I am greatly amused by the comments regarding historians no longer alive.

Any one with a couple of WORKING brain cells might be more inclined to believe those who actually REMEMBER WW1 events, than those who are preparing for a season of jingoistic self justification by the government of the day, most of whom don't even remember WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:24 PM

In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association.

Any D-Notices or DA-notices are only advisory requests so are not legally enforceable and hence news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are generally complied with by the media.[1]

In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices, which gave general guidance on what could be published and what could not, and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC).

And editors before the sixties knew better than to disregard these "REQUESTS".

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:20 PM

"The press was not government controlled."

Never heard of the "D Notice" then?

It was still i8n use in the 1960s

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 03:46 PM

You have not answered why they had to be duped into thinking there was a necessity to fight when there was a necessity to fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 03:43 PM

You claimed no censorship took place
Not true.
I said that the government did not control the press, and that Daily Mail attack on the government proves I was right, and you wrong again.

Accepted history remains as it has been for at least half a century
That is complete bollocks, and tells us all we need to know about your complete ignorance of History!!!

Graves, Owen and Sassoon are obviously not Historians!!!!
Your ignorance is truly staggering!!!

You said I called them liars.
That was a lie.

I read plenty Jim, including Graves, Sassoon and Owen as I have stated several times.
You have read nothing less than 30 years out of date.
That is the difference between us.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 10:47 AM

"Every country at war censors the press, but the British government could not and did not give them propaganda to publish."
The army did, which amounts to the same thing - read the article you were linked to.
You claimed no censorship took place; didn't think for one moment you would withdraw that mistake - that would be "snivelling, wouldn't it?
"The press was not government controlled."
Of course it was - you just said so - have you stopped reaading your own postings as well as everybody elses?
"Every country at war censors the press, but the British government could not and did not give them propaganda to publish."
"The shell scandal was exposed by The Daily Mail."
The shell scandal is established history and was the cause of Kitchener tendering his resignation - what's your point - that history is wrong again, I suppose?
"I call you a liar for claiming to have produced dissenting historians."
All historians are "dissenting" (even the ones you have produced).
Accepted history remains as it has been for at least half a century I have produced lists of historians who accept the present version of history and will continue to do so until that view is proved wrong.
" have never called Sassoon or Graves or Owen liars, just unrepresentative."
Didn't mention Graves here - he's not a historian - you should know that if you'd made the "life long study" you've claimed to.
You described Sassoon and the War Poets as Romantics who distorted their experiences of the war - tantamount to calling them liars, especially to children.   
You don't mention Tommy Kenny ot Patrick McGill so I presume they are still "liars".
"old discredited myths, "
Neither discredited or Myths; established history until proved otherwise - it'll take more than a few cut-'n-pastes to do that!
Sorry - you really will have to read a book one day.
Your moronic repetition of a request for something you were given as early as the previous thread only underlines the fact that you have lost it.
You are a desperate little arse-hole, aren't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 10:18 AM

Every country at war censors the press, but the British government could not and did not give them propaganda to publish.
The shell scandal was exposed by The Daily Mail.
Programme 2, 7 minutes, Paxman to camera,
"It alleged that the British Government had sent the wrong kind of shells to the Western Front and thereby caused the death of British servicemen."

I call you a liar for claiming to have produced dissenting historians.
You have not, apart from long dead ones.
I have never called Sassoon or Graves or Owen liars, just unrepresentative.
You lie.

You can not put up one single name or quote for a living historian who supports your old discredited myths, and you never have.
They all support my views because that is where I got them.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 08:59 AM

Your statement on "lying" was a direct response to my reporting what Tommy Keny told us about having volunteered and his attitude to the war immediately on joining and he he returned.
You added "I bet he and his mates had a laugh at our gullibility in believing what he said" or some such words - a direct accusation of him having lied.
ou claim that Siegfried Sassoon wrote what he did to distort and romanticise his experiences - you even accused him of lying to the children he was asked to speak to on the war.
You totally ignored the excerpt from Patrick McGill's autobiographical account, written in hospital following his being wounded at Loos - indicating that it was either unimportant or untrue.
You describe the entire output of historian Liddel-Hart, a veteran of W.W.1 as "revisionism" - making his personal experiences "lies" (he was an officer).   
"You lie about any living historians not supporting my views."
Then show us they do - so far you have given only carefully selected and unconnected snippets.
You have lied about not having been given historians with opposing views - you have had hundreds pointed out to you and have either rejected or ignored them all, as you are now and as you will continue to.
Regarding my "executions" blunder, I have been posting about executions taking place in WW1 since all these discussions began - I was under the impression that this included the Richmond pacifists, which was part of my family education,
If this is not the case it was a mistake on my part, for which I apologise, though I am sure you will continue to milk some sort of satisfaction from a genuine mistake.
As I say, if I am wrong I admit it and apologise, you haven't got round to it yet - "snivelling" remember.
I don't need to lie - you are a buffoon who spoils any case you might have by your own transparent dishonesty and idiocy - you really don't need help in this, you're doing a grand job as it is.
"You can not name or quote a single one."
More retarded repetition - you have my and everybody else's answer o that - nobody expresses the views you put forward as an analysis - you show us one who does and show us that your little band of historians are in any way united selected cut-'N-pastes just don't cut the mustard - try a book sometime (perish the thought!!).   
Imperial War, premature action, wrong shells, tendered resignation, incompetent leadership, dishonest propaganda, conned and disolusioned soldiers, profiteering recruitment, landlords and businessmen.
By the way - while were're on about apologies and withdrawals, you might make a start on the censorship of the press (which was put in the hands of the military) - there's a first time for everything!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:09 AM

WW1 soldiers were a microcosm of the population.
Of course some were liars, but I have never called any such.

Historians now know more than the long dead ones you refer to Jim.
Knowledge has moved on.
You have not.

You said about me," he, with his in-depth knowledge allowed that to pass three times before he obviously scrambled around the web and clued himself up on something he was totally unaware of - in depth study my arseum. "

Yet again, you were wrong and I was right.
As usual.
An apology would be in order.

You lie about any living historians not supporting my views.
You can not name or quote a single one.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 07:02 AM

Can I suggest that if you are intending to continue your farciacal "historian" claims that you show there to have been a sea-change in g#historical thought on WW1 and that there is some sort of a consensus between your produced historians.
Only trying to help you did your way out of your foxhole.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 06:33 AM

"It is a lie that you have produced dissenting historians."
I make a mistakes - you make false claims
I acknowledged my mistakes and apologise - you make mistakes and constantly lie - you invariably refuse to withdraw them and describe apoligising as "snivelling"
"It is a lie that you have produced dissenting historians."
No it isn't - nearly every historian on that list you consider unreadable hasn't considered fit to respond in any way to your tiny group of revisionsists in any way at all - indicating that their views haven't even raised a blip on the historical studies Richter scale - in other words, they are quite happy to go along with the accepted view of history
There has not been the enormous reversal back to the Empire interpretation of World War One that you are promoting. If there had been we would be aware of such a change and the education curriculum would have been radically altered - it hasn't.
The Paxman programmes have all reiterated accepted history so far; Imperialist war, incompetent leadership, premature action, badly armed and trained soldiers, lying (and profiteering) propaganda; profiteering landlords and businesses, - all there to been seen in ghastly detail
You have called the historians I am familiar with: Clark, Liddel-Hart (a WW1 soldier), Trevelyan, Briggs.... any historian who doesn't follow your particular twisted line, "romantics and distorting revisionists")
You have rejected Britain's most loved and read war poets, who took part in the conflict as liars with an agenda.
You have described recorded testimonies that don't fit in with your agenda, from soldiers who fought in the conflict as "lies" - Your statement "soldiers tell lies".
That is the situation with historians today on WW1 none of them feel the need to turn history on its head as you have.
You have produced a handful who feel that certain aspects of the war need fine tuning - it remains to be seen if they are right, but on the whole, every single one of them adheres to the existing history of the war; none have attempted to re-write that history the way you have - not one single historian.
THE ONES YOU HAVE PRODUCED HAVE NOT REACHED AN OVERALL CONSENSUS - CERTAINLY NOT ONE THAT COMES ANYWHERE NEAR YOUR OUTDATED "GLORIOUS EMPIRE" VERSION
If someone was to claim that the world was flat I would be hard pushed to isolate a historian today who is presently claiming it isn't - they all do and don't feel the need to comment on it.   
You have yet to explain your disgraceful behaviour in calling World War One soldiers liars - I doubt that you ever shall - that's what you do best
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 05:00 AM

Jim, you first made the false claim about the execution of objectors on the 4th of February.
I rubbished it less than 2 hours later, but you kept on putting it up and ignoring the truth until yesterday.

It is a lie that you have produced dissenting historians.
Not living ones anyway.
If it is not a lie, just put up one quote from one of them.

Not your usual trick of putting up pages of impenetrable text and claiming something worthwhile is hidden in it!

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 04:50 AM

"I mistakenly said that the pacifist were executed four times (my mistake) - he, with his in-depth knowledge allowed that to pass three times"

No he didn't Christmas, he said very early on that no COs were executed.

Keith is 100% right about you - in as much as you just simply "make stuff up" - it is the practice commonly known as lying, something you bring to every thread you participate in. You speak much on the subject of lying, throwing accusations about right left and centre, not surprising really as you, yourself are the undisputed master when it comes to lies, the biggest difference of course is that you keep getting caught out in yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 04:50 AM

Jim, you said, "Nobody, certainly not me, has ever denied the necessity to fight"

So there was no necessity to dupe the people and lie about the necessity to fight.
Who is supposed to have lied anyway if not the government?

You have shown stupidity and an ignorance of basic facts.
You watched the programmes and saw things that were not there and were untrue.
Wrong sized shells.
Kitchener's sacking.
Kitchener's resignation.
The execution of objectors.

You know nothing, and can not see the truth when it is put in front of you.
You think you know more about History than historians and actually rubbish military historians as if you are a military expert too.

Do you have any contribution to make to this debate at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 04:37 AM

"The press was not government controlled."
"On the outbreak of World War One the government invoked the new Official Secrets Act and Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) to impose press censorship, and sought to ban all war reporting. Instead the Army delegated a serving officer, Lieutenant Colonel Ernest Swinton, as its official reporter, under the byline 'Eye Witness'. Other reporters were left to cover the opening months of the war as best they could without official support, although in practice senior officers often dealt with the press, and letters or comments from soldiers to newspapers were tolerated. Newspaper publicity was also critical of Kitchener's call for volunteers for the army.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/war_media_01.shtml

"There were none I needed to reject."
You immediately rejected long established historians, some of them who actually served in the trenches, and all who were in the position to talk to and interview anyone directly involved in the war in order to come to their conclusions as "revisionists" "romantics" and distorters of history.
You dismissed actual accounts of soldiers wh fought as "liars".
You dismissed pages worth of around a hundred historians working on WW1 as "unreadable"
in their place you carefully selected a handful of historians who have made unconnected statements, none corresponding with the other and all working nearly a century after the conflict when all concerned were conveniently dead.
Selected historians making comments on specific aspects of the war.
There is no evidennce whatever that all or any of this tiny group of historians you have carefully chosen have anything whatever in common with each other than they might or might not have said something that you can use to make your sunken case.
"PRODUCE ONE"
You have been given hundreds of historians who have not felt the necessity to challenge the accepted,taught and fully understood analysis of World War One - you have either rejected or ignored every single one of them in favour of your merry little band of dissidents who haven't even come to an agreement among themselves
Your retarded repetition of a request for even more names to add to your rejects is beyond belief.
The history of World War One is fully accepted - it's a done deal and will remain so until enough new evidence comes to light to make the world change its mind - there is no serious challenge to the history we already have - the Paxman programmes have made that quite clear.
What you are advocating isn't new - it was the picture of the war we were given until the Empire died and Britannia no longer ruled the waves.   
You have been presented with hundreds of historians - you have rejected them all, and will continue to do so.
"They were transferred to France"
We know all that Terrytoon - it was in the link - keep up.
Interestingly - your fellow comedian claims to have studied WW1 in depth.
I mistakenly said that the pacifist were executed four times (my mistake) - he, with his in-depth knowledge allowed that to pass three times before he obviously scrambled around the web and clued himself up on something he was totally unaware of - in depth study my arseum.            
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 04:34 AM

Major actions of the First World War in which the BEF took part

1914: Basically on the defensive having been attacked by the Germans, the then tiny BEF (80,000 strong) fought delaying actions until they joined up with the French to fight the First Battle of the Marne which ended all German hopes for a rapid victory on the weatern front over the French and the British.   The Battle of the Yser in October 1914 was another defeat for the Germans and the war settled in to become a war of attrition that the Germans fighting on two fronts could only lose.

(So for the allied powers - 1914 could have been seen as being not too shoddy a result considering the fact that the Germans had numerical superiority in every single engagement).

1915: You'll like this Christmas, as according to you 1914 was such a successful year for the Germans that in the whole of 1915 they were by and large forced onto the defensive and could only mount one single offensive action at Ypres that ended in failure. Reinforcement of the BEF rapidly increased its strength. Throughout 1915 the British and French Armies attacked the Germans sometimes successfully and other times not so successfully. By the way Christmas if you wish to trumpet the Battle of Loos in 1915 as a defeat and a disaster for the British, then by exactly the same yardstick you have to designate the German offensive in the west in 1914 as a defeat and disaster - particularly if you consider the end result of the war - i.e. Germans defeated, Allies victorious.

1916: The German High Command no longer believe that a breakthrough is now possible committed as they are to fighting in the East and in the West.

Battle of Verdun - A German offensive action that lasted nine months and ended in a victory for the French.

Battle of the Somme - A combined French and British offensive action designed to relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun that lasted five and a half months and viewed as a victory for the French and the British.

Although both the above battles were costly for all the combatant powers involved, the British and the French could replenish their losses the Germans could not. These two battles in 1916 presaged the German defeat in the First World War just as surely as the two battles in 1942 at Stalingrad and El-Alamein presaged German defeat in the Second World War.

1917: The Germans now totally on the defensive.
Battle of Arras - tactical Allied victory
Second Battle of the Aisne - a tactical defeat for the French but at the end of the costly Nivelle offensive campaign it was the Germans who were forced to withdraw.
Battle of Messines - tactical Allied victory, described by Hindenburg as being a heavy defeat for the Germans and by Von Kuhl as being one of the worst German tragedies of the War.
Third Battle of Ypres (Passchendaele) - described as a tactical Allied victory, a strategic Allied victory, yet an operational Allied failure.

To the German General Staff at Passchendaele "Germany had been brought near to certain destruction by the Flanders battle of 1917"

According to Lloyd George - "Passchendaele was indeed one of the greatest disasters of the war .... No soldier of any intelligence now (1938) defends this senseless campaign..."

But dating back to 1916 and the Battle of the Somme there had been a marked change in the British Army deployed in France, the BEF had developed a workable system of all arms, offensive tactics against which the Germans ultimately had no answer.

1918: With Russia out of the war 50 German Divisions were freed for use on the Western Front, British "bite and hold" tactics forced the Germans to adopt a strategy of seeking a decisive battle. This manifested itself in their Spring Offensive of 1918, it had to be early as they hoped to defeat the British and force France to accept terms before the Americans could make their presence felt on the Western Front. The offensive lasted for four months and was considered a tactical German success but a strategic and operational failure in that they failed to deliver the knock out blow that their plan required. The extent of their advances is shown in the link below - Christmas take a look at how far they penetrated the BEF line compared to elsewhere, remembering of course that defeat of the British was essential to the success of their plan:

German Spring Offensive 1918

By July of 1918 the German Army was spent and the Allies went over onto the offensive.
The Second Battle of the Marne was a decisive allied victory fought over three weeks in late July and early August. This battle opened what became known as the 100 Days Offensive, a series of battles that led to a decisive Allied victory and the collapse of the German Empire.

Allied final offensives 1918

The tactics, and the equipment required to render all of this possible was brought to the table for the allies to use courtesy of British ingenuity and innovation all gathered from lessons learned from the initial contact at Mons in 1914 right up until the Somme in 1916. The BEF, the "contemptible little Army" of 80,000 men deployed in August 1914, by 1918 was a formidable force of some 4,000,000 men. So on the whole - Yes they were well led - I say the results they achieved, under the circumstances and conditions they fought through, speak for themselves, they were obviously better led than their opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 14 - 02:20 AM

"Sixteen conscientious objectors from Richmond in Yorkshire were held in Richmond Prison and eventually transferred to Belgium to serve at the front.

They refused to fight and were all executed by firing squad because they had been transferred from civil to military jurisdiction."

Ah Christmas, sorry to tell you but you are wrong again, just the same as you were with regard to Mons, about Kitchener being forced to resign, about the wrong sized shells and generally about everything.

Not one single man was shot for being a Conscientious Objector - in that Keith is perfectly correct.

The sixteen men you are referring to were:

William Law
Herbert Law
John 'Bert' Brocklesby
Norman Gaudie
Alfred Martlew
Clarence Hall
Horace Eaton
C Cartwright
E C Cryer
C R Jackson
Alfred Myers
C A Senior
E S Spencer
Leonard Renton
J W Routledge
The name of the sixteenth conscientious objector isn't known.

They were transferred to France and they were court-martialled and sentenced to death on 14th June 1916. But all sixteen numbered among the 2,654 of 3,000 who were sentenced to death but whose sentences were commuted - the sixteen men you referred to as having been shot all served 10 years hard labour - all survived it, so how come you peddle the lie that they were executed?

Basic research Christmas, basic research - how come you seem so incapable of doing any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 07:53 PM

Excuse me please. I'm just changing the post count to 667.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Monique
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 06:30 PM

Some more documentation for you guys. On the 1st site, the doc in English is at the bottom of the page; from there you can reach the 2nd site and the 3rd from the 2nd.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 06:04 PM

Jim, I think I can see your case now.

You acknowledge that there was "a necessity to fight," but the volunteers did not know there was a necessity to fight, but they volunteered to fight anyway, because they had been duped by lies into believing that there was a necessity to fight, which there really was anyway.

Is that right Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:58 PM

The press was not government controlled.

Your case has been entirely based on your historians
That is true.
The subject is History.
Where does your case come from???????

you have no arguments other thean the cut-'n-pastes you have carefully selected

Not carefully selected.
There were none I needed to reject.
I always gave the link so they could be read in their correct context.

The two documentaries screened so far, plus the War Of Words R4 programme, endorse my stated views exactly.
I have provided actual statements made to camera by the presenter as proof.

You can provide not one single living historian saying anything to contradict my 3 stated views.
That is because there are none.

INSTEAD OF JUST CLAIMING THAT THERE ARE SOME WHO DO NOT SUPPORT MY VIEWS, PRODUCE ONE.

Just one would be something Jim.
You have had over three months now.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:41 PM

"My views are those of the historians, "
No it isn't - your tiny band of historians are not a consensus - you have presented them as if they are.
Even if they were, they would by a minute number of dissenting historians among a large number of experts researching the war
Your case has been entirely based on your historians - you have no arguments other thean the cut-'n-pastes you have carefully selected - you have cooked the books - you have no case
But this will in no way stop you hiding behind them, just as the TV documentaries will stop you from claiming that they back up your case when they say the opposite
You are a fanatical nutter who tells lies to back up your fanaticism.
Even your last answers are evasive;
"Not by the government."
Nobdy has said by the Government - by the Government controlled press and the officers doesn't make any difference to the Tommies who were slaghtered who lied to them, they were still dead.
You're sussed
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:51 PM

You have said it was well-run and necessary

No.
I have said that the army was well led, and you yourself said there was "a necessity to fight."

The recruits were lied to and misled

Not by the government.

You have gathered together a dispirite bunch of historians, all saying different things on different aspects of the war

Completely untrue.
My views are those of the historians, and no historian supports your discredited, outdated myths about this conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 12:17 PM

"The First World War stood as an example of what not to do with conscientious objectors"
Colonel Blimp Kitchener wanted them shot - he died before the sentence could be carried out - their final fate - ten years hard labour and a lifetime of persecution for following their Christian teachings - little short of a death sentence - what's your point (or your script's point)?
Word war was a barbaric conflict badly run and badly planned
You have said it was well-run and necessary
The recruits were lied to and misled - you have said they knew what they were fighting for
Instead of preparing for war the government knee-jerked and sent in troops prematurely to be slaughtered
You said they had no alternative.
Where exactly has anything that you have been claiming been proved right so far?
Just to clear up your "historians back me" claim
You have gathered together a dispirite bunch of historians, all saying different things on different aspects of the war (some backing you, some contradicting you) carefully extracted the bits that might-just-might back up what you are saying, lumped them all together and presented them as a united front backing your jingoism
Utter bollocks
Not one has backed your line on WW1 - not one single one.
On some aspects they might agree, but as a group they are all dealing with one line or another and seldom coming together on one single point.
You were presented with a huge list of historians all specialising in the war - you claimed the list was unreadable - it wasn't and that you were the only person on the planet who had read it.
Your dispirit little bans don't amount to a gnats nudger in the field of historical study.
Most of them are far from being leaders in their particular field of study, and none of them are fit to lick the boots of the historians you have dismissed out of hand as liars, revisionists and romantics, because they don't make your case.
Despite your desperately edit out the awkward bits and ignore those that are draw to your attention, The first two programmes have sent your blimpish claims into a tail-spin.
You have no overall support, and your prehistoric jingoism died with the good ol' British Empire
World War One has long been recognised as a bloodbath: useless, badly run, an exercise in carnage; and nothing that has been said so far (not even by your tabloid journalist whose weakness was "The Causes of World War One") is likely to change our present view of it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 11:33 AM

The recruits were lied to and misled - you have said they knew what they were fighting for

Yes I did and for the majority that was true.
You just said yourself that there was "a necessity to fight."

There was no lying to or misleading of recruits by government.

The rest of your post is the same old denial that my view is that of historians.
I GOT MY VIEWS FROM THE HISTORIANS!!!

INSTAED OF TELLING US THAT THERE ARE SOME WHO DO NOT SUPPORT MY VIEWS, PRODUCE ONE.

Just one would be something Jim.
You have had over three months now.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 11:14 AM

"The First World War stood as an example of what not to do with conscientious objectors"
Colonel Blimp Kitchener wanted them shot - he died before the sentence could be carried out - their final fate - ten years hard labour and a lifetime of persecution for following their Christian teachings - little short of a death sentence - what's your point (or your script's point)
Word war was a barbaric conflict badly run and badly planned
You have said it was well-run and necessary
The recruits were lied to and misled - you have said they knew what they were fighting for
Instead of preparing for war the government knee-jerked and sent in troops prematurely to be slaughtered
You said they had no alternative.
Where exactly has anything that you have been claiming been proved right so far?
Just to clear up your "historians back me" claim
You have gathered together a dispirite bunch of historians, all saying different things on different aspects of the war (some backing you, some contradicting you) carefully extracted the bits that might-just-might back up what you are saying, lumped them all together and presented them as a united front backing your jingoism
Utter bollocks
Not one has backed your line on WW1 - not one single one.
On some aspects they might agree, but as a group they are all dealing with one line or another and seldom coming together on one single point.
You were presented with a huge list of historians all specialising in the war - you claimed the list was unreadable - it wasn't and that you were the only person on the planet who had read it.
Your dispirit little bans don't amount to a gnats nudger in the field of historical study.
Most of them are far from being leaders in their particular field of study, and none of them are fit to lick the boots of the historians you have dismissed out of hand as liars, revisionists and romantics, because they don't make your case.
Despite your desperately edit out the awkward bits and ignore those that are draw to your attention, The first two programmes have sent your blimpish claims into a tail-spin.
You have no overall support, and your prehistoric jingoism died with the good ol' British Empire
World War One has long been recognised as a bloodbath: useless, badly run, an exercise in carnage; and nothing that has been said so far (not even by your tabloid journalist whose weakness was "The Causes of World War One") is likely to change our present view of it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 10:32 AM

Programme 1 Paxman to camera.
"But it seems to me remarkable that a country which considered itself in the grips of a struggle for national survival, none the less allowed individual citizens to decide whether they could reconcile that struggle with their personal conscience. It didn't happen elsewhere in Europe."

He could have added USA.
"The COs who endured the worst experience were absolutists who rejected any form of military service. Most of the absolutists ended up being sentenced to federal military prisons such as Leavenworth or Alcatraz. Prison guards chained incarcerated COs to the bars or grates in their cells for eight hours a day. One of the cruelest instances of mistreatment occurred when an objector in Alcatraz was transferred to Leavenworth and later died. He had refused to wear a military uniform and was given no other clothing option. In the damp and chilly cell, he contracted pneumonia, received no medical care, and died. For his refusal to compromise his beliefs, the Army sent his body home in a military uniform.

The First World War stood as an example of what not to do with conscientious objectors. As a result, when war clouds loomed during the 1930s, both sides resolved to rectify some of the problems created by hostility, inexperience, and ambiguity that had marked the World War I experience for COs."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 10:04 AM

Whew! They agree on something! Wonders never cease!

Proceed. . .