Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:24 AM

How can anyone not be self righteous when faced with ignorant c...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:28 AM

Sorry, I'll start again..

How can anyone not be self righteous when faced with ignorant c..

Well, I am right most of the time, but I doubt I would be comfortable with being referred to as self righteous.

Says a lot about you.

Most of which, most people here have guessed anyway.

So let's get this straight. Anybody who thinks WW1 was anything other than a successful campaign where everything went to plan, men were well led, no need for red tops patrolling behind the lines because everybody was on board, no need to execute your own soldiers, no need to hand out white feathers blah blah blah.

We are all ignorant.

Safety in numbers eh?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:34 AM

"How can anyone not be self righteous when faced with ignorant clowns who think they understand History much better than the Hisorians!?"
Probably in the same way the people claim to understand history without ever having read it - you tell us
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:49 AM

I am ignorant about many things, but on this thread I have only put up the views of Historians.

They have become my views because only a self-obsessed buffoon would think they know better than the historians, as you self obsessed buffoons do.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:50 AM

You were doing alright up to the first comma. Keep practicing, you'll get there.

🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:54 AM

Jim, I have been reading the History of this all my adult life.
That is why I can quote the words of Historians to support my views.
It is where I got my views.

You two can find nothing and no one to support you except each other.

You lose, and unless you can produce something to support yourselves, we are finished here.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,of 18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 09:27 AM

We need to differentiate between history as what scholars write about history and history as what actualy happened. They are different, which is why we have, for example, 'Marxist historians'.

If there was a consensus between scholars they would be out of a job so far as that topic was concerned.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 10:17 AM

Musket - "So let's get this straight. Anybody who thinks WW1 was anything other than a successful campaign where everything went to plan, men were well led, no need for red tops patrolling behind the lines because everybody was on board, no need to execute your own soldiers, no need to hand out white feathers blah blah blah.

We are all ignorant."

Care to show me any evidence to support the idea that anybody on this thread has said or thought that:

1: WW1 was a totally successful campaign where everything went to plan?

2: WW1 was a successful campaign throughout where men were well led?

3: Anybody said that there were no red caps patrolling behind the lines?

4: Anybody said that no soldiers were executed?

5: Anybody said that no white feathers were handed out?

You will be pushed to find any evidence of that, but there again you have moved the goal posts a bit haven't you?

1: YOU have contended that WWI was a disaster from start to finish and that British generals in particular were incompetent idiots - That is demonstrably untrue and that is what you have been told and given proof of

2: By and large British and Commonwealth troops were generally well led during the course of the First World War and their casualty figures when compared to those of the other 1914 combatant nations supports that contention.

3: According to you red caps were lined up in the trenches behind British troops prior to any attack being mounted with orders to shoot anyone who did not advance or who turned back - That contention is a myth, it never happened, you were given the chance to provide proof of even one single instance of it happening - we are all still waiting - we will wait for a long time because it never happened, for anyone in the British Army to do that would be illegal.

4: Just over 306 members of the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces were executed during the War - out of an Army of some 5,300,000. Sorry Musket that amounts to 0.006% of the men under command - WOW moral and discipline must have shot to hell eh? Stafford Hospital in 3 years killed how many in their A&E department 1,200 wasn't it?

5: What had white feathers got to do with anything or anybody in charge of running the war in Great Britain? Answer: nothing.

Basically on practically everything to do with this discussion you are incredibly ill-informed and pig-ignorant.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 10:49 AM

Guest Musket, if there is only one History.
You have been able to find no historians who support you.

I give you the Historians' words and you do not accept them.
To continue is pointless.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 10:57 AM

No "if"

Guest Musket, there is only one History.
You have been able to find no historians who support you.
Historians differ on some things, but not this.

I give you the Historians' words and you do not accept them.
To continue is pointless.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 10:58 AM

"Jim, I have been reading the History of this all my adult life."
Boys own and Hotspur history doesn't count - your entire input into these discussions are glened from the web - you show no knowledge of having read a single serious book (don't count BNP and Ukip handouts as reading)
You have recently gleaned quotes from four historians - three establishment mouthpieces and fourth one poorly digested by you.
A typical example of your selective and half-digested technique was Max Clifford, but a better one was your magnificent selection of Christine, who you used to exonerate Britain from blame for how the Irish Famine was handled, only to find she was a staunch supporter of the 'Irish Holocaust' school of thought - can still see the skid-marks and smell the burning rubber from your u-turn.
Let's not disturb Colonel Mainwaring while he's still up to his neck in muck and bullets on the Somme - who knows, if we're good he'll move on to Waterloo an then - Battle of Hastings maybe.
War gaming knows no bounds
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 11:46 AM

Jim, I do not claim to have read much about the famine, but I certainly have on WWI.
Hastings, Sheffield and Todman are eminent and respected historians.
I did not digest the words of Macmillan and Pennell, I quoted them in context.
There are more.
If you still can not find a single one who believes your shit, this is over and you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,vetrean
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 12:08 PM

It's November- isn't it time for an Armistice?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 01:07 PM

"Hastings, Sheffield and Todman are eminent and respected historians."
Hastings is a tabloid journalist who is highly critical of the British military, the other two are militarary employees
Doesn't matter, you've only scavenged from them, you certainly haven't read any of them otherwise you wouldn't have made the Kinealy-like foot-in-mouth with Hastings
As veteran (are you one of those "liars" Keith has been talking about0 has said - time for a truce.
Goodbyee - don't cryee
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 02:30 PM

Jim, the BBC thinks they are the best.
They are the most well known and most published on this subject.
Pennell and Macmillan the same.
Likewise Peter Hart, Snow, Brown and all the rest.
Not one single Historian supports your case and unless you can find one, you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 02:32 PM

Wipe the poo baby dear from your bummee 🎵🎶

Anyone up for a visit to the war graves? We can sit and with due melancholy read from Keith and Terribulus's posts.

They will be so glad to know the truth, and how necessary it was to be sent over the top, years after the waves of men tactic had been seen to be suicidal.

About the time of machine guns, to be precise.

Still, just so long as they were well led by competent, caring senior staff eh?

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:05 PM

"Jim, the BBC thinks they are the best."
What it boils down to Keith, is that you prefer to take the selections you have cut an pasted written in the main by establishment historian nearly a century after the events (because they have been carefully selected to appear to coincide with your own jingoism) than the description given by those who fought, of their officers, their reasons for joining up and the way they felt about the war, especially when they returned home
You have chosen to describe those who fought as "liars" and "out-of-step" when their reminiscences do not follow the official line.
Personally, I find this shameful, but I have come to expect no less from you and your ilk
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:06 PM

Musket, the Historians say different.
I believe the Historians.
Have you found a single one who supports you?
If not, you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:13 PM

I have quoted many.
You can not find one.
You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,of 18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:16 PM

@Musket. Keith may have left a comma out. His muddled view ("there is only one History") is what I suspected.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:17 PM

Or is he the one who thinks I am you ?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 01:08 AM

But like history, it can only be clear, unequivocal and accurate, eh?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 02:06 AM

Excuse me Musket but what "waves of men tactic"?

What such a tactic is, is a frontal assault by densely concentrated infantry formations against an enemy line, without any attempts to shield or to mask the attacker's movement.

Now which British General used that "tactic" during the Great War?

European Armies (French; German; Russian; Austro-Hungarian; Italian) used such tactics initially because they had the manpower - The British Army certainly in the opening two years of the war did not.

Others who have used the tactic have been the Japanese, Soviets, Chinese, the Viet Cong and the Iranians. Candidates for this were remarkably easy to select from the armies of totalitarian states during the Second World War as their armies contained what they called punishment battalions, something the British Army has never had.

Minefield to clear? Easy just order your Punishment Battalion to advance directly over it, those men clear the mines allowing your next wave of soldiers to advance. In this Musket you get the kernal of your "Red Cap" myth you seem so keen on perpetuating. Wherever a Soviet or German Punishment Battalion was positioned an NKVD or SS Unit lined up behind them to force them forward and while there is no evidence or examples of British Red Caps ever doing this instances of this sort of thing happening on the Eastern front during the Second World War are many.

Oh and Keith is right there is only one history but that doesn't stop there being many interpretations of it by people with vastly varying skills, knowledge and abilities when it comes to examining the events. In the case of yourself, Christmas and Steve Shaw you are all hidebound in your mindset of today's mores, memes and attitudes, hellbent on your insistence that they somehow could have ever been applicable and adopted by those in charge of events and having to deal with real problems over 100 years ago. You have displayed little or no skill in understanding the events, the problems faced, or the solutions available to those involved. All that coupled with a woeful lack of knowledge. While Keith and myself quote from considered historical sources you quote from fiction, Christmas bleating "but they were there" with monotonous regularity - ask any Policeman about the reliability of witness statements, twenty witnesses to any event and you get twenty different versions of what they have all just seen - but "They were there".

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,of 18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 03:24 AM

The 'only one history' view cannot be relied on in a discussion that may cross education systems (e.g. the internet). I was taught, quite clearly, that history was the things and actual events, not someone's interpretation or a narrative put together at a later time from a particular perspective.

However, in some places it is taught that 'history' is the historian's narrative, not the actual events. So you can have "A history of ..." - note the indenfinite article.

In either case what we read cannot be relied on as a correct account of past events.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 03:30 AM

"You lose."
Four are not many compared with the hundred plus you described as too many.
You have chosen to ignore those 100 plus and reject the testimonies of those who were there as "lies"
Yup - seems you've beaten those "liars" hands down
"ask any Policeman about the reliability of witness statements,"
Lairs again eh - those who described their disillusionment, bad leadership and having been conned into enlisting must have been either mistaken or making it up and we have to rely on those who came a century later to tell us what really happened!!!
Thanks for repeating Keith's squalid attack on the veterans - it puts this argument squarely where it belongs - the official military version versus actual experience
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 03:43 AM

Perhaps I should have added, ask any victim of police harassment how the official account given by a policeman often differs widely from what really happened - or all our bobbies as wonderful as our generals?
Suppose they are really!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:09 AM

Great Christmas pleased to see that you got the point on the eye witnesses - "they were there" - and all saw different things - which actually reflect what actually happened, where it happened and why it happened - nine times out of ten your eye-witnesses won't have a clue despite them "Being There".

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:16 AM

You begin to understand now how Turkey manages to keep their atrocities in Armienia out of their public's sphere of reality. All it takes is a few revisionists willing to reinterpret and a few shallow fools to take it all in.

Has anybody with a bit of intelligence got a view to offer us that supports the awful shit Terribulus and TC Keith seem to be rather taken by?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:21 AM

What's up Musket, run out of relevant reading material? Having had the complete and utter bullshit you have been spouting exposed for precisely what it is you are now having to resort to deflection and distraction? Dear oh dear - better get back to telling us all what folk music is.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:38 AM

I have quoted the best known and most respected.
There are more but none who think the army was badly led or that people including soldiers supported the war.
That is the "one history"
If it is not, show us some dissenting quotes.
You have had over a year now.

If there are none, you have lost the argument.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:47 AM

None that think people including soldiers supported the war?

Get a grip man, you are supposed to be supporting revisionists, not denouncing them!

If it's all the same to you, contemporary historians, first hand accounts, fields full of dead men and the draconian methods used to coerce men are still relevant in my opinion. Revisionists have not, based purely on what I have read, made a case. The spat between Michael Gove and Tony Robinson was rather telling.....

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:55 AM

Thanks Musket.
I omitted the negative.
There are none who support you.
On those issues they all agree with me.

We do not need two simultaneous threads on this and the show has been dealt with.
I am leaving this thread, but unless you can find something, anything to back up your silly claims, the debate is over anyway.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:58 AM

"Great Christmas pleased to see that you got the point on the eye witnesses "
You apper not to have got the point about "official" versions being deliberately concocted to protect establishment reputations
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 05:08 AM

There was no debate to begin with. A jingoistic education secretary didn't like how kids were being taught that those in control are fallible. There are enough side stories about the war that a tired old hack can exploit and a few bored profs jumping on the bandwagon, and there you go.

As you saw up the thread, the people you quote also said the exact opposite, trying to be balanced academics. Except the hacks. Of course.

And you love how it sanitises military leaders.



I still like the "you lose" stuff though. Nice to know what you are dealing with eh?

🐴🐴🐴💩💩💩

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 05:09 AM

Lost the plot again Musket?

Look at these four different periods and snapshots:

1918 to around 1928 - The history and the mémoires as written by those who took part - they roughly agree with what historians are saying now.

1928 to 1939 - First "revised" and critical works generally in the form of mémoires of political leaders deflecting blame from themselves (Lloyd George) and people peddling and pandering to a policy of Appeasement (Basil Liddell Hart)

1960 to 1968 - Second "revision" occasioned by 50th anniversary anti-war hysteria, anti-establishment "Kool" and basically a load of twaddle (e.g. crap such as Alan Clark's "The Donkey's" & OWALW)

1994 to Present - Third "revision" occasioned by the deaths and disappearance of those who fought and lived through it along with the approaching 90th and 100th anniversaries - This came down firmly on the side that the second and third "revisions" were populist, literary, mythological based crap driven by alternative agendas of those doing the writing and that the first take on things wasn't too far off the mark (Not surprisingly).

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 05:21 AM

"You appear not to have got the point about "official" versions being deliberately concocted to protect establishment reputations"

And your examples of those are?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 06:06 AM

Musket, the views I expressed have been accepted by historians for over thirty years.
That Times Higher piece was twenty years old.
You think it is about Gove.
You really do know nothing.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 07:57 AM

The recent sanitising is recently contrived. The older stuff you refer to also gives the other views and tries to balance. Others have quoted a few above. Read them. I debate, not enter into a Google contest.

All your precious historians give a far more balanced view than your cherry picking. My concern with the political angle is that Gove and Co were also promoting out of context snippets. Their favourite hack, Max Hastings completely prostituting historical narration.

There again, he does support the executions of soldiers... I doubt he would question or analyse the measures put in place to coerce a generation to near fucking genocide.

💩😞

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:06 AM

Who put measures in place to coerce others into what genocide Musket?

You're beginning to froth just like Steve.

The casualty rates you have been given - The UK's were roughly half those of either Germany or France yet it was OUR Generals who were the incompetent fools.

German armed forces 1914 - 4.5 million by 1918 they had mobilised roughly 11 million - so they roughly doubled in size

Austro-Hungarian forces in 1914 - 3 million by 1918 they had mobilised 7.8 million so they too had just over doubled in size

Russia 5.9 million in 1914 by 1917 that had just over doubled in size to 12 million

France 4 million in 1914 just over doubled in size to 8.4 million

Great Britain had armed forces of 0.9 million in 1914 by 1918 had increased almost tenfold to 8.9 million.

So not only did our Generals develop and perfect the tactics and weapons required to break the stalemate of trench warfare on the Western Front then go on to spearhead the most successfully offensive campaign ever conducted by the British Army in its entire history. Hold down our casualty rates to roughly half of those of our allies and of our enemies. They were responsible for overseeing the largest expansion of any of the 1914 combatant powers at the same time and it was OUR Generals who were incompetent fools - You really do have to be joking - as someone else asked what planet are you on?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:11 AM

Oh, so we were only half as incompetent as other forces. Thanks. I'm sure that'll be comforting for the skeletons. Shall you tell them or shall I?

🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 10:58 AM

"I still like the "you lose" stuff though. Nice to know what you are dealing with eh?"
Yeah - think we can enter him into 'Hertford's Got Talent' - bound to be a winner!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 11:08 AM

To my recollection the only talent in Hertford worked behind the bar in The Dog and Whistle. EEH! she were luvvly.

Is that pub still there?

Come to think about it, is..?

Our bass player said he'd cross the Sahara just to drink her dirty bath water.

Enough to turn a right on feminist like me into a misogynist old man.

Sorry, where were we?

Oh yes. She said "you lose." Must be a form of greeting down those parts. (Up those parts. I am at Kings Cross awaiting my train back oop North.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 11:22 AM

Anyway. This is a thread about Mrs MacColl MkI's excellent portrayal of the war, lest we forget.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 12:09 PM

If you enter into a debate with someone who can substantiate everything he says while you can only assert and bluster, you lose.
You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 12:30 PM

Yep, must be a form of greeting thereabouts...

Mind you, as a Sheff Wed fan' I'm sadly somewhat used to hearing those words.

Have you ever entered into a debate Keith? Who with? What happened?

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 12:51 PM

As Michael has also observed, you seem incapable of debate Musket.
You just make assertions and demand belief.
As here, you resort to ridicule and abuse, but never anything to support your views which are in fact just prejudice and preconception.

You have stated views that you can not support and which are contradicted by all the people who have made a study of the issue.
So, you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 02:34 PM

If you want to compare with something, compare the WWI dead with the 375 dead in three times as long a similarly-sized strop in Afghanistan involving around 100 000 Brits? Yup, they were homicidal maniacs, just not on quite the same scale as those Teribus compares with. I'm using the current set of data because we have an accurate and detailed list to work with.

375 dead? Yes, I subtracted the 60 who died from causes other than enemy action from the supposed 435, the suicides, the 10 who died from "friendly" fire, the fraggings, the deaths from poorly-designed kit. The 14 guys who died when a 40 year-old Nimrod blew up after refuelling in midair, because the MOD hadn't bothered to sort the refuelling system still leaking like a bloody sieve four years into the War, ignoring the "lessons" supposedly learned using them in the Falklands War. The Nimrod was a derivative of the de Havilland Comet, the first ever passenger jet whose design dates back as far as 1943 and whose first series was withdrawn from service within a year of entering service in 1954 because the designers had to learn the hard way about metal fatigue. There are those who say they died from enemy inaction from the same school of blithering incompetents we're discussing here. And if you want me to get really agressive on that count, there's another 34 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan from the MOD insisting on their using Snatch Landrovers, despite the resignation of people like the SAS' Major Seb Morley over the issue. Or the 28 who died in Warrior IFVs, also used in a context they were not designed for. My bet for the most ridiculous of the deaths among the 435 attributed to my soul is the poor guy who died in a jet-ski accident in Cyprus on R&R on the way home. Perhaps we should add Kirsty MacColl in too...

To bring this back to the original point, the same can be said of the dead in WWI who did not die of enemy action, but from disease caused by the conditions they were forced to live in, one third of those who are numbered among the Glorious Dead, grosso modo 300 000. And you cannot attribute those deaths to enemy action. These are figures, reasons and blames anyone in a Command situation must carry engraved on their soul, lest they witlessly add to the count.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 02:56 AM

Musket - 25 Nov 14 - 09:11 AM - What an idiotic post - at least you are consistent:

"Oh, so we were only half as incompetent as other forces. Thanks.

Tell me why is your glass always half-empty? Using the same reasoning you could equally state that they were twice as competent as any of their contemporaries in command of the largest armies of the day, indeed the largest armies the world had ever seen.

Tell me Musket how do you talk to and comfort a skeleton? Do you do it often? Perhaps you got some practice in at Stafford - well you are banging on about incompetence aren't you?

If you wish to compare GUEST Rahere then compare like with like (World War One to Afghanistan - are you f**kin serious??). But as you appear to like digging up figures for Afghanistan and Iraq can you furnish us with the figures for the number of soldiers, Royal Marines and SF who rode about in Land Rovers who didn't get killed, who completed their journeys and their missions successfully. Perhaps you could go through the same exercise for those who were equally safe and successful whilst being transported in Vikings or Warriors who did not get killed.

Rather liked the comment that those killed in the Warriors were killed because they were engaged in operations the Warrior was not intended for:

The two Warriors hit by "friendly fire" during Desert Storm were part of an armoured formation moving across open terrain in accordance with orders that they had received to do so - OK then GUEST Rahere WHAT IS IT that these Warrior AFVs are supposed to be capable of doing?

The investigation of the most recent incident of British soldiers being killed in a Warrior AFV (Blown up by a massive IED) revealed that those soldiers would have died even if they had been sitting there in a Main Battle Tank so large was the charge that was used. The main contributing factor to their death by IED was the fact that when patrolling that stretch of road they stopped in the same place regularly - i.e. their enemy knew where to plant the charge and they knew where they could hide to hit the command detonate button.

Two facts of life - there are no unsinkable ships and there are no mine-proof vehicles.

By the way Rahere do you attribute the 50 to 100 million who died because of the "Spanish" Flu pandemic as being down to British Generals as well?

I dare say if you compare the mortality rates from various diseases in the early 1900s to the mortality rates from the same diseases today you will find an amazing difference - all a matter of understanding of the disease, its treatment, the medicines, the facilities and procedures available and used in its treatment. All of that plus the ancillary, peripheral things that help, such as better communications, better roads, better transport, better nutrition.

Considering that the First World War was the most horrendous armed struggle the world had ever seen at that time yet 9 out of every 10 British/Commonwealth soldiers who either volunteered or was conscripted survived it - Very easy with 20 x 20 hindsight to decry what others did and how others reacted when faced with real and unimagined problems 100 years ago only makes those leveling the criticism in retrospect with 21st century attitudes and perceptions appear to be downright foolish - sort of like the American tourist at Windsor Castle remarking how stupid it had been of the British Royal family to build their principal London residence so near to the airport.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:08 AM

I said earlier in the thread that Terribulus should go on the stage.

I should add that he or she should wear a red nose and a 100 year old general uniform. After all, if you must talk like a cunt it helps to look like one.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:18 AM

Could you perhaps think of another cuss-word just for a change, Popgun dear? This interminable iteration of 'cunt' is getting more than somewhat boring...

≈M≈