Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:55 PM

There was overwhelming support for the war from day one, before any recruitment campaigns.
The people thought the war was necessary and modern historians say they were right.
Jim thinks he knows better than both, and that is the impasse again.
No point in continuing.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:28 PM

No point in continuing. sez Keith.

This gent. is starting to remind me of the policemens' chorus in The Pirates Of Penzance:

POLICE        All right, we go.

ALL        Yes, forward on the foe!

GENERAL        Yes, but you don't go!

POLICE         We go, we go

ALL        Yes, forward on the foe!

GENERAL        Yes, but you don't go!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM

i suggested there is no point continuing, but you and others keep coming back.
I will try again.


There was overwhelming support for the war from day one, before any recruitment campaigns.
The people thought the war was necessary and modern historians say they were right.
Jim thinks he knows better than both, and that is the impasse again.
No point in continuing.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:42 PM

I suppose "the people" whatever that means, did think the war was necessary. After all, Keith believes anything so long as it is, if I recall, post 1970, from what his personal rules call historians, alive, eminent and on his approved list.

If they meet that criteria, they can say the hundreds of thousands of men were well led to the point of dying and Keith would believe it.

Oh.....

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:48 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM

Q.E.D.

(With thanks to W.S.Gilbert.)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:46 PM

There was overwhelming public support for the war.
That is what I meant by "the people"
Do you challenge that fact?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:56 PM

More W.S. Gilbert, as expected.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 06:54 AM

Lighter thanks for the correction and the information.

Christmas:
1: "Wrong type of shells - that's ok then"

Well yes basically it is if that is all you have then that is what you fire at the enemy. In 1914 Britain's army was tiny, primarily because unlike Germany Britain had not spent the last 20 years preparing an army for war. Between 1914 and much of 1915 the only place making artillery shells for the British Army was the Royal Arsenal Woolwich. Our pal Kitchener had warned the politicians the day he took over as Secretary of State for War that Great Britain would have to raise and equip an army of millions - and guess what Christmas that cannot happen overnight - so let us stick to dealing with reality - you fight with what you've got and that is what Sir John French did, and he fought because he had to, it was not a matter of choice.

2: "Britain had a duty to oppose what was being done by one of its allies"

Tell me Christmas what alliance are you talking about? What ally are you talking about? Belgium was never an ally of Great Britain's until German troops invaded Belgium and violated her neutrality, which Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, France, Russia and the Netherlands had solemnly sworn to respect and uphold under the terms and conditions of the Treaty of London 1839. In 1914 Great Britain was bound by no formal military alliances.

3: There is no such country as Britain, never has been such a country. Main Island of the British Isles hosted three nations, the English, the Welsh and the Scots. In the reign of Edward I Wales became a Principality under English rule. In 1603 a Scottish King succeeded to the throne of England, in 1707 the Act of Union joined the two nation states of Scotland and England to form the country known as Great Britain. Ireland joined in 1800 to form state officially and correctly known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and that was what it was known as in 1914.

4: "Campaigns were being carried out - notebly by Mark Twain, to stop the slaughter in the Congo

Ah Mark Twain - all on his own was he? Ever hear of Roger Casement who at the time was a member of the British Colonial Service?

" In 1903 the British government commissioned Casement, then the British consul at Boma in the Congo Free State, to investigate the human-rights situation in that Belgian colony of Leopold II.

Casement traveled for weeks in the upper Congo Basin to interview people throughout the region, including workers, overseers and mercenaries. He delivered a long, detailed eyewitness report to the Crown that exposed abuses: "the enslavement, mutilation, and torture of natives on the rubber plantations," the Casement Report of 1904.

Casement's report provoked controversy, and some companies with a business interest in the Congo rejected its findings, as did Casement's former boss, Alfred Lewis Jones. In the longer term, Casement's report would prove instrumental in gaining international pressure that forced Leopold in 1908 to relinquish his personal holdings in Africa.

When the report was made public, opponents of Leopold formed interest groups, such as the Congo Reform Association, founded by E. D. Morel with Casement's support, and demanded action to relieve the situation of the natives. Other European nations followed suit, as did the United States; and the British Parliament demanded a meeting of the 14 signatory powers to review THE 1885 BERLIN AGREEMENT defining interests in Africa. The Belgian Parliament, forced Léopold to set up an independent commission of inquiry. In 1905, despite Léopold's efforts, it confirmed the essentials of Casement's report. On 15 November 1908, the parliament of Belgium took over the Congo Free State from Léopold and organised its administration as the Belgian Congo."

So Christmas don't you dare say that the British Government stood back and did nothing - as well documented evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise.

5: Something that I think I should point out and emphasise:

During the Great War from 1914 until half way through 1916 every single man that served in the British Armed Forces were volunteers, they were not recruited as those who had served before had been recruited, they volunteered, they WENT in droves to Army recruitment offices. The primary reason at the time between August and December 1914 was that the BEF had been in action in France and had lost men at Mons, Le Cateau and on the Marne - roughly 1,200,000 men from Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland, entirely of their own free will joined up to serve their country and fill the gaps left in the ranks and increase the Army's strength..

In this the volunteer armed forces of Great Britain were unique as all the armies of all the other combatant nations used the system of universal conscription - their young men had absolutely no choice whatsoever - all had done their "national service" and all served time in their army's "reserve" so that when war came their armies numbered in millions - millions of men who had absolutely no choice.

In 1916 when the British Government introduced conscription it was far from universal and only applied in England, Scotland and in Wales.

It was under the leadership of those OWALW pours scorn and ridicule on that Great Britain's first ever citizen army of some 5.3 million men was created in under two years.

It was under the leadership of those OWALW pours scorn and ridicule on that Great Britain emerged from the Great War as the only country whose Armies had not mutinied in the field and whose civilian population had not once ever rioted against their Government.

It was under the leadership of those OWALW pours scorn and ridicule that that first ever, hastily raised citizen Army defeated what at the time was considered to be the best and most powerful Army in the world - and they did it in 100 days.

Were things always perfect? - No of course they weren't.

Were mistakes made? - Of course there were.

But none of that detracts from what was accomplished - and quite frankly if none of you are honest enough with yourselves and are too mean in spirit to give credit where credit is due - then all I can say is that I am very, very pleased to say that I do not walk in your shoes

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:39 AM

Giving credit when it is due does not extend to saying the end justified the means.

The means included white feathers, jingoism, red caps patrolling, court martial, execution and waves of men sent over the top to wear down the German gunners.

And that's before we get to the debacle at Galipoli.

(By saying conscription in Great Britain only extended to England, Scotland and Wales so was far from universal? Any chance of naming any part of Great Britain that isn't in England, Scotland or Wales?).

You swap terms around in order to confuse. The only people confused however are those, (of which you make 50% yourself) who insist that the slaughter was planned that way and we should see it as a good thing.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 08:18 AM

Excuse me but just by way of clarification who was it that said:

"conscription in Great Britain only extended to England, Scotland and Wales so was far from universal?

In the post below this was said:

"In 1916 when the British Government introduced conscription it was far from universal and only applied in England, Scotland and in Wales."

Looking up the term "universal conscription" I have found that it means that everyone within whatever the stated age range is conscripted provided they are medically fit to serve.

Conscription when it was first introduced by the British Government during the First World War applied only to single men between the ages of 18 and 41 and as such was not "universal" but "selective".

The British Government of the day could have introduced conscription through the whole country including Ireland and the colonies, although not in the Dominions or in India. But it didn't.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:33 AM

"and guess what Christmas that cannot happen overnight"
Yeah - always blame the ones that went before - the Tories are still doing it.
Doesn't matter one way or the other - as the Paxman programmes pointed out, your pal (not mine, no time for military thugs) was forced to tender his resignation over the matter, no amount of bluster on your part changes that.
"Ever hear of Roger Casement who at the time was a member of the British Colonial Service?"
I'm well aware of Casement and his humanitarian work on behalf of the Congolese - all of which was also ignored by the friends of "gallant little Belgium"
You pair have consistently presented the war as one against German tyranny - there was nothing to choose between any of the empires - they were all predatory tyrants - stop erecting straw men.
We've been over why people joined up - you pair of despicos have described soldiers accounts of their reasons as "attention seeking lies" which places you where you both belong - rammed firmly up the backside of the establishment.
What was accomplished - you have to be joking!!
A generation gave their lives to protect the Empire and a rigid class system.
The Empire - after more sacrifice on the part of those who are expected to make such sacrifices - eventually nose-dived and good riddance.
The heroes returned to mass unemployment, hunger marches and an establishment which was happy to appease fascism until eventually "we started all over again" - as Bogle also says.
Those who actively opposed fascism on the streets of Britain (members of my family among them) were met with baton charges and jail sentences.
My father returned from Spain to find he had been awarded a police record as a "premature anti-fascist" and was blacklisted from work.
Even while the war was being fought, some of the 'great and good' were setting up shadow governments in preparation for when "herr Hitler" won the day - led (maybe not so) ironically by the 12th Duke of Wellington.   
Some ******* achievement!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 04:10 AM

Meant to say - Twain's significance in pointing out the Belgian massacres was in the publication of his 'King Leopold's Soliloquy' which starkly set out the Belgian massacres in gruesome detail - still a horrific read over a century later - and totally ignored by the "opposers of German tyranny.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:46 AM

Did he resign then Jim?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:33 AM

Wha?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:32 AM

(kitchener)was forced to tender his resignation over the matter,

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:53 PM

So - still haven't a clue what you're gibbering about - did who resign from what?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 03:57 AM

You said Kitchener "was forced to tender his resignation over the matter."

Did he resign?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:35 AM

"Did he resign?"
If you bother to read what is written, the British Government refused to accept his resignation because of the embarrassment it would have caused to have done so.
Shortly afterward Kitchener was drowned leading to rumours that his drowning was deliberate - rumours still circulating 20 years ago when we visited Orkney.
The whole affair has been covered in various discussions here - it seems you don't read these postings, just as you don't read history - wake up at the back there!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 02:22 PM

So he was forced to tender his resignation, and then forced not to resign.
Is that it?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 02:33 PM

moron.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 03:48 PM

From The history learning site:

The Cabinet was in agreement over a withdrawal from the Dardanelle's – all except Kitchener. He considered withdrawals to be a sign of weakness that would encourage the enemy. It was the same approach that had led to a breakdown in his relationship with Sir John French at the start of World War One. Many in the Cabinet felt that Kitchener had served his purpose but now had to move on. They pressed Asquith to either sack him or push him into resigning from the Cabinet. Asquith was in a difficult position because Kitchener was still something of a talisman to the public and a sacking would not be greeted well. Kitchener spared Asquith this problem when he offered to resign in November 1915. Asquith refused to accept it believing that his public aura, regardless of Northcliffe's campaign, far outweighed the thoughts expressed by his Cabinet. However, Asquith did remove from Kitchener more of his responsibilities so that by the end of 1915, he was only in charge of administering the War Office. He finally resigned from the Cabinet when senior army commanders were given free access to the Cabinet – previously they had to go through Kitchener, which to some extent gave him control over who in the army met with the Cabinet and who did not.

It is actually quite simple. The cabinet wanted him to go. Asquith didn't but he did remove some of his responsibilities.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:45 AM

" He finally resigned from the Cabinet when senior army commanders were given free access to the Cabinet"

If this is indeed true then there must be a date for this resignation.

His only appointment was that of Secretary of State for War so that must have been the Cabinet Post he resigned from. Any idea who his successor was?

The official dates for those holding the post of Secretary of State for War during the Great War are as follows:

Herbert Asquith - Secretary of State for War 30.03.1914 to 5.08.1914

Herbert Kitchener - Secretary of Sate for War 5.08.1914 to 5.06.1916 (Died as a result of enemy action)

David Lloyd George - Secretary of State for War 6.07.1916 to 5.12.1916

Earl of Derby - Secretary of State for War 10.12.1916 to 18.04.1918

Viscount Milner - Secretary of Sate for War 18.04.1918 to 10.01.1919

I would suggest that The History Learning Site article linked to is wrong and the information given is incorrect. Anyone wishing to refute that statement please come up with the date of Lord Kitchener's resignation.

Look at the gaps between each succeeding Secretary of State for War - either immediate hand-over or at most a few days delay, with the exception of Kitchener where the position lay vacant from the 5th June until the 6th July while a successor was sought. Which sort of pours doubt on everyone being eager to get rid of Kitchener - logically if you are keen to get rid of someone in an organisation you line up the likely replacement before you get rid of the incumbent, and that demonstrably was not the case when Kitchener died suddenly with the loss of HMS Hampshire.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:09 AM

But it is a history site. Written by a historian. It HAS to be believed surely?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:16 AM

Oh - and it it quite easy to keep a title and be relieved of the responsibilities it covers. Keeping his title but being relieved of the responsibilities is, to my mind, worse than being sacked.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:42 AM

The History Learning Site was not "written by historians" at all.
Every page was written by one retired school teacher "from his own knowledge"!!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM

Ah, ok, so it is written by someone who has read a few history books but does not really know what they are talking about? Well, I do apologise for misleading anyone and assure you that it was unintentional. I wonder where I got the idea that it was OK to spout opinions about history after having read a few history books?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:57 AM

I quote actual historians and would never put up stuff like that as evidence of anything.

You people and your guests are just frantic for anything to support your case.
A year of desperate googling and this is the best you can find!

You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM

It has been shown that one part of "The History Learning Site" article on Kitchener was a load of bollocks - unless of course you can come up with a date for his non-existent resignation so what makes you presuppose that the rest of it is factually correct?

At the outset Kitchener was given three jobs to do and due to the presence of practically all the ablest men in the British Army in France Kitchener had to buckle down to his tasks with no Staff. After the campaigns of 1915 it was clear that the British Field armies required heavier guns and a great deal more High Explosive ammunition - to ensure that this work proceeded the British Government created the Ministry of Munitions and as that required experience related to manufacturing and production as opposed to soldiering a Minister for Munitions was created and that reduced Kitchener's assign tasks from three to two.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:16 AM

"So he was forced to tender his resignation, and then forced not to resign.

Is that it?" - Keith A of Hertford (07 Dec 14 - 02:22 PM)

Yes that is what Jim Carroll does appear to be saying.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:18 AM

How about: In 1915, his political reputation was badly damaged as the Gallipoli campaign began to collapse and the Shell Crisis hit. The latter, a scandal resulting from a belief that the British Army was short on shells, led Asquith's government to collapse. In the coalition government that was formed, Kitchener was retained but responsibility for munitions production was transferred to David Lloyd George. Following the crisis, he travelled to the Mediterranean to inspect the conditions at Gallipoli and other installations in the region. It was hoped that Kitchener could be persuaded to remain in the area as commander-in-chief.

That December, Sir William Robertson was named Chief of the Imperial General Staff on the condition that he was granted the right to speak for the army in the Cabinet. As a result, Kitchener was reduced to overseeing manpower and recruitment.

From about education and by Kennedy Hickman . This is getting be be really good fun. There is a sweepstake running at work to see what excuse is next. I have drawn 'He wears an anorak' but I think 'He is an American' will probably win.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:25 AM

"It was hoped that Kitchener could be persuaded to remain in the area as commander-in-chief." I am immediately suspicious of a historian that writes things that probably have an implied meaning but don't say what.

Is that "Good chap, hope he stays to sort things out" or "Let's hope he does not come back" ?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:27 AM

Damn! It was Lorraine in the post room that had "Suspicious on a historian who implies things". It was £50 as well!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 11:13 AM

I suppose it's handy if you want to say that a historian supports the view you are presenting. Keith ?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:47 PM

"So he was forced to tender his resignation, and then forced not to resign."
What are you on Keith?
You claim that the Paxman programmes backed your claims, yet it appears you didn't watch them.
Sigh......
Following the wrong shells fiasco, Kitchener tendered his resignation.
Having blown up his image as a hero following the Omdurman (described as an execution, not a) Battle, the establishment decided it would be too much of an embarrassment to allow Kitchener to resign, so they refused to accept it.
Rumour has it that they chose to 'off him' in Orkney instead.
I'm sure there are numerous cut-'n-pastes I could scoop up which cover this (if I were set on'the glittering prizes' as you appear to be) - but why bother - you can easily get your Ouija board out and ask one of your phantom historians - I'm sure one of the six might know.
Isn't it covered by your voluminous library of history books
'Nothing remains the same but change' as they say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:09 AM

To continue the Kitchener cut'n'paste game, I found these two:

1: "On 2 June 1916, Lord Kitchener personally answered questions asked by politicians about his running of the war effort; at the start of hostilities Kitchener had ordered two million rifles from various US arms manufacturers. Only 480 of these rifles had arrived in the UK by 4 June 1916. The numbers of shells supplied were no less paltry. Kitchener explained the efforts he had made to secure alternative supplies. He received a resounding vote of thanks from the 200 Members of Parliament who had arrived to question him, both for his candour and for his efforts to keep the troops armed; Sir Ivor Herbert, who, a week before, had introduced the failed vote of censure in the House of Commons against Kitchener's running of the War Department, personally seconded the motion."

So the man who was the driving force behind the bid to censure Kitchener in Parliament ended up seconding a Parliamentary vote of thanks to Kitchener after Kitchener had been given the opportunity to explain the position to politicians who wished to question him. Tell me again who was it that won the Great War - IIRC the victory celebrations were held in Paris, in London and in New York, NOT in Berlin or in Vienna.

2: "Since 1970, the opening of new records has led historians to rehabilitate Kitchener's reputation to some extent. Robin Neillands, for instance, notes that Kitchener consistently rose in ability as he was promoted. Some historians now praise his strategic vision in World War I, especially his laying the groundwork for the expansion of munitions production and his central role in the raising of the British army in 1914 and 1915, providing a force capable of meeting Britain's continental commitment."

In other words if Kitchener had not done what he did between 1914 and 1916 Great Britain and the Allies would not have won the First World War.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:56 AM

Aye and if I hadn't had scratched my balls I'd have not bought a guitar.

(If Kitchener hadn't this that and the other... Hilarious .)

We won in many ways in spite of not because of strategic decisions.

By the way, noted another "you lose" in the latest Dr Goebbells communique. How many is that Jim? You seem to be keeping count of Keith's la la land posts.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:15 AM

Another non contribution from Musket.
Knowing nothing, its all he can do.

You have read quotes of historians confirming my 3 simple claims.
You have found no historian rushing to challenge them.
You have found no historian who has said different for decades, because there are none.

So we have to decide who knows more.
The actual historians, or our sad old Trots who think its still the 1930s.
(and all their "guest" supporters)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:23 AM

"Following the wrong shells fiasco, Kitchener tendered his resignation."

No I think he offered to tender his resignation, no letter of resignation was ever written (That is a matter of record - see relevant cabinet Papers for the period), Asquith told Kitchener that his resignation would not be accepted and Kitchener remained as Secretary of State for War.

So yes, Jim Carroll is putting forward the idea that Kitchener was - "forced to tender his resignation, and then forced not to resign" - this apparent misunderstanding can be easily cleared up by Jim Carroll clearly stating that Lord Kitchener, Secretary of State for War never resigned, and was never forced to tender a letter of resignation, a fact borne out by the dates he served in the British Cabinet as Secretary of State for War. It would be like someone attempting to state with total conviction that Bob Dylan didn't write "Stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues again" and maintaining that line irrespective of what evidence is produced that clearly shows otherwise.

Like most American historians writing about Great War events prior to their rather belated entry into it they get muddled.

Lloyd George took over responsibility for "Munitions" in 1915, not really surprising as it was a situation resulting from pre-war thinking that was manipulated by Lloyd George and Lord Northcliffe in order that Lloyd George could advance his political career at the expense of Asquith and Kitchener. Asquith ultimately resigned Kitchener did not.

A couple of things that none of the people talking about this "wrong shells" scandal have seen fit to mention:

1: Much chatter about Kitchener and the wrong type of shells (Shrapnel in plentiful supply but not enough High Explosive shells) yet nobody talks about the lack of a key ingredient in the manufacture of artillery shells - the propellant called Cordite - One of the fields in industry that Germany excels in to this very day was in the manufacture and production of chemicals - and pre-World War One the main supplier for Cordite was guess where? - Germany. By 1916 it was discovered that to get the acetone needed to manufacture cordite you harvest horse chestnuts and boil them down.

2: With a media baron in his pocket (Or perhaps it was the other way about) Lloyd George became bulletproof - There was a "shell scandal" in 1915 that was blasted all over the press - yet a year into Lloyd George's running of the Ministry of Munitions there was no scandal over the fiasco related to British fuses fitted to shells fired on the Somme where if memory serves me only one-third of British shells failed to explode - we ended up using French fuses that were much better and far more reliable. OK then so who was to blame for the failings in British ammunition in 1916 and why no outcry? Certainly nothing to do with the British Military they did precisely what they have always done i.e., get on with the task in hand with the tools that they were given.

Tell me again who was it that won the Great War - IIRC the victory celebrations were held in Paris, in London and in New York, NOT in Berlin or in Vienna.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:29 AM

It would appear that scratching your balls is all that you are good at - why not stick with what you do best.

And no - generally if you do make strategic mistakes in an all out war you generally lose it.

"Tell me again who was it that won the Great War - IIRC the victory celebrations were held in Paris, in London and in New York, NOT in Berlin or in Vienna."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:48 AM

"No I think he offered to tender his resignation, no letter of resignation was ever written"
Of course this was the case; it may have been a short cut on my part to say he resigned - of course he didn't - he was not allowed to for the good of the war effort.
The principle remains the same - his incompetence led to his position being untenable - the Government decided that his actual resignation would be detrimental to the War, so he stayed where he was.
All this was covered by Lloyd George's attacks on Kitchener - all statements at the time of the events were political and military face-saving, just as the present defence of Kitchener as the saviour of the war is word-juggling semantics.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:59 AM

Lloyd George had a serious axe to grind.
He had his own failures to hide, and Kitchener made a good scapegoat.
Slandering the dead.

"However, since 1970, new records have opened and historians have to some extent rehabilitated Kitchener's reputation. His strategic vision in the World War is now praised, especially his laying the groundwork for the expansion of munitions production and his central role in the raising of the British army in 1914 and 1915, which provided an army capable of meeting Britain's continental commitment."

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Herbert_Kitchener,_1st_Earl_Kitchener.html

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:27 AM

Slandering the dead indeed. I guess Lloyd George must still be alive?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:36 AM

Reading Keith's latest, you are led to believe that if you aren't hunting the Internet for desperate half quotes to justify your warped views, you are posting a non post.

I've news for you. Some come here to debate. You come to stifle it.

Try fucking off. You ruin Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:44 AM

I do debate.
I made my case and backed it with quotes of actual historians saying exactly what I said, because I learned it from them.

Your only response is to assert it is all false and to call me silly names.
You can find no single living authority believing those same old discredited myths.

Debating is more than just making statements and insulting anyone who dares question your omnipotence.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

"Kitchener made a good scapegoat."
Do you honestly believe an arrogant Blimp like Kitchener would have meekly offered his resignation to appease a vengeful politician - I really wasn't that sort of feller as the history books show (when you get round to reading them)
If you are suggesting that the Prime Minister of Britain was carrying out a vendetta against on of his Generals, don't you think this shoves the morality of the war even deeper in the mire and making the massive sacrifice made by those fighting an even greater one - the lads on the front giving their lives while the politicians and military are at each other's throats.
We also have the fact of the squabbling among the military hierarchy, French being a case in point.
Paxman dealt adequately with soldiers coming home on leave to find that the civilian population (or the wealthier of them) acting as if there wasn't a war on, the better off being able to get all the food they wanted.... and all the rest of the corruption and indifference to the slaughter of a generation.
Now you have underlined the perspective of self-serving politicians and Generals slugging it out while the lads were dying at Paschendale and on The Somme - a real land fit for heroes eh?
All this, of course, makes 'Oh What a Lovely War' - all that
It is noteworthy that your latest trawl of the internet presents Omdurman as being a feather in Kitchener's cap rather than the butchery it was
You seem to be prepared to go the whole six yards in defending this obscenity, and the further you go, the further you prove what an obscenity it really was - warring politicians and military, incompetent administration, greed and corruption....
Oh What a Lovely War - as somebody once said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:13 AM

"Slandering the dead."
By calling them liars - wasn't that you and Colonel Blimp
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 11:54 AM

Interesting essay on Haig, click here. , from a 2007 edition of Military History magazine.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:13 PM

gillymor, Jim put that up ages ago.
He had no idea who the writer is/was.
Have you?
Most likely some random blogger.
Historians always acknowledge their work.
That is shit.

And, you do not need to post everything on every thread!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:48 PM

"gillymor, Jim put that up ages ago.gillymor, Jim put that up ages ago."
Doesn't matter who he is - what he wrote was published in 2 historical journals
I put up list of over 100 historians - you refused to even read it because it was too large
You have selected your six on the basis that they are saying things you want to hear - not on qualifications it really doesn't work like that in real life
You chose a tabloid journalist to represent your case - blew up in your face.
You chose 2 army employees to represent your case - very trustworthy!
You chose a armaments entrepreneur to represent your case - he would say that, wouldn't he?
You have now settled on a comic radio personality to represent your case
Are you for real?   
Who the **** are you to dismiss statements because you don't recognise the name of the author - you don't readso wou wouldn't recognise a statement as reliable if it bit you
You are a jingoistic clown
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

More than six Jim, and they are recognised as the leading historians of WW1
Your hundred is just a fantasy.