WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 03:40 AM

"Jim! Clock up another "you lose" on your list will you?"
Already taken my shoes off - not enough digits
An interesting post from t'other thread - Keith was too busy with his crocodile rears to comment
This is what the boys were sent to die for - profit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Broken Poppies - PM
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:43 AM

I don't think folks here mentioned the astonishing display of 800,000+ red ceramic poppies that were in the moat of the Tower of London until recently.

These were purchased in their thousands by members of the public for £25 of which only a small amount went to Forces charities.

However apart from the small proceeds of each one to charities, there were two other scandals.

1/ At the time of the display the Tower of London hosted an International Arms Dealers event -

"Guests, who included senior officials from the Ministry of Defence and foreign security companies, paid up to £3,000 for tables at the LCCI's Defence and Security Dinner but were told they would be advised on its location after registering.

"The Tower of London was accused of 'crass insensitivity' for hosting the £240-a-head black tie dinner for weapons manufacturers at the Tower of London, where poppies from the Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red memorial are still being removed.

"Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against the Arms Trade, told the Independent: 'On Remembrance Day, the Tower of London was a focus for remembering the horrendous loss of life in the First World War."

"'It is disturbing that just weeks later it can play host to the very arms companies which profit from perpetuating war and conflict today.

"'It is crassly insensitive and in extremely bad taste that this historic monument would do this so soon after providing such a high-profile focal point for Remembrance Day.'"

Arms Dealers at Tower of London

and

2/ Yodel the courier company have been delivering numerous broken poppies due to the appalling handling by their staff - one of which (at least) was been filmed throwing said package over a garden fence.

"Dozens of ceramic poppies which were planted at the Tower of London to commemorate those who died during the First World War have arrived at customers' homes broken into pieces.

"Disappointed customers who bought one of the £25 red blooms - designed to represent an individual British or Colonial death - have been faced with missing parts, smashed petals and shattered edges as the ceramic flowers arrived on their doorsteps.

"In one shocking incident, a courier was caught hurling a poppy package 25ft over a garden fence when he was unable to reach the customer's front door."

Broken Poppies Delivered By Yodel

CJB

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 02:56 AM

Jim! Clock up another "you lose" on your list will you?

Thanks.
🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 06:01 PM

What did you do.

I pointed out your bullshit. As have several others.

Now, be a good lad, get off the internet for a while & go read the books.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 05:58 PM

I read the books.
I quoted the historians.
What did you do.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 05:38 PM

I substantiated everything I claim.

No, you just footnoted the bullshit.

And you still haven't read any of the books.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM

Just your assertions with nothing to support them.
You can not win a debate that way, so obviously you lose.

I substantiated everything I claim.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 11:59 AM

Perhaps, as Greg said, once you read some of the books you refer to, you will see for yourself that it wasn't as men had been led to believe it was at the front, that the military tactics being drawn up late 1914 could never have delivered peace by Xmas anyway, that the reasons for fighting had not been adequately explained further than the Kitchener inspired propaganda and during the early influence of The Kaiser, there were diplomatic opportunities to avoid Western powers being dragged into the demise of the Austro Hungarian Empire. Opportunities that were not taken as the government had been assured that a military campaign would deliver total success.

That's for starters.

Then we count the bodies, examine the "waves of men over the top" tactic and assess that against "well led."

If you still have the stomach, we can ask why the Draconian methods used to maintain order, including the red tops behind the lines, constant reminders of court martial and what that could entail and forcing men to watch executions of their own mean't.

Of course, you can always just say they were well led and the white feathers, coercion and carnage were trivial irrelevances. You can have a book burning and include all the first hand accounts written down.

Up to you really, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you turn what you believe into some kind of truth stance and shout "liar" or "you lose" at those who have read extensively and formed conclusions. Including, incidentally, some of your named historians you seem so keen to throw around the debates.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 10:16 AM

Musket, what "awareness " did the people lack?
Why the desperate determination to evade the question and change the subject?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 10:14 AM

Greg, I provided actual quotes of actual historians with links so they could be seen in the context of the original article.


Keith, When you've actually READ some of the BOOKS these authors of yours have written - not newspaper articles and internet blogs ABOUT the books they've written- and can speak to what their theses are, get back to me.

Or, just continue to spout crap. You do it quite well.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 09:53 AM

"Aim small, miss small," -Something to do with Muskets in "The Patriot"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 09:42 AM

He who laughs last still doesn't understand the punchline - Musket's butler.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 08:18 AM

"Don't tell us Khans what we can't do!" Genghis Khan's father

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 08:10 AM

Those who deflect us from the subject don't like the way it was heading. - Musket's dog.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

"When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other."  Eric Hoffer

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:51 AM

You can't educate pork. - Musket

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:48 AM

""Insanity: doing and posting the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. " -My dog

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:34 AM

"He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors."
-- Kipling

Touche Ed.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:33 AM

What's more foolish than posting 300?
:)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:30 AM

""Those who wish to appear wise among fools, among the wise seem foolish.""
Quintilian, De Institutione Oratoria

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:20 AM

As ever, we give our thanks to a fellow Mudcatter who PM'd us this snippet from Akenaton, to give us a laugh. it is rather appropriate given his dig yesterday on this thread about the quality of those who support the warmongers.

it is from a thread called "are facts shite"

Just survived, (by the skin of my teeth),a small altercation with Teribus over debating styles,see (Blair on Channel 4).It has got me thinkin.
Teribus carries about his person,a large book of facts, which he uses to batter people into submission. Im sure most of you have suffered this unpleasant experience at some time or other.
Teribus believes that this book can cause him to win any argument, on any subject large or small. I on the other hand believe that these "facts" or statistics (grain quotas, unemployment figures,infant mortality rates ,(it goes on ad nauseum)have almost always been engineered by politicians of all persuasions, to shine as good a light as possible on their devious shenanigans.so when I write here I like to think for myself and let my own opinions come through, no matter how stupid they may seem to others.
I have always admired the effort and time which Teribus expends on creating his diatribes, even if they may be a bit pedantic at times.
Teribus of course thinks me a wooly minded wanker,butis not completely correct in that assumption,as I only become "Wooly minded" in the Scottish Blackface sheep shagging season....Any facts/opinions on debating styles would be very welcome....Ake
PS..funnily enough,Teribus is one of the strongest supporters of a war that was based on no facts at all,and entirely on the opinions of cretins...Ake

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 06:27 AM

Not one to cut and paste as a rule, I leave that to shallow people with nothing original to offer, but for the sake of Akenaton, I thought I'd offer this recent press release from SNP, The Scottish National Party, of which he claims to be part of;

SNP MSP welcomes Pride Glasgow
Sat, 19/07/2014 - 08:48
Speaking ahead of the Gay Pride Parade and Main Event in Glasgow today, James Dornan, SNP MSP for Glasgow Cathcart said:

"This is a great day for Scotland; this is the first annual Gay Pride Parade and Main Event in Glasgow since the Scottish Parliament voted for the equal marriage bill earlier this year - it is a celebration of the success the LGBT Community in Scotland and the journey we have all made as a country.

"Scotland has set out a clear intention to be seen as a world leader in equality, and that is a message that will be even more visible with a Yes vote and independence."

ENDS


Mind you, note that he said this before we voted, and made it quite clear that it would still be the case had we been stupid enough to vote for independence.

They say that bigotry is a sign of confusion. In this wannabe Egyptian specimen, we have an excellent case study. As ever, a link to this page has been sent to the membership email for SNP together with his name etc. I doubt he is a member all the same, but SNP deserve not to be associated with people they rightly shun.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 05:57 AM

Err.. According to The SNP it has. They introduced it.

Mind you, you aren't really a member are you? You haven't really met Alex Salmond have you? He never told you his equality speke was a ruse to get power, did he?

By the way, we voted against independence. Lovely to think my vote helped settle that small matter.

OK everybody who keeps defending Akenaton. I assume you defend that disgusting comment jus there too eh?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 05:22 AM

Greg, I provided actual quotes of actual historians with links so they could be seen in the context of the original article.

No one has found a single living historian who disagrees in over a year of this debate.
Nor will they.
In particular Greg, YOU have produced no contribution at all.

Musket, you said awareness was an issue, so tell us what they were unaware of.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 03:46 AM

One thing at a time gang, Independence first, then we can tackle the problem of REAL inequality.....(hint) It has nothing to do with the "marriage rights" of homosexuals.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 03:26 AM

Still, BTW, can't make out what has happened to the beginning of this thread, which starts in medias res with an answer of mine to a now non-existent question which I find oddly disorienting.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 03:22 AM

Don't know, honestly, why you all go on with this sterile activity of arguing with Musket [or 'the Muskets']. He knows what he knows, dash-it-all, and does not want to be confused with facts. I have pretty well given up trying to contradict or engage with him; not thru anger as once before, but simply from the most acutely ballsaching boredom with his endless animadversions and interminable jeremiads. Why don't you all do the same, and leave him to his favourite posture of being, as Kingsley Amis so well put it, part of the massed choir of half a million voices crying in the wilderness.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 02:37 AM

Happy to oblige, worm.

I look forward to seeing you as a SNP member rallying round your new leader. In her first speech outside parliament she reinforced her two priorities.

1. Tackling inequality.
2. Attracting inward investment and business friendly.

Still, being a socialist, you can accommodate all that eh?

Keith. Anything else to confidently predict?
😂

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 02:19 AM

Musket - 28 Nov 14 - 11:37 AM

1: "How many men sent over the top, knowing they would be running into gun positions?

In the situation all armies fighting on the "western front" found themselves in from late 1914 onward I would say that the answer to that idiotic question was blatantly obvious - ALL OF THEM - The only point of difference was the belief in the effectiveness of the planning and preparation done prior to any attack, the tactics employed and the ability to assemble and mount your attack without giving forewarning to your enemy. Demonstration of how lessons were learned - strong points in the German lines that had held out for two weeks in 1916, in 1917 and 1918 were overrun in under two hours. The British Army and its commanders DID learn, they did adapt, tactics were evolved - more so in the British and Commonwealth Armies than in any other army fighting at that time - something that can be easily proved and demonstrated - to say in general that the British Army was poorly or badly led throughout the course of the First World War is a travesty that flies in the face of fact.

2: Have you ever read how governments allowed themselves to get Europe into this situation?

Yes, at great length. The more import question however would have been - HAVE YOU? On indications obvious from your input to any thread on the subject of the First World War the answer would appear to be that you are totally clueless on the subject.

3: Any idea how many assurances idiotic military leaders gave politicians on all sides over their solution to diplomatic problems?

This should prove interesting. Tell us Musket what assurances did Britain's military leaders give the British Government that led to war? When did any military leader in Great Britain ever usurp the sovereignty of Parliament and impose solutions on the elected leadership of Great Britain over any political process or diplomatic effort?

4: Any idea how much this was about empires in the interest of those who then led their men to slaughter?

Certainly for Great Britain the war was fought out of self-interest for the preservation of the nation and her empire and that is why men and women from all over Great Britain and throughout her empire fought and supported the war effort. They fought for a common cause with a single will and a single purpose - and that Musket despite all those easily exploded myths that you cling so dearly to you will find no mutinies in any British or Commonwealth army in the field from 1914 to 1918, you will find no anti-war or anti-government strikes or riots among the civilian population that were evident in practically every other combatant nation.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 07:09 PM

The evidence mounts:


Shaws "Little Sheba" 

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 07:05 PM

Only a 3* Shaw hotel in Rasta-land?

Well, maybe not seen as such, to the Queen of Shaw(eba)?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 06:38 PM

""Deference

When Haile Selassie I was crowned Emperor, the King of England, who at that time was regarded by many as the most powerful man in the world because of the size of the British Empire, was unable to attend. However, he sent the Duke of Gloucester to represent him.

The Duke of Gloucester bowed to Haile Selassie on meeting him. Many Rastafarians believe that this revealed that the new Ethiopian Emperor was more important than the most important man in the world.""

Shaw lineage to Queen of Sheba via Haile Selassie (part of the puzzle that Steve Shaw is Queen of Sheba, reincarnated):

""Many Rastafarians trace Haile Selassie's lineage back to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. They believe that the Queen of Sheba's visit to King Solomon found in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 10:1-13) provides further proof of the divinity of Haile Selassie I.

Rastafarians believe that King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba had sex during the visit, which led to the conception of a child who was in the same line of descendents as Haile Selassie I.""

Rasta-Shaw hotel in Jamaica, coincidence? Unlikely.

Shaw Resort Rasta Resort Hotel in of Sheba. They believe that the Queen of Sheba's visit to King Solomon found in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 10:1-13) provides further proof of the divinity of Haile Selassie I.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw three-for-ten-quid-merlot sociali
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 06:06 PM

Akenaton, you are a crazy, mixed-up man. You are no more a socialist than I am the bloody Queen of Sheba.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 05:15 PM

[Hastings]is just one of the many historians whose findings I have quoted.

Not quite. You've quoted internet soundbites purportting to be his "findings".

You see, you've simply not read any of his works or, for that mantter, any works of the totality of other historians you constantly refer to.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 04:58 PM

Greg, all the main UK parties are now concurring with UKIP policy,
especially regarding unregulated immigration.

Mr Cameron promised to cut immigration figures to "the tens of thousands, from the hundreds of thousands", but has failed miserably, as EU rules determine that our borders should be open to allow "free movement of labour".
As UKIP say, the only way of controlling entry through our borders, is by removing ourselves from the EU; a large number of the electorate realised this some time ago and now all the main parties are running to catch up with public opinion.

"Free movement of labour", is code for "making our country competitive in the global economy", which was the Blairite mantra. Both are code for cheap labour, and a generation of UK citizens parked on ever diminishing and soul destroying benefits.

We unfortunately are afflicted by a capitalist economic system and
UKIP are like all the rest, tools of the system, but appear to reject the worst excesses of "globalism".

I am a socialist, a socialist who is a member of the Scottish National Party.......Time for another of your excruciatingly witty jokes "Musket 1" ?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 04:56 PM

all the other historians

Oh, Jesus, not THIS ridiculous crap yet one more time!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 04:11 PM

Daily Mirror on day 1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror01_01.shtml

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 04:06 PM

Musket, what are you claiming that the people and soldiers were not "aware" of?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 03:39 PM

Hastings is no hero of mine.
He is just one of the many historians whose findings I have quoted.

"What is the historical message one should take from the revision of historical events, particularly the increasingly discredited account written recently by Max Hastings?"

I think you have made that up Guest.
His views on the issues we have discussed are very similar to all the other historians and are not at all discredited.

I confidently predict that you can produce nothing in support of that strange claim.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 02:15 PM

I don't know, but three posts in, you were agreeing with me. Then Keith called me, so presumably you, a liar and a loser.

Funny old world.

😎

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 01:09 PM

Looking again to the top of the thread, I find it now starts with a post of mine, in reply to a previous one which appears to have vanished, along with all the others which preceded mine.

What has happened here, exactly?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 12:40 PM

Keith's hero Max also seems pretty supportive of the Ukip and their agenda.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 11:57 AM

What is the historical message one should take from the revision of historical events, particularly the increasingly discredited account written recently by Max Hastings?

The problem as ever is selective quoting of selective accounts. Those involved were quite comfortable with the true accounts at the time, and the sanitisation of mistakes, political v military arguments and disregard for the welfare of their charges grew in popularity as first hand accounts died out.

The influence of the military and their friends in the armaments industry make one rather sceptical, especially when so forcefully defended even here on Mudcat, using circular arguments and quoting of those whose publications are circumspect in the first place.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 11:48 AM

I think we know what the word means.
Here it is expressed in other words.
epitaph in the Kohima Allied war cemetery.

When you go home, tell them of us and say
For their tomorrow, we gave our today.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 11:10 AM

What the flying fuck has any of that to do with your stance that they were well led and aware? The only conclusion from that is that such huge numbers of casualties were planned in advance and deemed appropriate.

You should hang your head in shame with your fawning over blunders, indifference and callous disregard for their men.

As we both agree. Sacrifice. The difference being I use the word to mean sacrifice.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 10:55 AM

Thanks Ed.
Perhaps Steve will tell us what historical message we should take from that production.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 10:50 AM

Yes gillymore.
The quote was of someone who as a young soldier was terribly burned and disfigured, and saw many friends die.

I think he was trying to express the enormity of it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 09:29 AM

And, then there was the allied help to the WW2 French resistance in the village of Nouvion. The quality of the German leadership was questionable, noted by this clip of General Von Klinkerhoffen.



'Allo, 'Allo 

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 09:04 AM

The loss of your future is the most prominent feature of death to the deceased, the gentleman's statement seems redundant and hyperbolic.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 08:49 AM

No, and they were young men.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 08:43 AM

Is it possible to die and not lose your future?