WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:26 AM

My Granddads were both lucky. Haig didn't run the pits so they both carried on living.

Tell me, is the history of the war settled on anecdotal memories of old men recalling lack of comment from old men when they were young or is it counting the graves and seeing photos of carnage and destruction?

Were our soldiers well led on the stupid assertion put forward by Terribulus that other armies were less well led allegedly, or were we well led because the establishment prefers its history that way?

Subjective? You've even managed to allow the worm to weave in some gormless shit about reality being a liberal plot! There again, even merely existing can be a liberal plot to his criminal mindset. I might write a song, call it "Carstairs Calling."

😂

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 10:06 PM

Different subject, the famine Steve.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:37 PM

Keith "is done with this", then posts again six minutes later. That could well be a comeback world record. :-)

My grandad was gassed in the trenches and he died prematurely of a chest condition before I had a chance to get to know him. He passed on much of what he'd seen down to my dad, who became somewhat celebrated locally for his talks on WW1, based on a good deal of scholarship on his part. I'm not telling you this because I want to bathe in reflected glory, unlike Akenaton, who has received such from our Keith. I'm telling you this to point out that it has next to bugger all to do with me. Thank you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:56 PM

Re Kinealy Jim, she is not a revisionist and is very critical of Britain.
Revisionists do not blame Britain.
I quoted a couple for balance, AND QUOTED KINEALY STATING THAT THE REVISIONISTS WERE THE MAJORITY OF HISTORIANS AND HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES.

what is your point?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:49 PM

Well said, and respect to your grandfather.
Unless Musket and mates actually produce something more than assertion and abuse, I am done with this.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:44 PM

"Michael Gove was right when he wrote last week that the history of the era was hijacked in the Sixties by Joan Littlewood and her satirical musical Oh! What A Lovely War, and more recently by Blackadder.
These brilliant productions propagated the vision of a futile struggle, conducted by imbecile generals."

Much as it pains me to say so Keith, you are quite correct; "liberal" ideology demands the rewriting of history as well as the redefinition of our social institutions.
Orwell's 1984 is alive and well in 2014.
The paucity of the views expressed in supposed opposition to Mr T and yourself should be clear to any objective reader.

My grandfather, who was a Liberal, went right through the campaign in France as a soldier of the Black Watch; he enlisted in Falkirk in 1914 and many of his comrades died where they fell on the Somme.
He very rarely spoke of the horrors that he had witnessed in the trenches, but to his dying day(he lived to be 84), he spoke well of General Haig, contributing as much he could afford to the EHF.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 04:23 PM

Hastings' own words ,

"And so back to 1914. There is a Left-wing template for the two World Wars, as for everything else.
World War II is seen as Britain's 'good' struggle against Hitler, especially after 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and Stalin was obliged to abandon his earlier alliance with the Nazis.
But World War I is regarded by Socialists as our 'bad' conflict: morally quite distinct from World War II and the fault of aristocratic elites across Europe rather than of the Germans.
Michael Gove was right when he wrote last week that the history of the era was hijacked in the Sixties by Joan Littlewood and her satirical musical Oh! What A Lovely War, and more recently by Blackadder.
These brilliant productions propagated the vision of a futile struggle, conducted by imbecile generals.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2535004/Baldrick-Lefts-cunning-plan-twist-history-fit-deadly-delusions.html#ixzz3KDCCxbrX

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:55 PM

One reviewer has misled you Jim
The book was only about the outbreak so could only have been critical of French, who was quickly sacked.

Max Hastings does not support your view.
He agrees with all the other historians.
You can not produce a single quote of him or anyone else to support your case.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 01:24 PM

Noting to do with either "the poets view" or "Blackadder" - redhrerring, as has been pointed out - Hastings condemned the military - it's been put up at least three times now - "conservative" Spectator yet you continue to cite him - so we can assume you agree with him
Are we also to assume you are going to refuse to respond to your further Kinealy foot in mouth?
You rally should read all those history books you kep citing
You haven't a clue - have you?
This is total gibberish
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 01:12 PM

No-one is laughing at soldiers here, Keith, as far as I can see. Unless you're a soldier...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 12:50 PM

Max Hastings own words,

"Instead, wrote Mellersh: 'I and my like entered the war expecting an heroic adventure and believing implicitly in the rightness of our cause; we ended greatly disillusioned as to the nature of the adventure, but still believing that our cause was right and we had not fought in vain.'
The fact that Britain sacrificed so many lives to prevent the triumph of Germany's militarists should be a matter of pride to those men's modern descendants, not grounds for ministers to take refuge in empty platitudes

That view was far more widely held by Mellersh's contemporaries than the 'futility' vision of Owen, Sassoon and their kin. "

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:28 AM

Jim, From Telegraph review of same book.

"Hastings's second adversary is more amorphous: what he calls "the poets' view" of the war as a futile struggle for a few blood-drenched yards of mud, which wasted a whole generation, solved nothing and which Britain should have steered clear of, allowing those funny foreign fellows to slaughter each other without compromising its splendid isolation.
This view, propounded by various powerful voices from the great economist John Maynard Keynes in 1919 down to the scriptwriters of the television comedy Blackadder Goes Forth, has been hammered so relentlessly into our heads that it is now the received opinion on the war. So much so that the government seems unsure how to mark next year's centenary of the conflict, both for fear of upsetting the Germans and because British public opinion generally regards it as a senseless, unmitigated tragedy.
Hastings, who received a knighthood in 2002, will have none of that.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:26 AM

"She is not a revisionist so how could I?"
Told you you should look up your local night school - she in fact is a revisionist historian in the correct sense - she and others challenged the 'act of God - don't blame the Brits' line that had been peddled for over a century.
If you haven't time for evening classes, buy a dictionary.
I didn't bother quoting Hastings - I didn't have to, I produced the Spectator (a weekly British conservative magazine") article on his attitude to the war - hardly likely to make things up if he was such a staunch defender of the War, as you claim
Seems like most of the "historians" you have hidden behind to defend the slaughter have either had clay feet or weren't there in the first place
How about justifying your accusation that soldiers were not to be believed - I firmly believe that if you had had any say in the matter you would have had them shot for betraying the flag
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:15 AM

Steve and Musket, laughing at soldiers in this context is cheap.
They did save us in 1914 and 1939.
Does it make me "a fan" to acknowledge that?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:12 AM

Jim,
"You have been given Hastings indictment of the Military - are we to assume that you agree with his criticism (in the highly unlikely chance that you've read it)"

No such thing has been given.
Not one single Hastings quote from you.
All you did was link to one review of a book only about the outbreak of war.

"You consistently used Kinealy to disprove Britain's gullibility in the consquences of the Famine - you actually stated that "she knows more than the rest of us put together" - or some such words"

No I did not.
She is not a revisionist so how could I?
I quoted her statement that revisionist was the majority view of historians, and had been for decades.
All I did was post a couple of revisionist quotes for balance.
I told you I did not have an opinion about it.
Why do you object to another view being put Jim?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw bayonet fixed
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 10:55 AM

Yeah but just remember, Musket, they don't like it up 'em...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 10:37 AM

We appear to be wrong, it seems. This thread is apparently about the few isolated incidents that fans of soldiers want to discuss as if they represent the whole shameful debacle.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw out of control freakery
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 10:24 AM

Well any man who can quibble about five-foot-five being significantly different to "just under two yards" didn't have the same arithmetic education that I did! :-)

Tell you what Steve you've got some brass neck!! Coming out with that crap then fully expect someone else to mildly accept that the First World War could be summed up by what occurred on one tiny part of a front that extended for hundreds of miles from the North Sea to the Swiss border on a single day in July in 1916.

But that is what I have expressly not done. Dunno how many times I have to say that I not appealing to historical tracts, just showing that unqualified assertions that the men were expertly led through the whole war are just bilge. It's perfectly possible to use that single day as an outstanding example of why that just wasn't so.

The Somme Offensive of 1916 did not start and end on the 1st July 1916 - Fact - So if you are going to introduce it you discuss the whole Battle of the Somme - not just the bits you want to chat about.

You chat about what you want and I'll chat about what I want, OK, Mr Control Freak? If you don't want to chat about what I'm chatting about, don't chat about it. Simple!

If you "have no comment on the leadership over the whole four years of the war." then butt out of the discussion because that is indeed what is being debated.

What is being debated is what people say together with what other people respond with. The thread title is "WW1", not "Aspects of WW1 that Teribus would like to pontificate about".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 09:46 AM

"Hastings supports my case"
You have been given Hastings indictment of the Military - are we to assume that you agree with his criticism (in the highly unlikely chance that you've read it)
You consistently used Kinealy to disprove Britain's gullibility in the consquences of the Famine - you actually stated that "she knows more than the rest of us put together" - or some such words
She turned out to be a supported of the@Irish holocaust' school of thought - egg on face or what
You had to have the word revisionist pointed out to you and you still use it incorrectly
Is there a local adult education facility in your area - I suggest you take advantage of it if there is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 09:24 AM

"quit the control freakery malarkey where you try to set the agenda in the thread in a way that does nothing more than shine the best light on your own take on events. "

QUE?????

Tell you what Steve you've got some brass neck!! Coming out with that crap then fully expect someone else to mildly accept that the First World War could be summed up by what occurred on one tiny part of a front that extended for hundreds of miles from the North Sea to the Swiss border on a single day in July in 1916.

The Somme Offensive of 1916 did not start and end on the 1st July 1916 - Fact - So if you are going to introduce it you discuss the whole Battle of the Somme - not just the bits you want to chat about.

If you "have no comment on the leadership over the whole four years of the war." then butt out of the discussion because that is indeed what is being debated.

There might well have been ~60,000 British casualties on the first day on the Somme but you would not have seen anything like 60,000 men lying on the ground, the dead would have been on the ground ~19,000 of those. Average death toll throughout the Battle of the Somme was ~3,600 per day - the German death toll was greater.

"A soldier might have been just under two yards tall"

Where on earth did you pull that statistic from - your backside?

Average height of a recruit in 1914 was 5ft 5inches, he weighed just over 8 stones. Ever heard of the "Bantam Battalions"? They were for men who were only 5ft to 5ft 3inches tall. When conscription kicked in the conscripts were found to be extremely poor physical specimens and once in the Army subject to physical training and three square meals a day within the period of the training they put on on average one stone in weight and 2inches in height.

Unfortunately for all your wittering on about what mistakes and errors were made on the 1st July 1916, it was the same Commanders who on the 8th August 1918 that directed and led the offensive that resulted in the ending of the war. By the 11th November 1918 they were the same Commanders who led the only Army of any of the 1914 combatant powers that had not mutinied.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 07:35 AM

Go on then, give me some Jim Hastings quotes.

This should be fun..

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw 7-up minus five
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 07:26 AM

Up up and away, one of you ups.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw incredulous
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 07:25 AM

What amazing logic, Keith, but, as ever, right up up your alley (as in all those Israel threads....): justify badness by finding something unconnected that you see as even greater badness. Shall we just say that, when you have the fate of thousands of young men in your hands, you need to be a tad more careful then those commanders were on Day One...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:56 AM

Steve the misjudgement of the effect of the barrage was not a leadership issue.
The technical experts provided the leaders with wrong data.
There had never been such a barrage and they were trying to extrapolate existing knowledge for an unprecedented situation.
Also, there was insufficient knowledge
Of the underground defences.
The lessons were quickly learned and tactics changed in future attacks.

When nutritionists told us that hydrogenated vegetable oil, transfats, were healthier than fats like butter, they probably killed more people than died on the Somme.
Also, in recent years a consensus has begun to emerge that the advice you and I gave to our pupils on healthy diet was all wrong.
Not really our fault though.
I hope we were not responsible for many deaths.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:45 AM

Jim Hastings supports my case.
Would you like more quotes of him doing that?
You certainly can not produce one of him contradicting me.

Keneally on the famine was not a revisionist herself, but I quoted her stating that it was the majority view.
I felt that justified at least putting that view into the discussion.
That made you so angry!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw well-read
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:28 AM

Funny thing happened just then as I mistyped "Teribus". My iPad helpfully suggested that I meant "ate robins". That's what Roald Dahl's Mr Twit used to do, having trapped them by painting glue on tree branches.

Teribus...Mr Twit...hmmm...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw unblurred
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:20 AM

Well Teribus, this is the internet, I'm no historian and I get to focus on the bits I know about if I want (actually, my own dad has spent half a lifetime studying WW1 and was a celebrated local speaker on the matter in his heyday, trousering quite a few quid while he was at it. He is also an expert on old London and the Pendle Witches: I'd wager that no-one alive knows more than he does about the latter. Sadly, not a published person). I am talking about the terrible tactical blunders that led to the mass loss of life on Day One. You serially try to expand away from that in order to to dilute the effect. At least you're honest enough to refrain from saying it didn't happen. I have no comment on the leadership over the whole four years of the war. But, on that day, and quite possibly on many another day, our leadership was wanting and the result was catastrophic. As for rounding up, I remind you that I was confining myself to Day One. There were 60000 British casualties that day. The line was 25 miles long. One mile is 1760 yards. A soldier might have been just under two yards tall. Let's say, then, 1000 men end-to-end per mile. That would, then, be 60 miles needed for 60000 men. So, in fact, I was guilty of not doing enough doubling up. In 25 miles some of the men would have to have been lying three abreast. This is all very silly, but it does at least demonstrate that Musket doesn't need to have a word in my shell-like about rounding up.

And quit the control freakery malarkey where you try to set the agenda in the thread in a way that does nothing more than shine the best light on your own take on events. It's an incredibly puerile and transparent tactic that shows up in all your longer posts. I'm still talking about WW1, you know, not about which is the best ear for a folk singer to stick his finger in (though, in m'humble, while I'm here, it's the right ear).

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:42 AM

"How could I quote without reading Jim?"
Same as you quotes Hastings and Kinealy without reading them - both backfired in your face
You're known for it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:30 AM

How could I quote without reading Jim?
The quotes from the Historians specialising in that conflict supported my case.
Steve, I have read extensively about the Somme.
The losses were huge and the whole nation was stricken with grief and loss.
The battle had to be fought and fought there.
The French were about to break at neighbouring Verdun and all would have been lost.
A badly led attack would have resulted in even worse losses and a German counter attack and break through on the whole front.
Did you read my quotes from Brown' s book about it?
Would you like more?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 04:07 AM

"So, quoting historians in a debate about History is gormless and infantile behaviour!"
Quoting historians you haven't read most certainly is.
Attempting to score points is
Ignoring inconvenient fats if.
Reducing these discussions to mindless "winning" and "losing" T.V. games shows most certainly is - "You lose" - 7 so far on this thread, 12 on the other.
You consistently do all.
You debase these discussions with you egoistic obsession to "win" - an obsession based on ignorance of all the subjects you involve yourself in - you have become a figure of fun with your obsessive behaviour.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:57 AM

Pssst Musket have a word with your pal Steve Shaw about the evils of "rounding up".

Oh by the way Steve the discussion here relates to people here stating that the war was unnecessary, that the British Army was badly led, that the men who volunteered were duped and lied to and had no idea what they were fighting for.

The people declaring that on this forum have provided absolutely no evidence that withstands even the most rudimentary examination to support their point of view. Both Keith and myself have introduced information and quotes from many historians, highly respected in their academic specialist fields that counter the arguments put on this forum. The discussion does not centre around one day of one battle that lasted for over four months it covers over four years of a particularly bloody war.

"They all unequivocally say that overall the army was well led and had the support of the people." - Keith A of Hertford

That Steve Shaw IS what historians generally say about the First World War and every metric you wish to use to gauge it supports that.

By the way Steve as you wish to walk those 25 miles along the section of the Somme any idea of what you would have encountered on the subsequent days? You have only concentrated on one part of the battlefield on one particular day haven't you.

Dead British bodies per mile = 144 as the average death toll for the entire battle was ~3,600 per day - the Germans lost even more. At the end of the battle the Germans retreated from the high ground that they had held with commanding views over British positions, ground that the British now found themselves occupying.

By the end of 1916 the Germans, at Verdun and on the Somme, instead of "bleeding the allies white", which was their intention from the outset in February of that year, found themselves no further forward in their prosecution of the war and in counting the cost found that they had lost their best troops in the process.

By the end of 1916 the British on the Somme now knew that their "Citizens Army", of which many had been extremely sceptical, could defeat the Germans, their morale was high and their command now knew, in terms of tactics and equipment, what was required to break the stalemate of trench warfare on the "Western Front". They also knew with the utmost conviction that the tools to defeat the Germans were held in their hands.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 02:55 AM

Don't ask me. I'm just a pathetic fool.

Odd thing is, we pathetic fools know blundering incompetence when we see it. We can recognise callous indifference for that matter.

Not to mention revision to suit an agenda.

Boom you Boom know Boom the Boom rest.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, natural history only
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 07:56 PM

They all unequivocally say that overal the army was well led and had the support of the people.

Was the army well-led in the Battle of the Somme, do they all say? Unequivocally, without the slightest demur, in spite of hundreds of thousands of casualties, huge numbers of which were the upshot of tactical blunders? Not a single historian (sorry: Historian) ever criticised the generals, ever, for their leadership all the way through the war? That is not what you are implying, Keith, that is what you are saying. That is what "all unequivocally" means. And you accuse other people of making things up. Funny man.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 02:43 PM

So, quoting historians in a debate about History is gormless and infantile behaviour!

Compare that with what you do.
Make assertions based on nothing but your ignorance.
Tell lies to try to make yourself less ridiculous.
Try to ridicule and abuse anyone who questions you.

You think that is grown up Musket.
You pathetic fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 12:16 PM

Musket on the other thread.
"All your precious historians give a far more balanced view than your cherry picking. "

Completely untrue Musket.
You are forced to start making shit up again to save face.

They all unequivocally say that overal the army was well led and had the support of the people.

If you were not lying you could put up an example.
You can not.
Despite the lying you still lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 10:00 AM

I was talking to Teribus, not you, Keith. I hope you can read your history books better than you can read my little posts. And Teribus, I have no interest in comparing the relative competences of the generals of various nationalities. My comments are confined to the British because I'm disputing what you say about them. So, Day One, a front 25 miles long. 20000 dead and 40000 wounded. That averages out at not much short of a thousand dead and two thousand wounded per mile. Almost all killed or wounded following an extremely ill-advised push. You say there were good bits and bad bits. All I know is that I can walk a mile in about 15 minutes. So in 15 minutes I walk past nearly 3000 blokes lying in the dirt who were all fit and well that morning with mothers at home. And I keep walking and walking and walking and that scenery doesn't improve for the length of a marathon. You can't fit three thousand men lying end to end in the space of a mile without a lot of doubling up. Just trying to imagine it, that's all. You just shut it out. You'd have made a good general, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:59 AM

Exactly how does that support any of your assertions, or prove the historians have either got it wrong or are concealing the truth known to Musket.

If you can not produce anything, why do you keep posting?
You lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:32 AM

I think I've got our gung ho brethren weighed up now.

It's a bit like rounding 4.51 up to 5.

But by doing so, claiming 4.51 is therefore the wrong answer.

high five!

zzzzzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:28 AM

" In my view they made assumptions about the effectiveness of the shelling and the defences in the German trenches that were completely ...."

You are entitled to your view but what is it worth when it is contradicted by every single historian who has actually made a study of it?

"You've spent quite a bit of time in this thread telling us how well led our boys were, "
No.
How would I know.
I have just shared with you the results of actual historical research as reported by the actual historians.

You three in your delusions think you know better, but everyone else will see you as fools.
You lose the debate because you have nothing to support your assertions, except more assertions.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:24 AM

Yes Steve they made "assumptions about the effectiveness of the shelling and the defences in the German trenches that were completely unjustified"

Universally "unjustified"? Or partially "unjustified" in part Steve? And totally "Justified" in places Steve. Take your pick I can provide where the initial bombardment hardly had any effect because of poor intelligence and lack of knowledge. I can show you places where the bombardment was partially successful and inflicted losses on the Germans and I can show you places where the initial bombardment was so successful that every single objective was taken as though the attack was running down rails - All happened in the same attack over a front that was roughly 25 miles long on exactly the same day.

Tell me Steve what "cunning plan" would you have come up with - or would you have advocated what Lloyd George & Co wanted just sit there in full view of the Germans with them on the high ground blowing your troops to bits as the mood and supplies of ammunition allowed?

Tell us Steve how the commander of any army can be solicitous of the wellbeing of their men when that commander according to his job description has to order those same men to attack the enemy before them? Issue the enemy with blanks perhaps? Pay the enemy to run away? Or perhaps just surrender?

As to the competence of British Generals compared to those of France and Germany the facts speak for themselves in terms of moral of the troops, the expansion in the sizes of the respective armies during the course of the war, the overall casualty rates among British & Commonwealth formations was half those of their French allies and German foes. No British Army mutinied in the field, the French did, the Germans did. Who was it that introduced the tank and pioneered its use in trench warfare. Our tactics constantly changed and were improved upon.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:08 AM

Oh yes. They have been saying "that" but "that" is more than your selective snippets isn't it?

You mentioned your fellow God botherer. It is you who sees the sanitisation of poor leadership as an article of faith here. I for one just can't help noticing the war graves out of the corner of my eye. I can't help wondering why white feathers, red caps and execution via court martial was needed if what you cut and paste weren't fundamentally flawed.

Normal people don't borrow views of others, they form their own from assessing the bigger picture.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:04 AM

Waffle and deflections indeed. My point was to do with the competence of the men-in- charge at the start of the battle. In my view they made assumptions about the effectiveness of the shelling and the defences in the German trenches that were completely unjustified. By any measure that means that they were not very cunning, not very solicitous as to the wellbeing of their men and not very competent. You've spent quite a bit of time in this thread telling us how well led our boys were, and I'm giving you an example of how egregiously badly they were sometimes led, with catastrophic results. Catastrophic results, what's more, that were in no way a necessary factor in our winning the war. At least, I note, you didn't contradict me like Keith does with his leave-it-to-the-Historians guff. All the stuff about how it shortened the war, made the Germans weaker, etc., is hindsight. That clearly did not come into play at the start of the battle, when the only tactical thinking seemed to be, just walk over to their trenches, lads, and if you find anyone alive, well you know, just remember they don't like it up 'em...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 08:59 AM

Musket on the other thread.

"The recent sanitising is recently contrived. The older stuff you refer to also gives the other views and tries to balance. "

No musket.
Absolutely NONE of it is recently contrived.
They have been saying it for decades.

"Others have quoted a few above. Read them. I debate, not enter into a Google contest."

No they have not.
And, you do not debate.
You merely make unsupported assertions and demand to be believed just because you assert it.
Self obsessed, arrogant and deluded.
A posturing buffoon.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 08:51 AM

Steve, I am not a military historian or any other kind.
Normal, intelligent, open minded people go to the historians for History.
You think and believe you have no need of them.
It tells us something about you.
Musket and Jim are similarly deluded.
You are exactly like 7 stars Pete who does not need to read geology and palaeontology because he just knows what happened.


In my earlier post, 4.42am there is a professional military historian who from original sources says that the men believed in what they were trying to do, and another who says it led directly to the total defeat of the invader.
Did you even bother with the link?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 08:08 AM

Or in short, wriggling waffle.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 07:22 AM

What I know (not from Blackadder) is that

1: "the German lines were bombarded by us for a week before that infamous first day. Fritz knew exactly what we were up to, though, didn't he."

Well Steve not wishing to point out the blatantly obvious but ever since Fritz marched into Luxembourg, Belgium and France - He knew what ourselves, the Belgians and the French opposing him were up to. Fritz knew that he was going to be attacked until he was forced to leave. And yes bombardments usually presaged attacks by infantry on positions protected by thick belts of barbed wire and deeply dug prepared defensive positions.

2: "We thought we'd snuffed 'em, didn't we, but they were a damn sight better defended than we thought, weren't they. They were lying low, not lying dead, weren't they. And it didn't help that lots of our shells were duff and never went off, did it.

Oooh loads of indignant froth here Steve the whatever. I would imagine that having fired off the barrage that had been fired off the Generals who ordered the barrage, the gunners who actually fired the barrage and the waiting infantry men who had listened to the barrage would quite rightfully have believed that it had done its job. In some places it did in others it didn't.

By the way on the shell fuse thing - care to tell us all what they could have done about it? Was it the Commander in the Field's fault that the stuff delivered to him and his Army was of poor and dubious quality, or was that down to the designers, manufacturers and workers back in the UK who were as familiar with Quality Control as they were with the dark side of the moon? The problem was solved and solved fairly quickly when we went over to using French fuses.

Now then Steve like most plans some things work and other things don't. The Battle of the Somme as it turned out was fought in a number of phases, but as you seem totally hung up on the first day when the British suffered some 57,000 casualties shall we look at Phase One of the Battle of the Somme?

First Phase 1st - 17th July 1916
(A) Battle of Albert:
Anglo-French Offensive at the southern end of the offensive was largely a total success the French Sixth Army and the right wing of Rawlinson's Fourth British Army inflicted a considerable defeat on the German Second Army - care are to comment Steve?

The bit you wish to draw our attention to was the British attack to the North along the axis of the Albert-Bapaume Road and Gommecourt, here the German defenders had the advantage of high ground and reverse slopes. The British losses and loss rates of the 1st July were never repeated. The result of the attacks caused both British, French and more so German commanders into fighting piecemeal actions. I say more so the Germans Steve because the reserves that the Germans were throwing into the battle were the ones that had been rushed up from Verdun, who didn't know the ground.

Somme Map

Looking at that Map Steve who moved forward and who moved back?

3: "So when the order came to walk towards their trenches we thought it would be be a walkover, didn't we, but it wasn't, was it, and we bagged 60000 casualties in next to no time, didn't we."

In some places it was in others it wasn't - nowhere near as simplistic as you would appear to prefer it.

4: "As for the upshot of the Somme that you so enthusiastically regaled me with, well here's how I see it. We gained five miles in over four months at the cost of a million and a quarter casualties all round, and we still had two more bitter years of war to go."

Tell me Steve what parts of the upshot of the Battle of the Somme do you disagree with? Do you deny any of it?

The German Army that went into the Battle of the Somme was far superior in terms of training and battle experience than the British troops that they faced. But the British Army learned on the Somme and at the end of the Battle the German Army had lost all those battle-hardened experienced troops and the Kitchener's brand new citizen Army, the very first that the British had ever raised knew it was superior to and had the beating of the German troops facing it.

According to Falkenhayn and Ludendorff Germany knew by the end of the Battles of the Somme and Verdun that Germany could not achieve victory over the combined British and French Armies on the Western Front.

The British, particularly Rawlinson learned what worked on the Somme in 1916 so strategically the battle was a success for the Allies, the lessons learned showed for the first time that the Allies were going to win the war (Up until then that premise had always been shadowed with a nagging doubt) and the application and development of those lessons was to shorten the war by at least a year.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve shaw hypercorrected
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 06:28 AM

And I do know we threw shells at them, not shelves. iPad small print again. Mind you, shelves might have done more damage then our duff shells.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 06:25 AM

OK, Mr Appealer-To-Authority. Tell me which bits are factually incorrect in my last post, then tell me why it was necessary to get 20000 killed and 40000 wounded on one day just because the generals made a terribly bad assumption. Then tell me how that shows their cunning and their competence. Tell me how that slaughter gave us an advantage. Stop prattling on about historians for a minute and tell me what YOU think.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 06:10 AM

So you also know more about it than the military historians.

I think they know more.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw biologist
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 05:37 AM

Hidebound? My view of the Somme? My thoughts on the decisive battle? What are you blokes worried about?

All I did is said what happened. Not one word of what I said can you gainsay. All that lovely hindsight that you both indulge in cannot conceal the facts that we shelled (with a high proportion of shelves that didn't work) the German line for a week (thereby alerting the Germans to our next move), we totally underestimated their defences, then the generals gave the orders to walk to the German trenches thinking we'd snuffed 'em out when we hadn't. In my book that was useless, feckless, tactically idiotic and needless. Please don't tell me any more that the loss of life on that first, and on many subsequent, days was necessary to win the battle. I'm no general but I do know that you win battles a lot more easily if you refrain from uselessly sending tens of thousands of soldiers to their deaths in the first days.