WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 10:22 AM

Pray tell Musket what you mean by conducting a war "effectively"? Does "winning it" feature anywhere in your metrics to judge whether it was "effective" or not?

Completely fail to see any connection between:

"the men well led by competent, caring top brass and everybody was there because they knew why" and the number of cemeteries.

Men who are perfectly aware of what they are fighting for and who are well led will still die in any conflict particularly if they up against men who are equally aware of what they are fighting for and who are also well led. In such a situation it will be the side with the best strategy and tactics that will win and in all probability the death toll will be high if tactics and strategy are restricted by factors over which the respective commanders have absolutely no control such as weather.

Basically Musket on this subject you "Just know" jack shit.

Absolutely no difference in Churchill's thinking in WWI to WWII when it came to the "Soft Underbelly" in WWI it was Gallipoli (Which came remarkably close to being an outstanding success - according to German and Turkish reports found after the war), while during WWII it was Italy and then the invasion of the South of France in August 1944.

Montgomery was not so very different from Haig and he proved that at El-Alamein, the only occasion in North Africa when both Allied and Axis Armies found themselves in a location where it was impossible for one side to outflank the other because of the Qattara Depression to the South and the Mediterranean Sea to the North. Like Haig on the Somme (1916) and before Messines (1917) Montgomery built up his strength so that he would have massive superiority in terms of men, tanks, armoured cars, artillery, aircraft, fuel and supplies - he then made a series of frontal attacks in a battle that lasted from the 23rd October until the 11th November 1942. Like Haig, Montgomery found that at the end of the battle his Army was in no shape to exploit the break through and could not finish Rommel off and the Panzerarmee Afrika melted away to fight another day - until the 13th May 1943 to be exact.

And just for future reference Musket the man who kept Churchill's wilder flights of fancy in check was the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir Alan Francis Brooke NOT Montgomery. And no I didn't just read that, I have known that from studying the relevant material over the years - Fool

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 10:02 AM

Churchill was just another politician then and it was he who was responsible for the invasion of Gallipoli.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 09:08 AM

I don't see the point in cutting & pasting views of others that happen to coincide with my own.

I just know that if the war was conducted effectively, the men well led by competent, caring top brass and everybody was there because they knew why, we would have fewer cemeteries.

I suggest you read up on Churchill's decision making during WW1 that led to the Galipoli landings, and then ask yourself why during WW2 he wanted (and in Monty, eventually got) decent leaders that wouldn't allow people like himself to forget about the human side...

And no, I didn't just read that. Some of us can assimilate knowledge over the years, fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 08:23 AM

Still nothing to add then Musket - you haven't since the get go - honestly can't see why you bother, after all anything you have attempted to come up with has been some clichéd myth, or fictional based misrepresentation that has been blown out of the water within seconds never to be mentioned again.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 07:55 AM

I rest my case

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 07:18 AM

GUEST,Rahere - 17 Nov 14 - 12:00 PM:

You are not really very good at "supposing" things or deducing them.

There was nothing at all in the British Army that faced the dying days of Malaya; Kenya; Cyprus; The Tanganyika Mutiny, Aden; Dhofar or Borneo that "was still very stiff-upper-lip WWII heritage." And those serving then defeated three communist backed insurgencies basically on a shoe-string.

I liked this - "He was probably a Staff (Sergeant)" - Oh No I wasn't, you couldn't be further off target if you tried. Your OR number, that would explain the chip on your shoulder and rather idiotic references to "Ruperts" and your Honourary Rank, that merely decides your parking space, my cousin an economist in the Civil Service had one, which he found hilarious, but he never, ever took it seriously, particularly not in the presence or company of anyone holding substantive rank - and I bet they did catch you pouring the milk in first didn't they?

As for this piece of "Look-how-important-I-am" grandstanding:

"As I type, Julian Brazier, MOD Under-Secretary, has just stated in the House in reply to John Baron (2RRF) "it's about doing defence differently and harnessing the talents of the wider UK Society...to make Defence more flexible in coping with the changing demands made on it". That last phrase came straight out of what I told them they'd have to do, back in 1990."

I can only assume that you are a complete and utter idiot if the current set up is something that you have advocated since the 1990s.

1: The British Army has never been capable of defending the British Isles - Not once has any British Army been able to defeat any aggressor that has landed on our shores in strength. The only one of our services that has ever been capable of defending these islands has been the Royal Navy and that has been the case since the days of Alfred The Great of Wessex.

2: The Strategic Defence Review carried out in 1998 by Tony Blair's Labour Government was sensible - Great pity that it was never acted upon mainly due to his Chancellor Gordon of Cartoon failing to fund it.

3: "it's about doing defence differently"
Ehmm No - Its about attempting to do defence on the cheap. The Royal Navy is now at its weakest since the 1690s and the Army will shortly be smaller than it was in 1793 - it will all fit comfortably into Wembly stadium with sufficient space to stretch out and sunbathe.

4: "It's about ....... harnessing the talents of the wider UK Society...to make Defence more flexible in coping with the changing demands made on it"

Really?? How is the Army Reserve Recruitment Drive that we are paying the private firm "Capita" £15 million a year going? Instead of recruiting the required 250 per month to fill the gaps in the Army Reserve that will harness the talents of the wider UK Society it is only managing to recruit 7 - yes SEVEN - why indeed should Putin tremble!!! What was it that absolute disgrace of a Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010 turn up? An Army of 82,000 plus a Reserve Army (Formerly the TA) of 30,000 - The Reserve Army cannot even maintain itself at its present day levels.

5: This the mob who have just had to increase the upper age limit for those joining the Reserve from 43 to 52?? Now there you have WWII thinking Rahere - ready for the musical bit ... ONE, TWO, THREE:

"Who do you think you are kiddin' Mr Hitler"

But don't worry GUEST,Rahere, you can opt for your European Defence Force - Absolutely useless for defending anything of course - the constituent and contributing nations cannot even agree as to which way is up let alone form any any cohesive military structure, common foreign policy, defence policy or strategy.

The European Defence Force:

France would demand by imperious right to lead it.
Germany would pay for it but contribute no troops, or if they did caveat to death any prospect of their being used for anything other than guarding the HQ Car Park but only during daylight hours.
The UK, the Dutch and the Danes would be expected to do the fighting, and the rest would promise much but deliver absolutely nothing.

"WEU has shown the way on the wider Peacemaking agenda, shifting what the Army is asked to do."

Pssst: Right down at the dirty end of the game - what armed forces are about ain't Peacemaking. They are for defending nations first and foremost - If they are incapable of doing that in a credible manner then there is no point in having them.

"And so, why wear a poppy? To remember the Dead." Why remember them?

I would have thought as a mark of respect for the sacrifice they made would have been reason enough - they did give their today's for all the tomorrows that we have enjoyed.

To honour their deaths, by ensuring that what they did was not done in vain." How do we ensure that? By making certain the Command doesn't repeat its inevitable cock-ups which are the biggest single factor in getting troops killed, and WWI was a wonderful worked example of why all that was necessary."

Ah but you see lessons were learned, lessons were learned from the Boer War, from the battles of 1914, those of 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. Not only were those lessons learned but they were carried forward and improved upon (Compare British military losses in the First World War to those of the Second World War - reduction of over 50% wasn't it? They have fallen significantly ever since haven't they?). Some arguing here that lessons were not learned at all - they were and it is extremely easy to demonstrate that they were.

By the way who were these "incompetents who repeated their mistakes at the price of other peoples' lives"? Answer carefully.

As for your "thinking soldier" being something new - what you go on to describe has always been the case in the training of Royal Marines - most definitely the case in the training of Mountain Leaders, SBS or RN Clearance Divers. It is one of the reasons their training is the longest and hardest for any infantry soldier in the world - but if you think that strategy is decided by soldiers "all the way down the line" then all I can say is that you are indeed an idiot - tactics pertinent to a local situation certainly but strategy in any form no.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 06:11 AM

That's buggered it.

The longer their posts, the more they feel they have to impress....

At least Keith's horseshit is tempered by its brevity.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:31 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 17 Nov 14 - 02:34 PM

A number of points raised by your contribution:

1: "I quoted various historians who suggested that the leadership of the troops was less than competent."

Less than competent compared to who? Certainly not compared to their French, German, Italian, Austro-Hungarian, Serbian, Russian, Turkish, Bulgarian counterparts. You stood a better chance of survival in any Army commanded by British or Commonwealth Officers than you would have done in any of those named above and they commanded armies that carried the fight to their enemies from the outset - unlike most of those named above. Was that "leadership" perfect? No of course it wasn't nothing attached to war ever is, but they most certainly did better than most, lessons were learned every step of the way, tactics were improved and changed counter to the lies and misrepresentations depicted by fiction such as OWALW and Blackadder.

2: David Stephenson has far more quotes in support of the point of view:

"that agreement existed among political and intellectual elites that the war was legitimate and necessary, evidence that it would eventually be won."

Or that:

"the Allies' central cause was neither trivial nor unworthy'. He cites as a prime justification the 'genuine liberation' resulting from the expulsion of German forces from the occupied territories, while arguing that 'the destruction of Wilhelm II's autocracy created an opportunity, albeit fleetingly, for a more firmly rooted peace than had existed before 1914."

In the Shepard quote you provide there is no context:
- Whose "obsure and ignoble ends? - Not stated
- Which inept political leaders?
- Which unimaginative generals? - Could hardly be the British and Commonwealth Generals as they were the youngest and most innovative of the lot.

3: Richard Holmes (himself once a brigadier)with regard to Gallipoli "I wanted to show just how lunatic the whole concept of the campaign was"

"The whole concept of the campaign was", or, "the whole concept of the campaign they way it was fought?". I can see the latter but not the former, and the same would go for anybody that has studied it in any detail. Any idea, Raggytash, how close it came to succeeding? Both the initial naval operation to "force the Dardanelles", or the landings? Both would have been outstandingly successful and Turkey would have been knocked out of the war had the ships literally tried it "just one more time" (The reason? - Because on the day the Allies decided to abandon the naval assault the Turkish Gun Batteries and emplacements had all run out of ammunition with absolutely no hope of resupply). Of the landings - had the troops who made the landings at Suvla been ordered to proceed inland immediately to take the heights then the Turks would have been cut off completely and left with no alternative apart from surrender.

On Richard Holmes:

"Holmes's passion for the history of conflict was fired during his last year at school when he was transfixed by the BBC series The Great War, shown in 26 parts in 1964. "I was hooked from the start," he recalled. "It was the first time I had seen early film slowed down so that men and horses did not walk with a jerky quickstep. And although I was about to go to Cambridge to read History and thought myself no end of a scholar, it was the first time I had seen it suggested that the war's generals might be anything other than mindless and inarticulate butchers."

Remember that date 1964 now this from his Obituary:

"Forty years on, in his book Tommy (2004), Holmes continued to repudiate the view, promoted by the war poets, that the troops of the First World War were poorly led. He also re-examined the enduring legends about the prevalence of shellshock, drunkenness in the trenches, and soldiers shot at dawn for cowardice or desertion, pointing out that 90 per cent of death sentences were commuted."



4: "Peter Hart with regard to the Somme "Haig's Big Push was a human catastrophe" "Passchendaele came to epitomise the futility and pathos of the whole of WW1"

Really is that the same Peter Hart they are reviewing here:

"Hart does not duck some of the wider issues that are raised by the war. He writes from a tradition of British military history that for 30 years has sought to rescue the reputations of generals such as Sir Douglas Haig, the British commander on the western front for most of the conflict, and to show that the entire war cannot be summed up in the ghastly first day of the Battle of the Somme, when the British army suffered its highest-ever number of casualties.

The Somme lasted for four months and, the military historians argue, was part of a learning curve (their term) that continued for the rest of the war. By 1918 the British had mastered a new kind of industrial warfare, the nature of which no one had understood in 1914, and which, with tanks and aircraft, heavy artillery and integrated arms, tipped the balance against defensive trench warfare and played the decisive role in the final victory.

Such a thesis is at loggerheads with the idea of the war as futile butchery (and of Haig as the British butcher) that is summed up by the interwar "literature of disenchantment" (Robert Graves, Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen) and expressed, for most people nowadays, by Owen's haunting poetry. Yet the military historians, to their chagrin, feel that they have lost this battle and that Owen's "pity of war" vision commands popular perceptions of the conflict."

Yes Raggytash by all means "If you are going to argue a corner please, at least, ensure your information is correct." Only thing is there is absolutely nothing at fault with the information that either myself or Keith are relaying to anybody reading this thread and the others on this topic.

5: "There are always belligerent bastards around, like me, who will check your "facts"

Good, very pleased to hear that, now tell us what "facts" have either myself or Keith got wrong. The basic message is:

A: That the British and Commonwealth soldiers knew full well what they were fighting for, they were neither conned or duped into anything.

B: That the British, Commonwealth and Empire Troops were generally well led throughout the period of the Great War. A war that saw the size of the British Army increase out of all proportion to any other Army of any other 1914 combatant nation. A war that in the closing months saw only the British and Commonwealth Armies capable of mounting offensive operations

C: That in terms of tactics it was the British Army that devised the means by which the stalemate on the "western front" could be broken and victory assured.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:23 AM

You may have found it quoted elsewhere, but it is recognisably the same.

Original,
"Like many of his fellow historians, Stevenson challenges much of the accepted wisdom – for example, that the generals had no ideas about how to break the deadlock – yet the prevalent view of the war remains under the influence of the highly critical literature of the late 1920s and early 1930s, with its emphasis on the horrors of the trenches and its portrayal of a futile struggle for obscure or ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals. How many of us saw Oh! What a Lovely War with a slight sense of superiority to the people of the past, so easily duped?"

Your version,
"David Stephenson, with regard to WW1 "a futile struggle for obscure and ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:05 AM

Keith, I have not mentioned Margaret Macmillan and certainly have not read the review you link to.

I have never the time nor the inclination to trawl through numerous books on the same subject merely to indicate that the thinking of some people can be, at least, blinkered.

No matter how clear the information I put to you I know you will not accept the veracity of it.

To use an old quotation "There's none so blind as those who will not see"

I will finally reiterate that all the authors I have quoted from Churchill to Peter Hart cast doubt on the abilities of various Generals involved.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:02 AM

Musket, you did paste Raggytash's post into the Lovely War thread.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:00 AM

Here is the review that you lifted your "human catastrophe" quote from.
Of course it was a human catastrophe, but if you look at Peter Hart's website you will see in his own words that he did not see incompetence or futility.

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Somme.html?id=oI0rQzeMz2UC

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:57 AM

Ha Ha! "Musket put them...."

That figures.

Isn't it strange how shallow fools think that if they shout liar! at others, their own little porkies might not get noticed?

"Emphasis on horror in the trenches." Quite... Presumably it wasn't so bad after all? It must have been easy and comfortable knowing you were well led by generals who cared for their charges eh?

💤

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:49 AM

Here is the review you lifted it from, and the edited to reverse the message.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n23/margaret-macmillan/von-hotzendorffs-desire

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:43 AM

Not true.
Take your first quote.
Here is the whole thing.
What he really says is the EXACT OPPOSITE of of what you dishonestly claim.

"With Cataclysm, David Stevenson draws on much recent work to provide a comprehensives account of the war, with a welcome interest both in the non-European theatres and in the home fronts. His book is also part of a more general attempt to rethink the meaning of the Great War and situate it in the history of the 20th century.

Like many of his fellow historians, Stevenson challenges much of the accepted wisdom – for example, that the generals had no ideas about how to break the deadlock – yet the prevalent view of the war remains under the influence of the highly critical literature of the late 1920s and early 1930s, with its emphasis on the horrors of the trenches and its portrayal of a futile struggle for obscure or ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals. How many of us saw Oh! What a Lovely War with a slight sense of superiority to the people of the past, so easily duped?"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:43 AM

Not true.
Take your first quote.
Here is the whole thing.
What he really says is the EXACT OPPOSITE of of what you dishonestly claim.

"With Cataclysm, David Stevenson draws on much recent work to provide a comprehensives account of the war, with a welcome interest both in the non-European theatres and in the home fronts. His book is also part of a more general attempt to rethink the meaning of the Great War and situate it in the history of the 20th century.

Like many of his fellow historians, Stevenson challenges much of the accepted wisdom – for example, that the generals had no ideas about how to break the deadlock – yet the prevalent view of the war remains under the influence of the highly critical literature of the late 1920s and early 1930s, with its emphasis on the horrors of the trenches and its portrayal of a futile struggle for obscure or ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals. How many of us saw Oh! What a Lovely War with a slight sense of superiority to the people of the past, so easily duped?"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:02 AM

Keith, no they are not I lifted them directly from the books involved, not from reviews of books by the likes of the Guardian. If you read properly the reviews you put on the thread mentioned each of the statements is qualified.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:01 PM

Raggytash, all your quotes are fake.
Musket put them on the Lovely War thread and I dealt with them there.
thread.cfm?threadid=156062&messages=36

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 06:41 PM

"The war could have been ended by negotiation in late 1914....."

this seems an apt enough point to re-ask the 'naive' question I posed right before the other thread was suddenly closed:

[A worthwhile & noble cause and war...???]

... so which individuals, armaments manufacturers, ancillary product suppliers, etc, and Nations
profiteered most from sustaining WW1 for so many long tragic years...???

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:28 PM

With front-line trenches running zigzag from Switzerland to the North Sea, please explain what strategy was open to the Allied generals before the spring of 1918 that they might have used to end the war any sooner? Seems to me I've never heard what that might have been.

Those responsible for continuing the war after its first horrific weeks were the leaders of the combatant nations, not the generals.

Berlin would not end it because they were sitting pretty in Belgium and France and had no motive to negotiate (except of course a humanitarian motive, which paled before the thrill of conquest). The Allies, on the defensive, had no motive to negotiate either (except of course, the humanitarian motive, which paled before the idea of rolling over while a militarist Germany bestrode northwestern Europe).

Had Gallipoli worked, it would now be hailed as genius. The plan was to break the Western stalemate by knocking one of Germany's co-belligerents out of the war. That it didn't happen that way doesn't make the strategy itself absurd.

The movie, by the way, claims that evil Brits glibly sacrificed the gallant but naive Aussies as cannon fodder. There's your revisionism right there. There were plenty of British and French at Gallipoli too, and in 1915 Australians considered themselves as British as anyone.

It's a bad idea to "learn" history from pop entertainment.

The war could have been ended by negotiation in late 1914.

But few wanted to negotiate, then or ever, because neither side wished to look weak, give in, abandon its declared principals, or lose the potential "fruits of victory."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 03:08 PM

You see, that's the problem with using Mudcat to push a point rather than debate. The likes of Keith end up looking like disingenuous arses. Mainly on the basis of wanting to see military leadership as competent, which it never has been. Wars are "won" on the basis of who makes least mistakes rather than tactical finesse.

Hell, he IS a disingenuous arse... Every word I have typed is genuine but because he searches for opinions that assume otherwise, he just shouts liar when his awful mindset is successfully shot down in flames. People who know him say he is a decent bloke. Maybe, but he suffers from the same lack of manners many suffer from on social media.

Any more historians who reckon men actually understood and leaders actually displayed leadership?

Like I said. callous disregard for their men, damnation and futile loss of life that could be largely avoided if military leaders cared for their men and led them appropriately.

Boom Boom etc

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 02:34 PM

Keith,

On the previous thread I quoted various historians who suggested that the leadership of the troops was less than competent.

You then said that "modern" historians had a different view. I did a bit of background work on some of the historians you had referred me to. (you had mentioned these people on a previous thread and pointed me in that direction)

May I be allowed to quote the one or two of the self same historians you referred to:-

David Stephenson, with regard to WW1 "a futile struggle for obscure and ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals"

Richard Holmes (himself once a brigadier)with regard to Gallipoli "I wanted to show just how lunatic the whole concept of the campaign was"

Peter Hart with regard to the Somme "Haig's Big Push was a human catastrophe" "Passchendaele came to epitomise the futility and pathos of the whole of WW1"

If you are going to argue a corner please, at least, ensure your information is correct.

There are always belligerent bastards around, like me, who will check your "facts"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 12:00 PM

What's just happened is that Teribus has dived for his library, discovered we have friends in common, and found a way of letting me know where he fitted in the military, which wasn't a million miles from me. My courtesies and apologies for aligning you too closely with Keith, may your paddles never dry.

The difference remaining between us is that he was in in the early 60s, I was a generation later, post-Nam and Bloody Sunday, and things changed in between. Just to guide him, my OR number was 24318nnn. I've expounded on that elsewhere, that the UK in the early 1960s was still very stiff-upper-lip WWII heritage, and ten years later, my time, we were almost the other way. It's the difference between us here, he's old-school and I'm one of the first of the new. He was probably a Staff (Sergeant), I was Staff (courtesy rank Colonel for protocol purposes). Amazing what a difference one letter makes! The difference in it was that we expected his generation to have the education needed to get the answer right without having to ask a Commander (Platoon, Company, you name it), and the person I named pointed out and proved it was unreasonable and impossible. The result is they tried to get people like me to fill the gap. In fact, in my career I've done what was asked with knobs on, bringing in one coup which should have needed someone of Ambassadorial rank or higher. Musashi was right, the finest battle is one won without a soldier on the field.

As I type, Julian Brazier, MOD Under-Secretary, has just stated in the House in reply to John Baron (2RRF) "it's about doing defence differently and harnessing the talents of the wider UK Society...to make Defence more flexible in coping with the changing demands made on it". That last phrase came straight out of what I told them they'd have to do, back in 1990. Indeed, it was a response to Kitson, and SOP for your force, Teribus, at least in my day. It's now SOP for the entire Armed Forces, and to do that, you don't need soldiers reinforced by people capable of taking the highest strategic decisions correctly, you need soldiers who have the background to do so themselves, because however much you try to centralise the key data, you need people capable of accurately filtering out what's important and what isn't right the way down the line.

In the early days of the SAS, the troopers routinely asked their officers what to do next, in quite fine detail. Not for them to reason why, theirs was just to do or die. Some of that, iirc correctly from a certain Paddy, was still present in your day, Teribus. By the time the ball reached us, that had broken down, ORs were acting with authority, in the SFs. Now it's everywhere, Sergeants as Platooon Commanders are commonplace. Perhaps it's because Ruperts have been seen to be the hollow things they are. It's also because WEU has shown the way on the wider Peacemaking agenda, shifting what the Army is asked to do.

And that is why I disagree with the old line. Duty is personal, not imposed, duty on yourself to be the best you can be, better than what is asked of you, to have the answer for the question your boss is going to ask you in your hand before he asks it. They ask me to remember the dead, I answer by reducing the lethality of war, because I dare ask why. Because I explained to my subordinates why. A simple Why is part of Situation (GSMEACQ, something Teribus understands). Why, one of Kipling's 5 Honest Serving Men. Why, motivation. Why, verifying you've understood, reducing the fog of war.

And so, why wear a poppy? To remember the Dead. Why remember them? To honour their deaths, by ensuring that what they did was not done in vain. How do we ensure that? By making certain the Command doesn't repeat its inevitable cock-ups which are the biggest single factor in getting troops killed, and WWI was a wonderful worked example of why all that was necessary. But if you're never allowed to ask these questions because they're just too embarrassing to the incompetents who repeated their mistakes at the price of other peoples' lives, then you'll repeat them, and repeat them, and repeat them, and soldiers will die, and die, and die.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 11:19 AM

So once again, as ever, you can not produce any scrap of evidence to support your ludicrous claim that every living historian is part of a conspiracy to hide the truth about WW1.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 11:11 AM

"Not long since dead please."

Picky fucker.

Sorry, I'm in the debating class. The cut and paste subjective shit off the internet is down the corridor.

zzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 10:21 AM

It's a great record by Joss Stone & Jeff Beck!!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 10:19 AM


Out of interest, I found over a period of less than 15 mins lots of "facts" that support their absurd notions regarding well led and aware soldiers and just as much saying the exact opposite.
show us Musket. (Some hope!)

Oh, and the many historians who wrote of folly, misadventure and indifference. Some of which are the same ones rewriting. Must be a fashion thing.
Name one Musket. Not long since dead please. (Some hope)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:39 AM

Fascinating. All these people so concerned about and exercised about the lawfulness of the (unlawful, I tell you) British Legion song - and NOBODY bothers to point out that the link I gave above was edited and will not take you to the MCPS's OWN factsheet about what its licences do and do not cover - https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Product%20Licensing/Product_Lic_FAQ.pdf


https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Product%20Licensing/Product_Lic_FAQ.pdf


The problem is that Bogle (or his music publisher) is too scared to sue.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:37 AM

Ah Musket, you "found" but fail to produce - indicates where you think the mop will flop if those for and against sources are compared.

Personally I cannot be arsed:

1: Lions led by donkeys - a myth concocted by the man who wanted to sell a book

2: Redcaps shooting people for not going over the top - myth, it never happened

3: Summary executions carried out immediately after hurried Courts Martial - myth, it never happened

Every time you trot these idiotic myths out along with all the rest of your "made-up-shit" - I will correct you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:31 AM

Though I am certainly no historian

[ my history exercise books and essays were sent floating down a major west country river
at the end of 3rd year after I chose my O level subjects ],

I wouldn't be that surprised if a history of historians
showed decade by decade shifts of alternating trends of left and right wing ideologial bias....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:24 AM

This is truly the season of the shite charity appeal single..

"No Man's Land" was just another forgettable one of far too many..


Sir Bob, you can shout and swear at world leader politicians as much as you like, if it does any good..

But please stop pretending your latest Band Aid record is any good...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:18 AM

I wonder if Terribulus and TC Keith can sleep at night, or whether they believe their own shit?

Out of interest, I found over a period of less than 15 mins lots of "facts" that support their absurd notions regarding well led and aware soldiers and just as much saying the exact opposite.

I think the first hand accounts will do for me. Oh, and the many historians who wrote of folly, misadventure and indifference. Some of which are the same ones rewriting. Must be a fashion thing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:09 AM

Sainsbury's, following up on their Poppy support, have adopted the Football Truce for its Christmas promotion. I'd like to see what they do with it before commenting, though, although my optimism is likely to be sadly disappointed: if so, then they will be the losers.
Waitrose, by comparison, asked for contributions in late October to a massive multitrack of Dolly Parton's Try, which brings unapologetically sexist thoughts about rugby balls to mind. As a song, though, I think they're trying to build on the self-improvement dynamic of Farrell Williams' Happy...
Mind you, no parent will ever not associate the word with potty training.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 08:59 AM

Were indeed that the case GUEST,Rahere, care to tell us why you jumped in wittering on with all that CRAP ABOUT POPPY-JUNKIES.( AND YES, I AM NOW SHOUTING AT YOU.)

Now throughout that great long screed about Military "Battle" Police where is the bit that clearly states that irrespective of unit when troops serve in this capacity their ultimate authority is that of the APM and that the standing orders and directions of Assistant Provost Marshal take precedence over any order given by officers and NCOs of their own regiment (In that way it avoids any temptation to settle old scores using their Regimental Police role) No member of your "Battle" Police, or of the MMP or the MFP had any authority to summarily shoot anybody (Apart from the enemy) during the First World War (There was one instance of a Commanding Officer requesting that authority which was instantly refused by the Provost Marshal) - so get over it and stop being so bloody precious - Musket was just caught out trying to impart some more of his "made-up-shit" and got called for it.

Now then have I served in an Infantry Unit? Nope different service entirely but did sometime with the Royal Marines in Borneo (Sarawak and Sabah) and in Northern Ireland - good enough for you? - if not too bad, no skin of my nose at all. As to serving in an infantry unit being the sole criteria and essential qualification that would allow one to comment - I would say from the amount of complete and utter bollocks churned out by yourself and Musket that is no qualification at all - anyone who has actually studied the period in question in any detail would run circles round the pair of you, without so much as having served one day's "reckonable service".

Oh God another myth, born from a belief that whatever fiction the Beeb puts on must be the truth - "Does anyone remember Paul McGann in the Monocled Mutineer? I hear the files on what actually happened are closed until 2018..." - GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)

Now what files are closed until 2018?? Those relating to the Camp at Étaples in 1917, or those relating to the case of Percy Toplis? It is either one or the other as Percy Toplis (The Monocled Mutineer) never mutinied and he was nowhere near Étaples at the time of the incident there (Your Percy was with his Regiment and on his way to India at the time) By the way you will experience no problem at all in accessing the reports or the records for either.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:54 AM

The British legion position that the licence of the copyright owner was not needed is a lie. See the MCPS's own information sheet here https://www.prsformusic.com/.../Produ.../Product_Lic_FAQ.pdf

Additionally, the butchering of the song is an infringement of Bogle's moral rights. It is a distortion and mutilation of the work, see Section 80 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

I am frankly even more annoyed about the lies now being told by the British Legion than I am about the butchery of the song.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:52 AM

When a mod feels the need to intervene and impose reasonable authority on a thread,
surely it takes no more thought or time to instead type something along the lines of...

"As this thread no longer appears to be about the song or the recent recording.
There are two options, mods can re-designate this as a BS thread, or most likely close it.
You have been warned.-mod".....?????

Surely a lot less 'draconian' and antagonistic than summarily executing a thread...???

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:39 AM

Last night at the pictures (Interstellar - hardly overdrive, but still a blast) I saw an advert featuring the Xmas football truce. Is this a myth? I've heard suggestions...

Does anyone remember Paul McGann in the Monocled Mutineer? I hear the files on what actually happened are closed until 2018...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:38 AM

Right, Teribus, the Mods made it clear they wanted this left where it is and You have chosen to ignore it. YOU TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES, AND YES, I AM NOW SHOUTING AT YOU.

Firstly, have you ever served in an Infantry Unit? How the fuck do you know what you're talking about if you haven't? I talked about the Military "Battle" Police, not the Royal Military Police. Lets begin from basics. The practice in Army units is for everyone to take a turn on guard duty, whether in camp or in the field. The guard has the duty of protecting the unit, and it extends to dealing with stragglers, whether returning drunk from the pub or AWOL. They often have armbands to identify them, and the Duty Offficer, their Commander, is easily identifiable in the Officers' Mess, because he's the only one with a Sam Brown on. Minor crimes happen all the time, the Guard hauls them in and holds them until preferably their sergeant, failing which the CO, sorts it out. The NCOs are the people doing the work, so the Officers can advise neutrally: it's why the Duty Officer tries to keep clear other than giving the Guard their orders and a very occasional check-up that there's not problems not being reported to him. It was the same in Kipling's day, "Drunk and resisting the Guard", whose job it was to calm him down, sober him up and get him back in line before anyone noticed. The entire thing is designed to deal with it with as little fuss as possible: the CO who has to notify the RMPs of a AWOL becoming a deserter is pretty irritated, believe me: if you want out, there are other ways, nobody needs someone who's not doing their job in the Army of the last forty years, because someone else will have to do it for him. If it's something you'd put up with from one of your mates, fine, everyone turns a blind eye, the job gets done. Family and life problems also. But if you routinely fuck up, then you cease to be a mate and you're on the way out - we try to eliminate these in training, but people change. And there are times when it's not so simple, like in the line.

In WWI, most battalions had the practice of rotating one company out of the immediate front line to do the admin, getting supplies (mostly food, drink, medicines and dressings and ammunition) up to the line and all the rest of it. It also had a hidden objective: if the front-line companies got wiped out, the reserve company could act as a cadre to rebuild the unit.
It's the NCO's jobs to do that in the platoon: the Platoon Commander is usually off getting his next set of orders and planning how to put them into effect as soon as one job is finished. While he's doing that, the sergeant's doing his "mother" bit, ensuring someone's on guard, those who need to sleep sleep, everyone gets hot food, the used ammunition is resupplied, the dead get buried, the wounded sent for treatment, and their replacements assigned, so his boss has a functioning unit when he returns. The NCOs work with the Warrant officers, CSM and CQMS or one of the Staff Sergeants at Company level, RSM and RQMS at Battalion level. Part of their job is therefore making certain those doing the fighting do the fighting, and the RSM, tasked with Battaalion discipline, is the backline when shirking's concerned. Almost every execution for desertion was done against a charge from the RSM in WWI, for example: the Officers stand back to be seen to be neutral, within the linits of the culture, which I agree is a very daunting quibble. The worst would be a complete mutiny, it happened in the French Army in 1917, and could have spread. The model is Sam Small, as immortalised by Stanley Holloway: Sam, Sam, pick up tha' musket. "just for thee I'll oblige".

So, you have an image here of the RSM and his heavies, sometimes from the Reserve Company, keeping order, which means in particular making sure soldiers bloody well fight. They're sometimes called Provosts, but still not RMP Provosts who are the next line up the tree, and that's why your research doesn't find them, Terribus, because you think everything;s neatly pigeonholed - this isn't, it's part of the million-and-one parts of an RSM's job, from yelling at people slouching across the Parade Sqaure to ensuring that Private X's slut of a wife doesn't disrupt his section by screwing the Corporal whose wife is his rifle. The shennanigans of Court Martials are particularly disliked by Officers, who, you will have noticed, and not in the gang being mother-henned by the Sergeant, and who invariably get fuck all sleep. A Court-Martial comes out of their disposable time, which is firstly tasked in the line to being able to sleep so they can still think straight. In addition, the documentary BS is beyind belief. I feel much the same way here, I've got things I'd rather do than explain all this to a bunch of armchair warriors.

Part of the reason the lads from the Reserve Company do it is because if they don't, they'll be the ones sent forwards to replace the Company that's not doing the job. There tends not to be too much love lost outside the Company as a result, even now everyone thinks their Company's the best.

And under those circumstances, nobody's going to be too fussed about what happens in the way of straightener to anyone not doing their job. Straighteners still happen, which is why people like Nasr Al-Khalifa still have bodyguards: one of my chums wanted to declare informal war on him earlier this summer and had to be talked out of setting half the pikeys of the East End onto him and his to teach them the kind of lesson they badly needed. Instead, Nasr got declared persona non grata by the State Depaartment with an International Arrest Warrant on his head and my mate spent the summer in body armour, because Nasr went home to Daddy and threw his toys pout of the pram: I'm no longer welcome in the Savoy as a result. Oh, me f'in heart bleeds. The reason I'm safe is because he, Nasr, asked me for my help, and he really would lose face paying me back any worse.

You will have noticed that in theory the Officer should preempt these problems. What arose in WWI is that nobody had time to find out what the inevitable baggage a newcomer brought with him was, and so if they were of such weak character their minds snapped and they turned and legged it, then the consequences were likely to be inevitable. As I type, the BBC is talking about the effects of bullying on children, and there's some of that in these problems: life is sometimes too kind, and when you get someone immature bullied and ordered into a position where he'd rather kill himself than put up with it any longer, or commit suicide by Military Cop, then it will happen, particularly where the High Command didn't give a monkeys.

This was true at Blenheim, it was true at Waterloo, it was true in the Somme and it's true now. It will probably be true until we no longer need an Army. HOWEVER, the awareness of what's going on behind the facehas advanced, if only by learning the hard way, although we still don't sign up to all the H&S psychobabble. Nowadays, we try to kick out the bastards who still don't give a damn, as they're the sort who won't give a damn about the women and children in the way. We need soldiers who have been trained to perform under continual pressure, and this is why some of the recruiting films you'll have seen have only one in three passing the course, you may be too weak in limb, mind or morality to do the job. The Special Forces add other criteria, which is why I know them, but walked away from them, because they had not added morality to the list when I was in. It's there now, and I have friends there because they've learned I was right: for example, one of my WEU mates has Chapter 8 of the Osprey Book on Heroes of the SAS all to his little self, much to his fury: I paid him for eight years, and his pension for another ten. Which is why I calm down people wanting a slice of an Arab Crown Prince. That extra is what makes them Special, and is why I continue to argue here, because the work the folk movement can be very helpful in bringing children on to become balanced adults who know when to act and when to hold their hands. The gung-ho types have to be balanced with proportionate responsibility, or we end up in the situation where nobody can see because of an eye for an eye and nobody can hear because of an ear for an ear. It's why I ended up in WEU, I've not changed, I was always a moderating force on new officers coming in full of "I'm the Colonel of the 4th Foot and Mouth and had 2000 serving men": we taught them that their new serving men were Kipling's 5: What, and Who, and Where, and Why, and When. Or for that matter Warsaw Pact people who'd been brought up to be afraid of their won shadows, and had to be taught that they had a valuable voice and opinion from what they had spent their time observing. WEU succeeded because we made the diplomats and military talk to each other, and exercise jaw-jaw instead of war-war. It's the futurte of the world, and not the guys who react to the red fog of war.

And foremost among them at the moment seems to be you, dearest Teribus. When you try to dis me like you have, I'm human, and get insulted, and may treat you with the contempt you have undoubtedly earned. I've been around diplomats for long enough to count to ten, but when, having counted to ten, you still are a prat preaching respect for the armed forces but not observing it when it comes to it, then you live with the consequences. Let's put it this way. I'm never likely to want to perform with you if ever I discover your real identity. Max knows mine, and has checked my background: my friends detected his checking and asked me who he was, as they were concerned about my arse during the summer's contretemps. That will have to satisfy you.

So, have you ever served in an infantry unit?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:35 AM

When posters stray well off the musical topic they should have the good grace to open a new thread below the line ASAP and leave us to our music.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:27 AM

"We executed men for cowardice."
Very true Musket that did happen it was a -Fact - In FACT out of an Army of some 5.5 million men we executed 17 of them for "Cowardice".

"Court Martials were quick summary affairs."
Sorry Musket not a fact - it is another one of your myths:

"Between August 1914 and 31 March 1920, just over 3,000 men were sentenced to death in British army courts martial. Offences included desertion (by far the most common capital crime), cowardice, murder, espionage, mutiny and striking a superior officer. In roughly 90% of cases, the sentence was commuted to hard labour or penal servitude."

In the British army, there were four types of courts martial. Only two of them - the general court martial (GCM) and the field general court martial (FGCM) - were invested with the authority to sanction the death penalty. Before any death sentence was carried out all papers relating to the case had to be reviewed at Army HQ and any death warrant had to be signed by the Commander of the British Army - So not all that quick or summary in nature at all.

"Red tops shot and wounded men found behind lines."
Another instance of you just making stuff up I'm afraid - another of your myths - not one instance of this ever happening - for any member of the armed forces to act in this way would be illegal - Fact. You are welcome to provide us with evidence to the contrary - I won't hold my breath.

The records to substantiate all I have stated above are in the public domain and have been for some considerable time.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 06:23 AM

I suspect this thread is destined to be moved below the line....

Kitty

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 06:04 AM

We executed men for cowardice. Fact. Court Martials were quick summary affairs. Fact. Red tops shot and wounded men found behind lines. Fact.

I think the establishment is rewriting history successfully without cap doffering support by peasants thank you very much. In their eyes, you are "other ranks" so your blind attacks on reality aren't even appreciated by those you fawn over.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:56 AM

Ah so GUEST,Rahere - No examples of Military Police forcing men "over-the-top" or of any summary executions then.

But not having the honesty or integrity to admit to your mistakes what do we get? Threats to someone who has as yet not even contributed to this thread.

Very pleased to hear that as a "beancounter" you can in fact count to ten - I take it that you could only reach twenty if someone else untied your shoe laces and took your socks off.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:28 AM

How I wish we could actually talk about music and do something positive here. But as I've been there and done it, I've not got much choice, which doesn't leave me feeling very nice about certain people, Teribus and Keith right up top of the list, and I'm starting to have to count to ten. Let's stop right here before I travel up to Hertford, not far from me, and cut the strings on Keith's guitar.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:05 AM

An example of what GUEST,Rahere is on about:

" GUEST,Rahere - PM
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 06:11 AM

Keith
If posting Military "Battle" Police immediately behind the front line checking the trenches for anyone who didn't go "over the top", driving them over if necessary, and subesquently executing anyone who escaped them for cowardice"

Complete and utter MYTH - it never happened - no doubt that GUEST,Rahere will be able to give us chapter and verse on any such incident - he'll have trouble doing that as there were none.

British Military Police on the Western Front

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:44 AM

I don't think anything's been demolished here, Rahere. Nor do I believe there is such a creature as a poppy-junky (not in that sense anyway!). I do believe in dialogue though. And letting people talk whilst they're still talking, especially on such an emotive issue as this one.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:19 AM

Well, we had made the case and demolished the poppy-junkies, and deservedly so. Let it Rest In Peace.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:18 AM

For FERAL read REAL. Although feral's good too. Damn my new Macbook Pro and its corrective predictions...

Subject: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:15 AM

Rather than re-designate this as a BS thread, I'm going to close it, as it's no longer about the song or the recent recording. -mod

The most depressingly offensive words you'll ever read on Mudcat. God knoweth there's enough faceless bureaucracy in the feral world without having it here as well.

For shame & despair!

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 10:41 AM

Please look back to the Christmas Truce thread where I quoted and linked to about a dozen working, publishing Historians while vainly asking for any dissenters.
I included most of those listed by BBC as the leading ten.
I included all those who contributed to the BBC History site's pages on WW1 and the OU History Dept. who provided the research fo the Paxman series.

Musket, your suggestion that all current Historians are involved in a plot to suppress the truth is ludicrous.
Desperation!