WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:15 AM

The twenty or so executions, not to mention the ones not carried out after sentencing are all myths now!

This gets better.

Can't wait for us to get to WW2, David Irvine is an amateur compared to this fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

"Maybe stopping the Great War once it was clear it was a futile conflict was too difficult to achieve"

Effin right is was impossible to achieve primarily because of the German insistence that any peace deal had to be conditional on them (The Germans) retaining the ground they had already taken - A condition that neither Belgium or France would ever accept.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:05 AM

"You have been given the description of battle police executing stragglers and deserters

From a television series? Are you f**kin serious, do you honestly think something dreamed up by some bloody director of a TV series actually constitutes proof that such an event EVER took place you gullible clown.

"and you have ducked this by describing the veterans who gave these descriptions as "liars" and "attention seekers"

Likewise just because "Good old Charlie" said it happened does not make it so without some form of substantive proof.

Our prolific posting GUEST mate doesn't even believe that there ever was such a thing as "Battle Police" - I know that they did exist, I know why they existed and I know that no-one operating under the direct command and subject to the standing orders of the Assistant Provost Marshal was ever given authority to carry out summary executions of anybody in the British Army.

Now this is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact - well documented fact.

Now if you wish to persist in this MYTH then come up with some evidence of it ever happening (NOT works of fiction, not some unsubstantiated hearsay account that is impossible to verify - looking for real evidence here)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

From another thread and a man far wiser than me -

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:05 AM

Omar Khayyam ( or rather Edward Fitzgerald) got it spot on:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

Maybe stopping the Great War once it was clear it was a futile conflict was too difficult to achieve, but drawing this futile squabble on the Mudcat to an end shouldn't be impossible.

Armistice time please!!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:44 AM

"C'mon tell us again about those wicked RED TOPS, or possibly one of your other idiotic stories."
You have been given the description of battle police executing stragglers and deserters and you have ducked this by describing the veterans who gave these descriptions as "liars" and "attention seekers"
You are a shit for having done so - no way to commemorate the bravery of people who gave their lives for Britain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:35 AM

The only person(s) making a twat, or twats {Your choice of word Musket} of themself/themselves on this thread Musket are you and your GUEST clones.

C'mon tell us again about those wicked RED TOPS, or possibly one of your other idiotic stories.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:05 AM

A question: Musket - 12 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

Now which one is that?

1: - The over-weight, fat, bald, bespectacled, bully too weak to stand on his own two feet.

2: - The weak sycophantic, smart arse incapable of any original thought

3: - The weak sycophantic git, the classic bully's shadow.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:32 AM

And that is what passes for debate from Musket!

Go into a bookshop Musket.
What you will see are the books of Sheffield, Paxman, Snow, Todman and Hastings.

As you know, they contradict all the old myths you cling to.
Do your laughing boy act there.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

Funnily enough, I do struggle to keep at my best weight, and with the skiing season coming up..

But I can burn off my bit because it is neck, shoulders, belly etc, (not that being 6'4" and 13 stone is fat of course but we are talking your logic here.)

Your fat being where your brain is, exercising it just seems to make you worse.

I love insults. But just for me, be even funnier and start defending poor leadership again. I like that. What's that one you do about good decision making again? I could hear the laughter coming all the way from the war memorial.

I'd take your stand up act to the war graves if I were you. Captive large audience and all that. You and Keith could give them your latest material too. You know, about hospitals and schools being legitimate targets so long as the militants are Israeli and the victims Palestinians.

That would make good pantomime.

"where's me moral authority to preach on Mudcat?"

"It's behind you!"

Naw, doesn't work. Not sure you ever had it in the first place, fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:03 AM

No Musket with the amount of fat you carry around you'd be the provisions.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:02 AM

"The practice of summary executions was well-known enough to have been included in the highly regarded series, 'The Village', where a young lad was depicted as having been caught, taken into a field and shot by two military police - no protests from irate viewers or the powers that be." - Jim Carroll

Ah so what is depicted in a Television Series must somehow be accepted as the gospel truth? Ever heard of poetic licence?   Ever heard of altering things to increase the dramatic effect?

I have asked many times now - come up with just one instance where armed military police carried out the summary execution for cowardice or desertion - and real life example please not one from fiction based upon S.F.A.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:10 PM

2o out of how many million Musket?

Jim, OK.

Which of my three points shall I re post quotes about first?

You said that the character was arrested and shot by Redcaps.
That was bollocks.
He was taken to France to face court marshal.

"Butcher" Haig commuted the death sentence on 90% of those condemned.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:31 PM

I'd be the captain of course.

Cream always rises to the top

😼

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 01:29 PM

'Two men cast adrift in a rowing boat Musket -if they are are to stand any chance at (sic) surviving their ordeal -one has to be the captain'

i'm quoting teribus from a few posts back but also making a general point.

this is not right. we achieve much more by treating each other as equals and respecting and caring for each other.

imagine yourself and musket in the rowing boat. by the time the 4 of you had stopped fighting about who was going to be captain.....well, you'd be fucked eh?

we don't need to have a 'rank' ..nor accept any rak that anyone tries to put on....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

"If he was portrayed as being summarily shot there would certainly be complaints. I read that he was arrested in England on his farm."
Yes he was - that is how the account that the series is based on tells it - more liars eh
The authorities would never dream of letting soldiers go unpunished for such behaviour - ask the relatives of those who were massacred on Bloody Sunday!!
Any nearer to providing those links yet - no - didn't think so?
"official orders must have existed and should survive"
Yes they should - it's taken nearly a century for the illegal soldiers' diaries to surface - perhaps the bi-centenary!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:57 AM

And yet almost 20 men were executed.

Many more were given custodial sentences.

After all, well led informed men don't need such coercion eh?

Bluster and piss to avoid the reality.

Sacrifice, bad decisions, disregard for the lives of our men and jingoistic propaganda.

Carry on avoiding it. What happened happened and no bullshit from Terribulus or his little friend will alter it.

By the way, anonymous guest who thinks my beer belly is large. If yours was as small and well muscled as mine, you wouldn't have to chloroform unsuspecting women before interfering with them. (Not as anonymous as you thought eh?)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:41 AM

Jim,
'The Village', where a young lad was depicted as having been caught, taken into a field and shot by two military police - no protests from irate viewers or the powers that be.

I read that he was arrested in England on his farm.
If he was portrayed as being summarily shot there would certainly be complaints.
Perhaps you fell asleep and dreamt that bit.

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

All very good points, Lighter. Thank you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:18 AM

> I cannot envisage that 100 years ago the British press would have been given the freedom to report on such abuses and I cannot imagine they were ever recorded.

Surely correct about the press. Nor would many journalists have wished to report it if it did occur (bad for morale and/or not typical).

But for squads of "battle police" to have been detailed to execute supposed deserters summarily, or even to force men out of the trenches, official orders must have existed and should survive. (The CIA documents survive because the Agency claimed that what they were doing was clearly legal, as would the hypothetical issuers of official orders to shoot people.) The thousands of surviving private diaries would have mentioned enough of such incidents if they did happen, and surely after the war (especially now, after a hundred years) historians would have the evidence.

You can't prove a negative in this case, but there is no reliable evidence to suggest that anything of the sort ever happened or could have happened under orders.

At least in the British and American armies. The best known reference to "battle police" shooting supposed deserters is in Hemingway's novel "A Farewell to Arms." It is about the Italian army in its retreat from Caporetto.

There's also the famous scene in the movie "Paths of Glory" of a crazily ambitious French general ordering artillery fire on his own troops to get them to advance. Significantly, the artillery captain refuses to obey because the order is illegal.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:17 AM



Really? Strange because they are mentioned in lots of official sites

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:16 AM

We will see GUEST my money is on not one single person coming up with one single recorded instance of this ever happening.

And yes Jim your old soldier was shooting you a line.

I mean come on look at the supposed situation logically:

Line of armed MPs - how many? do they outnumber you? probably not

If you don't go over the top we'll shoot - What all of us?

MPs shoot one of your mates - Me along with everyone else in the Company turn round and shoot the MPs. We are after all more heavily armed than they are. It would only ever happen once and just the prospect of it would be horrific enough - Fact it never happened at all - EVER.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:52 AM

The practice of summary executions was well-known enough to have been included in the highly regarded series, 'The Village', where a young lad was depicted as having been caught, taken into a field and shot by two military police - no protests from irate viewers or the powers that be.
If these executions weren't authorised, they must have been carried out by death squads - nice thougt!
Personally, I'm getting a little sickened of reading attacks on War veterans accounts of their experiences in favour of the agenda driven opinions of war apologists and phantom historians a century later.
A shitty way to commemorate those who died, as far as I'm concerned
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:29 AM

OK - The CIA example was bad because there is much more transparency now. I cannot envisage that 100 years ago the British press would have been given the freedom to report on such abuses and I cannot imagine they were ever recorded. In any case, I cannot say which viewpoint is true as I do not have the knowledge but, on balance, I think the "battlefield police" as described are an unlikely force. I do suspect that some provosts or MPs did overstep the mark, as did some soldiers, but I do not believe it to be a general thing. As I said in my 09:14AM post, rumour is a powerful force when trying to keep scores of people in check!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:21 AM

> I suspect no authority was given to the CIA men who tortured their prisoners.

Actually, it seems that authority *was* given by the Department of Justice, on the basis of a bizarre ad-hoc interpretation of the Federal statute making torture (which was broadly defined) a crime. Interrogators were given a limited list of permissible methods.

The worst abuse, moreover, occurred when agents went beyond even those.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:17 AM

In the interests of objectivity on this matter about British Military Police or Regimental Police or Battle Police ever having the authority to summarily execute people in the course of their duties let us be perfectly clear - that sort of thing is highly illegal - they would be charged with murder - as evidenced by the recent trial and conviction of Royal Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman.

I can say with absolute certainty that during the course of the First World War "No such authority was ever given" as I can say with equal certainty that the ONLY time such authority was ever sought by the officer commanding his Regiment's battle police the Provost Marshal specifically forbade it.

Your CIA example doesn't work. People have actually been tortured or rendered to places where enhanced interrogation techniques have been used. Such instances are a simple matter of record and the subsequent court cases and award of damages are known so no-one at any time in the future can deny that they ever occurred.

I have now asked three people on this thread to come up with just one instance of the things they claim were common practice to validate their claims - to be perfectly objective - not one of them has managed to provide evidence of any of their claimed actions ever happening.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:14 AM

When I started secondary school I was terrified because all the older kids I knew said that the prefects put your head down the toilet and flushed it. I never saw any evidence of that. Not saying it didn't happen or that the older kids were liars but I am inclined to believe that rumours can become very realistic if told by enough people. Particularly if they help to keep large numbers of people under control. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:05 AM

Challenge away - it came from a veteran soldier and was included in a soldiers glossary
The soldier we recorded claimed that it happened too - another liar eh?
If it was not authorised, it meant that part of the army included unofficial death-squads - another insight
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:49 AM

I think you need to be careful, Teribus, of phrases like No such authority as being permission to carry out summary executions was ever given. Not saying you are right or wrong, just be wary of citing that no authority was given. I suspect no authority was given to the CIA men who tortured their prisoners. In 100 years time will historians be saying it never happened because the CIA did not have the authority?

Just trying to be objective.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:37 AM

"(You didn't mention my humongous cock. Do keep up.)"

Would that be the self same one that you haven't seen for years due to the unbelievably monstrous over-hang of your big fat gut?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:34 AM

Oh good heavens Jim has just read something on the internet and instantly accepts it as Gospel, God's honest truth, something that must be true and completely beyond question.

But wait a minute Jim Carroll always questions everything, from a lifetime of completely disbelieving anything anyone in a position of authority says ever if Jim reads IT on the internet - so why isn't he questioning this?

Well OK I will challenge Jim Carroll to question this entry from Paul Hinkley (About whom nothing, and I mean nothing is known). His Battlefield Colloquialisms appears on a Griffiths University website but Mr Hinkley was neither a student or a professor there, they know nothing about him. The glossary of terms was found on an early University Website that allowed amateurs to post hobby material for free and the University seeing no harm continues to make it available.

I also challenge Jim Carroll to come up with one single instance of this ever happening.

Ask GUEST,Rahere about"Battle Police" we thrashed this out earlier on one of these threads. These guys were not even military policemen (First World War you had MMP and MFP) the battlefield police were men of the stay behind company and when detailed they operated under the orders of the Assistant Provost Marshal. No such authority as being permission to carry out summary executions was ever given.

So c'mon Christmas give us some evidence of:

- Battlefield police lining the trenches to force men to go over the top.

- Battle field police carrying out summary executions of those suspected of being deserters.

Just one will do in an Army of over 5.3 million over a time span of four years three months - just one. But I will not be expecting anything, I will not be holding my breath, because it is yet another of those dearly held myths about the First World War, probably blabbed out to Jim from some old soldier who told Jim that he'd been there and had seen it and of course Jim knows that everyone who speaks to him always tells the truth.

Great Britain - Military Police

Excerpt from above related to the First World War:

" As far as provost duties were concerned, no instructions existed as to what these might be, and they had to be defined and acted on as they became apparent. In France these mainly included the manning of 'stragglers' posts', traffic control, dealing with crime committed by British soldiers, the control of civilians within the battle area, handling prisoners of war, and patrolling rear areas and ports. Of these, perhaps the operation of stragglers' posts has become the least understood, giving rise to the legend of the Redcap, pistol in hand, forcing shell-shocked Tommies forward to certain death. THE FACTS PAINT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PICTURE. Stragglers' posts or battle-stops, as they were sometimes called, were collecting points behind the front lines where prisoners of war were taken over from the infantry, runners and message-carriers were checked and directed. Walking wounded from Regimental Aid Posts were directed to casualty collecting stations for evacuation, and 'stragglers' were dealt with. This last-named duty involved halting soldiers who were obviously neither casualties, signalers or runners, re-arming and equipping them if necessary, and sending them forward to rejoin their units, individually or in groups. With so few MMP or MFP men available, this type of work was mostly done by 'trench police' or 'battle police', men from a division's cavalry squadron or cyclist company, regimental police or corps cavalry, who also directed traffic in communication trenches. All worked under the direction of the divisional APM."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM

I hasten to add that the author of the link I have just given is probably not a qualified historian and took his information from his veteran grandfather, so it is probably all attention seeking lies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:05 AM

Silly me. There I go again, using the words used by memoirs, interviews and recollections of those who were actually fucking there. I should know better of course.

I should believe those clever people who talk about The RAF, despite it not even fucking existing at the time this thread is about. 😹😹

About as sccurate as your description of three people. Even the physical bits you should have stood a chance with no, you can't even guess, never mind speak on any subject with conviction.

Actually Terribulus, I do feel sorry for you on one score. The only time Akenaton has posted a comment that isn't embarrassing for him was when he weighed you up.

My commiserations.



(You didn't mention my humongous cock. Do keep up.)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:41 AM

"BATTLE POLICE Armed military police patrols deployed in the trenches following an attack to deal with (often by summary execution) stragglers and men who had refused to go over the top."
BATTLE POLICE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:38 AM

Thanks in turn "GUEST - 11 Dec 14 - 06:24 AM"


To "Musket" / "Muskets" - can well believe your story it matches well to the persona:

1: - An over-weight, fat, bald, bespectacled, bully too weak to stand on his own two feet.

2: - A weak sycophantic, smart arse incapable of any original thought

3: - A weak sycophantic git, the classic bully's shadow.

By the way Musket it is RED CAPS - RED CAPS Musket they have always been known as RED CAPS

For the RAF their Military Police have always been known as SNOW DROPS

For the Royal Navy the Regulators Branch have always been known generally by Officers as the Shore Patrol and by "Jack" as the Crushers.

Perhaps you should read a bit more Muskets - you might just learn something.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:31 AM

If you had read the war memoirs of Sassoon or Graves, you would know that your "red tops" stuff is shit.
They were highly critical of almost everything about the war, but they never mentioned any of that.
They most certainly would have.

Can you find anything from anyone backing it?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:11 AM

Somebody save the "muskets"!    they're floundering. :0)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:50 AM

Of course some bloke in Scotland posts as Musket. He said so. So do I. So does the third Musket. I shared the log in when we were having a laugh at a wedding we were all at and thought the best way to take the piss out of some of the strutting cockerels was to share a log in and play a game of carrying on where the other left off. Far more fun than the verbal wanking required to drop to the level of some of the pseuds on here.

That's for BS by the way. Above the line is another barbed wire full of dead soldiers.

What's all this about clues Terribilus? If you have to call that a clue, it says something about your calibre of research...

Have you found something devastating that everybody else has always known?

By the way, the military police patrolling behind the lines were known as red tops. Pedantic versus colloquial terms are no argument unless it is a desperate attempt to look good.

You passed that point ages ago. Here's a tip Terribulus. Save the stupidity for after the first few lines of your posts when every fucker had stopped reading. You look less of an arse that way me old love.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:24 AM

Thanks Teribus. Your position seems more reasonable than some others and while I would always rail at the phrase 'believe me because I know better' I am happy to accept reasonable argument. I am not saying I will necessarily agree but at least I, and many like me, will consider the possibilities. I know it doesn't matter whether I agree or not but I think an agreement to differ may avert a war while 'I am right, you are wrong' is more likely to do the opposite. People are contrary like that and will usually attempt to defy authority. I include myself in that.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:11 AM

A couple of good posts there Guest {11 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM & 11 Dec 14 - 05:00 AM}

"My worry is that politicians will use the historic justification for WW1 as justification for the next war."

Most wars in history resulted from acts which were instigated, or from motives, which were at the time accepted and generally held as being in the national interest. I do not believe that that now necessarily holds true. Since the emergence of the "Professional Politician" national interest as the governing factor has now been replaced by what is in the best interests of the "Party". The Falklands War was the last time "national interest" was the deciding factor.

"I believe that nowadays the Generals and high command are in the same position as Tommy in the trenches. They are all being used as a weapon by the people who pull the strings."

Generally, I would agree with this, all too often since the 1960s politicians have ignored warnings and concerns voiced by senior officers in the military on military matters. The modern crop of "Professional Politicians" deliberately ignore the considered opinions of senior officers while trading on and abusing the "Can Do" attitude of our armed forces which often results in our forces being placed by those politicians in extremely awkward and dangerous situations where the "Professional Politicians" then renege on every promise and assurance given (Afghanistan and Iraq are two very good examples of this)

"Unfortunately, in WW1 at least, the impression is that the high command were the power people."

I believe that IT IS ONLY "the impression" it most certainly was not the case. Since the Restoration in 1660 the tradition in the military in Great Britain has always been to be strictly and transparently seen as being "a-political" and that the armed forces are there as the loyal servants of the Crown, the Government and the country. In the lead up to the First World War the only thing asked of the heads of Great Britain's armed forces would have been, "Are you ready? How long will it take to deploy your forces".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:00 AM

BTW - I believe that nowadays the Generals and high command are in the same position as Tommy in the trenches. They are all being used as a weapon by the people who pull the strings. Unfortunately, in WW1 at least, the impression is that the high command were the power people. Whether that is true or not I do not know but I am always willing to learn.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

We pretty much are reflecting what the majority of historians currently writing about the First World War are saying, and what they are saying is based upon a great deal more information than any who have written on the subject previously.

I think that is a reasonable statement. Hopefully it will knock the absurd claim that all historians support this or that view on the head. 'The majority currently writing' is a far cry form 'all'. I may disagree with you about war, Teribus (I am the '14 year old' guest) but at least you are honest with your analysis. My worry is that politicians will use the historic justification for WW1 as justification for the next war. We should all know by now that wars are not between ordinary people like you and I but between the people who hold the power and the money. I think a lot more effort should be put into learning the lessons that history has to tell us so my children and grandchildren will not have to suffer the same deprivations that my father and grandfather did. If that is naive, so be it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:54 AM

There is a reason why no living historian still believes what some used to believe.
It is because they have been proved wrong by subsequent research.

Why do you people dismiss the knowledge of all living historians?
Because, just like religious fundamentalists, you close your mind to anything that challenges your beliefs.

Political superstition.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:33 AM

"Musket - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:07 PM

Talking about misrepresentation Musket:

I know some bloke in Scotland and I occasionally share a post or two, but let me beat him to stating that

You complete and utter fraud you ARE GUEST,Some bloke from Scotland.

"you are not repeating what your pet few historians are saying."

We pretty much are reflecting what the majority of historians currently writing about the First World War are saying, and what they are saying is based upon a great deal more information than any who have written on the subject previously.

"You are misrepresenting their work whilst making the sacrifice of the fallen look competent and necessary."

Nope, everyone who was involved in the decision to enter the war, everyone in the country, civilian and military alike, all fully realized that there would be sacrifice – that is unavoidable in war, the other thing that was fully accepted as being a reality was that such sacrifice would only be made if it was thought to be necessary.

"You say they were well led."

They were generally well led in comparison to the leadership demonstrated in the armies of any other combatant nation, they were all fighting the same war, at the same time and facing the same problems. Under those circumstances the British and Commonwealth Armies did adopt and adapt their tactics and that is reflected in them having lower casualties than the other combatant powers. The British and Commonwealth Armies suffered no instances of mutiny in the field and from 1917 onward were the only allied power fighting on the western front willing and capable of mounting offensive operations.

"The majority died carrying out the orders of their leaders, not the inaction of them."

So Musket what you are saying is that - Leaders should not lead and orders should never be given? No bloody wonder the NHS is in such a shit state, despite the billions it has had thrown at it. Two men cast adrift in a rowing boat Musket – if they want to stand any chance at surviving their ordeal – one of them has to the Captain.

Lloyd George was all for adopting a passive attitude and had his advice been followed then Great Britain and France would have lost the war. But our men would have still died in droves Musket. Had it not been for weather in 1917 the war could have ended then, it didn't but German Armies were shifted off the high ground and they were pushed back sufficiently so that when after millions of experienced battle-hardened men had been transferred from the Eastern front in 1918 to mount the last gasp German Spring Offensive as they broke through the British Front in Flanders what did they break into? Rolling green fields? An undisturbed landscape over which they could move easily and freely? No they broke through into the quagmire that had been the battlefields of Passchendael and the Somme and their logistics chain broke down. They broke through into a landscape that "we" knew intimately a landscape that we knew how to move through and that they didn't. They broke into a landscape that exhausted them and swallowed them up. It would have been quite the reverse if Lloyd George had had his way. Had we not fought the Somme, had we not fought Messines and Passchendael then in the Spring of 1918 when the German onslaught fell we would have been thrown back into the channel and the Germans would have marched into Paris.

"The casualty numbers were not necessary."

So you say. So what was the alternative? Sit there and let the enemy artillery massacre you at will?

"You say they knew what they were doing and why."

Yes I asked both my Grandfather's and they most certainly said that they did.

"I fail to see that a whole generation of men could ignore and not be driven by the jingoistic propaganda. "

Why Musket is that because you yourself are susceptible to being overly influenced by propaganda? I'm not. Different generation Musket, these were men who were proud of their country, proud of the Empire and men who had an over-riding sense of responsibility, obligation and duty to their country - in short Musket thankfully far, far better men than you. I obviously have a far higher opinion of them than you do.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:36 AM

OK let us be honest GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland = Musket {Clue: He's the only f**kin Idiot I've ever known to refer to the Royal Military Police as "RED TOPS"}

Having run out of, or being totally incapable of reasonable argument and lacking any understanding of fact or detail, when his views are challenged and his dearly held myths are exploded he resorts first to name calling. Now by coming onto the forum under a different guise he has to introduce Time Machines FFS!!!

Tell me Musket into whose shoes would you parachute yourself into way back there in 1914? Political Leader's? Haig's? A Corps or Divisional Commander's? Someone on the Staff? A front line Officer's? A Sergeant's? A Soldier's? Or those of either of your Granddads down the pit? What and how much do you think you would see from each of those perspectives? Post 1970, the historians who have poured over the vast wealth of personal correspondence sent and received by soldiers and officers alike give a good enough snap shot, they have read through it, neither you and I have read anything like that in terms of volume or range. You rely on the stories told to you by your relatives, I rely on those told by mine who both served at the front one with the Sherwood Forresters on the Western Front and the other with the KOSB at Gallipoli and in Palestine.

Historians in 100 years time will be saying roughly what those are saying today and what those said immediately after the war, they will say only some of what the "revisionists" said between the 1930s and 1969. That prediction of mine being based on the premise that very little "new" information will emerge between now and 2114. Interesting though Musket, but typical, is your over-simplistic "either" or "or" approach to everything. In this "Time Machine" of yours why not do both.

" Neither Teribus nor Keith seem willing to look at the facts, relying instead on contradictory publications written for their own means."

Had quite a chuckle at this as in reading through the various threads on the First World War it has been myself and Keith and a few others that have introduced fact based arguments, supported by quotations, and links to documents, while you have relied on myth and rumour, which when challenged doesn't even withstand cursory examination.

Take for example your seeming obsession with "RED TOPS". What was it that you had them doing when you first introduced them again? Oh yes they:

- Were lined up armed to the teeth in the trenches and forced men "over-the-top", even held the ladders for them eh?

- Were ordered to shoot out of hand any who refused to mount the trench ladders

- Were ordered to shoot out of hand anyone who turned round to come back.

- Patrolled the trenches with orders to shoot out of hand anyone they suspected of being a deserter.

You were asked repeatedly and given ample opportunity to produce one single example of any of that ever having happened – What was the result of that Musket? Not one single instance in an Army of millions during a war that spanned the globe and lasted over four years – NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE.

So now, unable to back up your original claims, and lacking the integrity to admit your mistake, it comes down to your criticism that the "RED TOPS" patrolled – High pal I've got news for you they are still doing that to this day - You muppet that is their function, it always has been:

- They are patrolling to ensure that servicemen do not kick over the traces and stay within the bounds of the law.

- They are patrolling to ensure that servicemen do not act in any manner not considered to be conducive to good order and military discipline.

- They are patrolling to ensure that young servicemen are not set upon by gangs of thugs and beaten up.

- They are patrolling to ensure that servicemen are not robbed blind and ripped off by locals.

When were waves of men sent over the top to wear down the enemy Musket? Be careful should you answer this because I am ready to blow up the typical myths born to "Oh What A Lovely War" and the "Blackadder" crap you are going to try and peddle as fact.

" You can see photographs of the jingoism and propaganda in place."

Only British Musket? Or did it also apply in equal measure in every nation engaged in the war?

"You can see accounts of the work of the red tops and court martial system. "

Yes we most certainly can, all very well documented, and none of that matches your fairy tales Musket. F**kin RED TOPS I ask you – you're a joke.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:58 PM

I'm not dismissing alternative views in your case. I'm dismissing the views of a disreputable and bigoted man. You may have some views worth considering for all I know, but, such is your reputation here that you'll have to forgive me for not wishing to pursue the matter.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:48 PM

So you don't think my opinions count Steve? Well that's neither very civil nor very egalitarian...is it.
I think ALL views count including yours and the fraudulent Musket's they may be based on supposition, media caricature and political agenda....but they still count in debate.

Funny how you great upholders of equality can so easily dismiss alternative views as worthless. Begins to make me think that you are far from sincere in your beliefs and are in fact driven by myth and rigid ideology.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:55 PM

Yebbut Lighter, scientists have far stronger constraints. They will be quickly called out by their peers if they allow political or religious bias into their work, or if they are discovered to be selective or tendentious in their working methods. Mr Spock rules OK. Historians are, of course, also subject to peer criticism of their work, but the basis of such criticism is far less formal, and biases are somewhat easier to conceal, especially when you consider that those who think they detect bias may well be biased themselves. Biased by politics or religion (or class...), for example. That's not to diss historians, but it is to point to the fact that historians are somewhat more allowed to be normal human beings than scientists are. ;-) And that's why Keith's cherrypicking is such a dangerous pastime. It's easier to cherrypick and still seem "reasonable" in history than it is in science. I mean, just look at how we all laugh at mad pete's take on science, yet Keith's take on history is just as disreputable, and he's still here. He's the only one who can't see that. Well, I suppose there's ake, but he doesn't count (and he must be a major embarrassment to those he throws his lot in with). Even Teribus is seeing it, if my antennae are working correctly.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:34 PM

Troubadour; As someone has already said we're all wasting our time attempting to alter the views of a few contributors to this particular topic.

I am sure some of what they have said has an degree of truth but like many people sitting in the comfort of the 21st Century I recall conversations with my Grandparents who lived though and fought though WW1.

I have tried to avoid mentioning my Grandfathers, they both survived, however, they saw first hand the senseless slaughter, they lived in the trenches, they were gassed, shot, wounded by shrapnel and lived with the consequences of their time there.

Both my Grandfathers said to me as teenager it was a stupid and futile war that could have been concluded and differences reconciled by men sitting around a table and talking.

Need I say anymore.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:19 PM

Scientists discover laws of nature that require continual refinement by later scientists.

Historians interpret facts on the basis of documents; their interpretations too are continually refined.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:59 PM

if this isn't the definition of what constitutes the most callous, brutal, brainless bunch of idiots in history - then who would you suggest is more stupid?

Keith.