WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:39 PM

The presenter says, "To the people, he (Kitchener) was a hero, a patriot and a friend."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:35 PM

I have just watched Coast.
It is available on IPlayer.
The quote was not made by Hewitt at all.
Before he had even appeared the presenter says "We were two years in the making and ten minutes in the destroying, said one of Kitcher's new army."

So an apocryphal quote.
Not Hewitt's.
You lied.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:29 PM

You know, whether as some bloke in Scotland nor as a Musket have I or any of us "made things up." I doubt Musket did. We all make sure we say things that are accurate, but always in a way that Keith can (and does) misconstrue.

However, I recall a "guest" once supporting something Keith said and a moderator pointing out it came from Keith's computer.

Out of interest, it took me about a minute to see the programme on BBC listings for today. I suspect it would take Keith about the same. If he knows anything about Kitchener, the one line in the listing should be obvious. Coast was filming about his death as they were at Scapa Flow.

No Keith. Just because the moderators allow your posts to remain when you call people liars, doesn't make your putrid little minded comments valid.

If its all the same to you, taking you serious isn't an option.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:15 PM

Musket, why don't you give details of this programme so we can see for ourselves.
Nothing in the schedules about it.
Are you making stuff up again?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:03 PM

Raggytash, you quoted an historian back at me and some Guest asked if it supported me.
That is what I meant by your historian.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 11:04 AM

Not just us then. You get a military historian and take his words out of context in order to cast doubt on them when they make you look a prize chump.

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 09:38 AM

"Nick Hewitt was on. (Historian according to The BBC) speaking about Kitchener and specifically his death.

As introduction he tells of the pals brigades. "It took Kitchener two years to form them. It took the Germans a morning to destroy them." He went on to say "Kitchener was already dead by the first attack of The Somme, so didn't see the awful results of his mistakes. He was at the time of his death fired from his operational duties for his incompetence with regard to not only Galipoli but the Western front running out of ammunition."

He doesn't agree with the conspiracy theories regarding his death but did say his death was convenient for those now in charge looking for sympathy for the war effort."

Nick Hewitt is a Naval Historian that is his specialisation and judging from the remarks attributed above it shows.

1: "It took Kitchener two years to form them. It took the Germans a morning to destroy them."

What??? We lost some 1,260,000 men in one morning??? I am assuming that Mr Hewitt knows what destroyed means, being a historian and all - Hewitt's statement is utter rubbish of course.

He is talking about the first day on the Somme which cost the British Army just under 20,000 lives in one day in an offensive that Haig was ordered to undertake with men he did not feel were ready. The battle did, like Verdun taking place a bit further down the line, degenerate into a battle of attrition and Haig and Great Britain's first ever "Citizen Army" of volunteers raised by Kitchener came out of it confident that they could defeat the best the German Army could throw at them. The German Army on the other hand had lost the very best of their troops at Verdun and on the Somme and knew at the end of 1916 that they could not defeat either the British or the French on the Western front.

""Kitchener was already dead by the first attack of The Somme, so didn't see the awful results of his mistakes."

What mistakes? He was tasked with raising an Army - That is exactly what he did. It was his Army that having survived its baptism of fire in 1916 that eventually won the war in 1918.

Perhaps Mr Hewitt can tell us when the British Army ran out of ammunition on the Western front - I cannot for the life of me find any record of that.

Were those "now in charge looking for sympathy for the war effort" Sympathy from whom?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 09:08 AM

I didn't say I don't understand what "historian" meant, I merely asked if you do.

I have a suspicion you think the term has ethical levels that don't appear in reality.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:33 AM

First Battle of Ypres - 19th October 1914 to 22nd November 1914 - Allied Victory. That the one you are referring to?

Could the German superiority in numbers and in artillery have something to do with it, plus the necessity for the Allies to hold onto Ypres "at all costs" due to the fact that if Ypres fell so too would Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne.

As this battle was fought as the result of a massive German attack then I would imagine that it was the Germans who held the initiative and that it was the allied French and British formations that reacted as necessary to thwart the German attacks. As such Haig would have had very little to do with the planning of the battle.

Now as you and Steve Shaw seem to be awfully keen to castigate Haig for his poorer performances are you, in the pursuit of objectivity, prepared to give him credit for his successes?   No? Thought not.

Three times the Germans tried to take Ypres - three times they failed. After this one (The First Battle of Ypres) Falkenhayn recommended to the German Foreign Ministry and to German High Command that peace negotiations should be entered into - needles to say they disagreed and the war continued.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM

Talking of real historians, I am sat with a knackered back today so watching the telly. Nick Hewitt was on. (Historian according to The BBC) speaking about Kitchener and specifically his death.

As introduction he tells of the pals brigades. "It took Kitchener two years to form them. It took the Germans a morning to destroy them." He went on to say "Kitchener was already dead by the first attack of The Somme, so didn't see the awful results of his mistakes. He was at the time of his death fired from his operational duties for his incompetence with regard to not only Galipoli but the Western front running out of ammunition."

He doesn't agree with the conspiracy theories regarding his death but did say his death was convenient for those now in charge looking for sympathy for the war effort.

Interesting, these historians.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 07:54 AM

Whoa!!

I had intended to dip out of this thread as it has become extremely tedious ..............

however .......


What is this nonsense about "Raggytash's Historian". One of your historians Keith, you quoted him, you put the link not me. I merely used some MORE of the same article that YOU had highlighted that did not show Haig in the same light. Misleading others is something I take umbrage with.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 07:35 AM

Guest, Raggytash's Historian, Trevor Wilson, also said "Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

"There's a popular view that Haig really set out to get his troops killed, believing that he would swap one of his men for one of the Germans. There would be a bloodbath on both sides; and because he had rather more men than the Germans, he would, at the end of the day, be left victorious, and the Germans defeated.

"This view of Haig is really quite untrue. Haig, in fact, remained an imaginative commander."

Musket, I am sorry you are unable to understand what an historian is.
You must have understood very little of this whole debate.
I would try to explain it to you, but pork is such hard work.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:07 AM

Perhaps you could enlighten people as to how Haig's 1 Corps was reduced from 18,000 to 3,000 at the 1st Battle of Ypres. (Oct-Nov 1915)

He may have been the most competent leader of the era, he may have been highly regarded by his troops but with that amount of loss surely one has to ask questions about his abilities.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:52 AM

What is the accreditation body?

Who accredits that body?

Who accredited David Irvine?

zzzzzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:51 AM

Christmas's new flag which he seems to enjoy waving – The Western Front Association.

Oh c'mon Christmas don't be shy why not just include the last paragraph of that section:

"For the dispassionate observers who did not go through this ordeal on a personal basis, they found, and find, it easier to come to more rational conclusions. In recent years, most informed commentators tend to find in favour of DH, given the circumstances of his command. And there, surely, it rests: each informed observer must decide for him/herself."

Now whereas the likes of Keith and Lighter and others who have posted generally in agreement with Keith's three original contentions do give the impression of being "informed observers", the Muskets (Fat, Gay {How you described yourself pal}, Sycophant Hyena), Jim Carroll, Steve Shaw, Greg F and GUEST seem hell bent on trying to cling to myths that have long been disproved.

Now how about Pershing's opinion of HAIG? (Paraphrased: The man who won the war - couldn't have been done without him).

Cold and indifferent to his men? Well French Field Marshal Petain "cared" for his men but he still sent them to die in their droves (Their fatalities were 57% higher than ours), and while the French Armies mutinied and refused to attack, the British and Commonwealth Armies did not.

To GUEST the "White Feather Myth" was the one pushed by Christmas in one of the many WWI Threads - His claim was that the handing out of White Feathers to men obviously not in uniform was some monstrous Government Policy devised to drive men into the Army - Absolutely not true (As Lighter states it came from the Women's Suffrage Movement nothing whatsoever to do with the Government). Another of Christmas's MYTHS was the MUS Falsehood that the promise that "the war would be over by Christmas" was one given solemnly by the British Government to each and every recruit as an enticement to join up - Now not having been able to supply the source of this Government promise or any recruiting poster that states it, it rather flies in the face of well documented and recorded enlistment records for the period August 1914 to December 1914 when in answer to Lord Kitchener's appeal ~1,200,000 British men volunteered for service (NOTE Volunteered NOT Recruited) - now I make that five months and at that time, they didn't have uniforms for all these men, they didn't have rifles for all these men, they didn't have the training staff or training camps for all these men - so perhaps Jim Carroll can tell us just how the f**k they were going to get to the Front and what exactly they were expected to do to win the war before Christmas unarmed and untrained as they were.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:48 AM

"Why do you think only historians know when living memory and documented evidence is available to intelligent people to make their own mind up?"

Might well have something to do with a historians accreditation that gives him access to research material not available to the general public thereby providing him with more information on which he can make his or her own mind up.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:28 AM

Why shouldn't you quote a non historian?

What denotes a historian in the first place?

Why do you think only historians know when living memory and documented evidence is available to intelligent people to make their own mind up?

Are you debating or advertising for Amazon? Some of us are capable of forming opinions. We don't need to be star struck by what we read.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:34 AM

What about the one Raggy mentioned, does he support you

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

That article from "your" historian goes on say:

"Haig should have believed in attrition. That is the tragedy of the British in the First World War. Haig should have opted for attrition in the sense of wearing the enemy down gradually - step by step, stage by stage - and devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down"

"Your" historian names and shames Haig. No-one else.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:15 AM

He is not an historian if even still alive, so why would either of us quote him?

In fact it was just another description of Haig's funeral so it does not matter anyway.
It was factually correct, I provided three others, and I can provide more if anyone wants.

It is so easy to find all the actual historians publishing on WW1.
We have, and they all support us.
You are not going to find one now.
When are you going to give it up?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:09 PM

"Sorry, I withdraw that quote."
Too late, too late, the maiden cried.
What kind of eejit are you, using a quote to prove a point one minute then madly back-pedaling when it doesn't suit your particular like of jingoism
The quote comes from a valid historical site 'The Western Front Association'

"The Western Front Association (WFA) was formed with the aim of furthering interest in The Great War of 1914-1918. We also aim to perpetuate the memory, courage and comradeship of all those on all sides who served their countries in France and Flanders and their own countries during The Great War.
Established in 1980 by noted military historian John Giles, the WFA has grown over the years to some 6,000 members worldwide. Please see the Branches Information section for details of your nearest WFA branch.
Through the work of the Association we do not seek to justify or glorify war. We are not a re-enactment society, nor are we commercially motivated. We are entirely non-political. The object of the Association is to educate the public in the history of The Great War with particular reference to the Western Front.
Applications for membership are warmly welcomed from anyone of a like mind.
If you would like to learn more, please look through our website. If there is any information on joining you cannot find here, please contact the Membership Office.
The Western Front Association is a Registered Charity No. 298365"

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not qualified to make a statement on the subject it is dedicated to.
You really are a moron.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

I should not have have quoted a non historian.
Sorry, I withdraw that quote.

In fact it was just another description of Haig's funeral so it does not matter anyway.
It was factually correct, I provided three others, and I can provide more if anyone wants.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:33 PM

"Jim, that was written by Dr. David Payne."
You put it up as proof of another historian who backs your claim - why did you put t up if you were going to dispute it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:05 PM

Raggytash, what was wrong with my statements?
"Hmmmm" does not cover it!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:03 PM

Sorry, forgot amateur historian link.
http://www.powell76.talktalk.net/Commanders.htm

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:02 PM

no mans land 

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:53 PM

I'm afraid your correct Greg. No doubt someone will say "you lose" to me. It seems to be the level that can, just, be achieved.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:14 PM

Raggytash, what is your point about my statements?

See? Its hopeless. The pig will not sing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:57 PM

Jim, that was written by Dr. David Payne.
A medical doctor not an historian.
Here he describes himself as "an amateur historian."

Raggytash, what is your point about my statements?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:12 PM

Hmmmm....

18th Nov 10.02am "Churchill was just another politician then and it was he who was responsible for the invasion of Gallipoli"

21st Nov 12.43pm "not one historian believes(present tense)what you people believe"

21 Nov 05.46pm "Musket it is not hard to understand. I say what they say (contemporary historians I believe)while you can only quote the long dead and discredited"

23rd Nov 02.05pm "Jim, you cannot find a single historian who believes what you do" ............. "Have you found one single historian who believes the shit that you do, no because there are none"

Do I really need to go on ................

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 11:40 AM

how are you on cars that won't start? Beyond WD40 and hammer not very, I'm afraid. One or the other usually works though:-)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 11:09 AM

The white feather campaign was real, at least in 1914.

It was dreamed up by certain leading feminists, who also lobbied for universal male conscription.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:58 AM

"Mended link."
Thanks Guest - how are you on cars that won't start?
We are still being given a picture of a "well conducted war" run by Generals who can't get on with each other being stabbed in the back by politicians
"Oh, oh, oh what a lovely war", in fact.
That Haig wasn't known as "The Butcher of the Somme" in his own lifetime has more to do with the secrecy surrounding the War than his abilities as a leader.
After all, if we're not allowed to refer to what dead historians wrote, what does it matter what they thought a century ago, especially those who didn't have 'historian' qulifications
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:39 AM

Remind me, where the white feathers a myth ?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:13 AM

Mended link.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM

"Jim, what current historian is supposed to have said that the jury is still out on Haig?"
Youv been given this s a link and as a cut-'n-paste - it seems too much to ask that you read what others have to say but at least read what you have put up yourself
Jim Carroll

WESTERN FRONT ASSOCIATION
"Conclusion
There is no evidence of a consensus about the reputation of Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. By some he is greatly admired as a Commander-in-Chief bringing about victory in very difficult circumstances whilst having been neither particularly well served by the British politicians of the day, nor, frequently, by his Allied Commanders. Others are equally dismissive considering him to something of a dilettante aristocrat, overly favoured by royal patronage, and with scant concern, or care, for the troops under his command.
No doubt, DH's notoriously poor communication skills and deliberate remoteness, allied with the privations imposed on his troops by the ill-understood evolution of the stalemate of four years of increasingly technological trench-war, made it difficult for him to come to some kind of rapport with his huge army."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:47 AM

Sorry but I can't be arsed to go back through Keith's comments to pull out the numerous occasions when he's said (in various ways) that historians writing in the early and middle 20th century were either ill advised, ill informed, had their own political agenda or were just plain wrong.

Arsed or not, you won't find such bollocks.

I do not dismiss historians because they are dead, but current historians dismiss those previous ones who promulgated what are now known to be myths.

I have not dismissed anyone for being left wing, only for being extremist political activists, left or right.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:35 AM

So Raggytash exactly what is it that I have written that you actually dispute or disagree with?

Again Muskets what amazing nugget was contained in your last post that added in any way to the discussion - S.F.A. as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM

Teribus, Sorry but I can't be arsed to go back through Keith's comments to pull out the numerous occasions when he's said (in various ways) that historians writing in the early and middle 20th century were either ill advised, ill informed, had their own political agenda or were just plain wrong.

I agree with you regards Blackadder and OWALW, mainly because they were aimed at being popular entertainment and not well grounded research, artistic license no doubt played a large part.

I have refrained from personal remarks as they serve no useful purpose, although I retain the right to harbour my own thoughts on peoples intelligence. Ooops!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:53 AM

Oh dear.. it looks like our revisionists can't get away with their drivel. Someone is looking up what they said before. You have to have a good memory when you change things all the time purely to contradict.

A bit like Terribulus just repeating time after time that I haven't contributed anything. Whilst Keith spends his time trying to contradict what I contribute.

Keep it up. An agent might see your double act and book you for a fucking circus. 😹

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:52 AM

"I have not read extensively on WW1, I have read a few (I've just taken Max Hastings' Catastrophe from the library) and am open to new information gathered from new sources but to dismiss historians because they are dead or left or right wing is frankly ridiculous. Only by reading a variety of the information are you able to come to an informed view." - Raggytash

I do not think anyone has dismissed out of hand historians "because they are dead or left or right wing". What has been said is that post-1970 due to secret information being declassified and brought into the public domain, due to the Imperial War Museum opening it's archives of World War One material for examination and research by historians and through the release and translation of material in Belgium, Germany and in France the latter day crop of historians working on the Great War have/had at their disposal a greater abundance of material than those writing before ever had access to and where that material throws doubt on conclusions reached by previous historians then that aspect of that earlier work should be dismissed as flawed.

"Only by reading a variety of the information are you able to come to an informed view"

Couldn't agree more, but reading OWALW is not information, neither is "Blackadder Goes Forth". After the First World War from the late 1920s onward there was an amazing pacifist ground swell that almost sealed our fate through appeasement at any price during the 1930s. Had the President of France or the Prime Minister of Great Britain viewed the non-compliance of Treaty terms and conditions as George W. Bush did in 2002 then in 1934 when it was suspected (correctly) that Germany under Hitler was rearming in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles then the Armed Forces of Great Britain and France would have fought a German Army of roughly 100,000 men who had no heavy weapons at all, no artillery, no armour, no air force and no navy to speak of - There would have been no World War in Europe it would have been a minor skirmish that would have lasted one month at the outside.

In assessing the performance of the British Army during the First World War take into account what must be seen to be blatant untruths:

Haig was against tanks - Couldn't have been because it was under his command that they were first introduced, first adapted and improved and first had their role in warfare greatly expanded.

Haig was against innovation - Couldn't have been because it was between December 1915 (When Haig was given command of the BEF) and August 1918 that a whole host of innovations were adopted by the British Army. The differences between the British Army that entered the war in 1914 and the one that emerged as ultimate victors at the end of it in November 1918 was the difference of chalk to cheese, ten times the size with weapons the destructive power and potential of the world had not imagined in 1914. And in the summer of 1918 it was the British & Commonwealth Armies that were the only ones on the field that were capable of mounting offensive operations that ended the fighting having defeated what in 1914 was considered to be the most powerful and professional army in the world. Rationally and logically such a feat is simply not possible if you are badly led - at some point cold hard common sense has to clutch in.

Haig was known as the Butcher of the Somme - Not in his lifetime he wasn't. The Somme was a battle that was foisted upon Haig by his political masters at home and upon the insistence of the French political and military establishment. Passchendael was another offensive campaign decided upon by others who insisted that Haig undertake it and keep on attacking, if you read about it Raggytash you will find that one of the things driving decisions in 1917 from back in Great Britain had to do with submarines and shipping losses.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:46 AM

Raggytash, the only words I use in your list are "competent" and "well led."

Some of your list are quotes of well known historians.
Find a historian who does not think the leadership competent.

I do not dismiss historians because they are dead, but current historians dismiss those previous ones who promulgated what are now known to be myths.

I have not dismissed anyone for being left wing, only for being extremist political activists, left or right.

Jim, what current historian is supposed to have said that the jury is still out on Haig?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:13 AM

"David Lloyd George waited until after Haig's death to use him as a scapegoat to deflect blame away from himself for some of the most calamitous decisions made during the Great War"
So lets's see if we have this right; while Britain's youth was dying in the mud of Europe, back home, the politicians and the military were at each others throats as to who was to blame for "some of the most calamitous decisions made during the Great War", which coincides with what was being claimed by 'Oh What a Lovely War'- particularly in the ballroom staircase scene.
Is this your idea of "a well-conducted war"?
You appear to have gone over to the enemy on how the war was conducted!
As one of Keith's historians dealing with Haig pointed out, as far as historians are concerned, the jury is still very much out on his abilities as a military leader - though, I'm sure, we have a couple of 'experts' who know better
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:56 AM

Teribus, you are quite right Keith has not used the word superb.

He has however stated or quoted in his comments the following:

18th Nov 1.16pm He(Haig)encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks ......... It (the British Army- my parenthesis)was led by men who if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders.

21st Nov 05.57am Military historians all accept that the army was an effective fighting force and competently led.

25th Nov 12.16pm (with regard to the army)the army was well led and had the support of the people.

29th Nov 07.39am (Basically a repeat of 18th Nov)

5th Dec 12.24pm The army performed well under competent leadership, no historian has been found who challenges that.

14th Dec 05.24am Haig in fact remained an imaginative commander

14th Dec 06.19am Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

14th Dec 01.49pm .......Haig in fact remained an imaginative commander.

14th Dec 05.28pm He was clear that Haig was a competent General so the shit operations were someone else's

Throughout his post he has maintained that modern Historian are in agreement that the army was well led.

Yet ........ he then goes on to quote one who suggests that Haig could have done things better.

Baiscally Keith has his own viewpoint which no one, not even modern historians will be able to alter one iota.

I have not read extensively on WW1, I have read a few (I've just taken Max Hastings' Catastrophe from the library) and am open to new information gathered from new sources but to dismiss historians because they are dead or left or right wing is frankly ridiculous. Only by reading a variety of the information are you able to come to an informed view.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:38 AM

All through your comments here you have stated that all modern Historians support the case that Haig was a superb General and that all previous Historians were either left wing, subversive, has their own axe to grind etc etc.
The historian YOU quoted (05.50) said that Haig made mistakes, big mistakes.

All generals in history have made mistakes, but those historians also concluded that he was good.
Find me one who does not.

As T says, no-one has used any superlatives, just that the leadership was competent and effective.

It is not rue that I dismiss people for being left wing, but I do question the objectivity of people who are political activists, be they far left or far right.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:21 AM

"If you have nothing of interest, accuracy or note to say about WW1, may I ask that you point this out at the beginning of your drivel so people don't have to waste precious milliseconds before dismissing it?"

And your contributions have amounted collectively to what Muppets?

Square Root of F**K All as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:18 AM

" GUEST,Raggytash - PM
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM

Keith, All through your comments here you have stated that ........ all previous Historians were either left wing, subversive, has their own axe to grind etc etc."

Most supporting the "revisionist" view of history (i.e. those writing between 1928 and 1969) did fall into the categories described by Raggytash above. A.J.P.Taylor, Liddell Hart, Fuller, Lloyd George, Churchill, and Alan Clark. Post 1970 their work and their point of view on the war have been vigorously challenged in the light of new and more detailed information becoming available from all combatant nations.

OWALW - Joan Littlewood was hardly a pro-establishment right winger. Neither was that prat of a Labour MP who said that OWALW was "part me, part Liddell Hart and the rest Lenin"

They brought politics into it Muppets.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 06:00 AM

" GUEST,Raggytash - 15 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM

Keith, All through your comments here you have stated that all modern Historians support the case that Haig was a superb General and that all previous Historians were either left wing, subversive, has their own axe to grind etc etc."

Really? Are you absolutely sure that you CAN read?

What Keith has said for over one year now is that:

1: The War was necessary for Great Britain
2: That the population of Great Britain understood the reasons for going to war and supported the war effort throughout
3: That in general in comparison to other combatant powers the British Army was well led

Those were Keith's opinions based upon what he has read from the articles, books and documentaries that Commentators and Historians have been writing over the past two or three decades, works written taking advantage of material not available to previous generations of historians.

Now then Raggytash you show either Keith or myself where either of us have said "that Haig was a SUPERB General" - NOTE: If you can't then STFU about it.

Let me see now A.J.P.Taylor former member of the Communist Party, and subsequent to him resigning from it he supports and votes Labour for the rest of his life - Would that not make him "left wing" with regard to British Politics?

Liddell Hart and Fuller in the post-war years were NOT trying to push their theories on military tactics and strategy by arguing that their new ideas were better than those employed previously?

That David Lloyd George waited until after Haig's death to use him as a scapegoat to deflect blame away from himself for some of the most calamitous decisions made during the Great War - Dardanelles, Salonika, sending troops needed on the western front to Italy, placing British Troops under overall French Command subservient to French requirements. For ordering Haig to mount and maintain offensive operations when Haig wanted to halt them?

Winston Spencer Churchill wished to paint Haig in as black a light as possible in order to deflect the public gaze and conversation away from Winston's own failure in Gallipoli?

Are you really trying to tell us that none of the above considerations have to be taken into account Raggytash?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:22 AM

His lack of assessment expertise means I wouldn't want him on the jury either.

Guest. Stop asking Terribulus to address the article you refer to. He refers to articles he wants to and tells everybody it is the article you mentioned.

Do keep up..

Have you not noticed how thick skinned they both are? Mind you, I bet Terribulus at least winces slightly when Akenaton slips in a fawning post.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM

Keith, All through your comments here you have stated that all modern Historians support the case that Haig was a superb General and that all previous Historians were either left wing, subversive, has their own axe to grind etc etc.

The historian YOU quoted (05.50) said that Haig made mistakes, big mistakes.

So we have a situation that clearly contradicts your previous stance that ALL modern Historians back Haig. No they don't and Thanks to you we have the written evidence that they don't.

I wouldn't want you as my defence lawyer!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:43 AM

If anyone only looks at certain parts of a persons career very different conclusions can be drawn. I am pretty sure that Harold Shipman was probably a decent doctor and may have even saved many lives. Can we not just say that, on balance, Haig was a good general but he dropped a few clangers before he got it right? Sadly those clangers cost a lot of people their lives and whether the lives he may have saved later makes that OK is a matter of opinion?