BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM

So we have:

1: GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 09:20 AM
2: Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 10:11 AM
3: Raggytash, pointlessly repetitive at 16 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM
4: That master of complete and utter bollocks Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM
5: And finally GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

All proving to anyone who has the vaguest inkling of the history of the period, and any knowledge of the British Army of the period that those named above haven't got the foggiest notion about the subject they are wittering on about.

All those banging on about Harry Patch - please explain how on earth Harry Patch could have possibly seen shell-shocked soldiers being summarily executed by their officers in the trenches when by his own admission he never in the three months he spent in France never saw a soldier suffering from shell shock? Or is that little anomaly I await your answers, they should be rather interesting, and all will be pure 100% bollocks because logic and commonsense would tell even a complete and utter idiot that if you have never seen or encountered a soldier suffering from shell shock then it is impossible that you could have EVER seen one being shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

"All those banging on about Harry Patch - please explain how on earth Harry Patch could have possibly seen shell-shocked soldiers being summarily executed by their officers in the trenches when by his own admission he never in the three months he spent in France never saw a soldier suffering from shell shock? Or is that little anomaly I await your answers, they should be rather interesting, and all will be pure 100% bollocks because logic and commonsense would tell even a complete and utter idiot that if you have never seen or encountered a soldier suffering from shell shock then it is impossible that you could have EVER seen one being shot."

Should read:

All those banging on about Harry Patch - please explain how on earth Harry Patch could have possibly seen shell-shocked soldiers being summarily executed by their officers in the trenches when by his own admission he never in the three months he spent in France never saw a soldier suffering from shell shock? Or is that little anomaly just to quietly and conveniently ignored. I await your answers, they should be rather interesting, and all will be pure 100% bollocks because logic and commonsense would tell even a complete and utter idiot that if you have never seen or encountered a soldier suffering from shell shock then it is impossible that you could have EVER seen one being shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 01:19 PM

Let me get this right then Teribus AND Keith.


Harry Patch was lying and shell shock didn't exist.


Hmmmmmm








Still waiting for an apology Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM

"There were no summary executions in the British Army of WW1."

In stating that Keith A is 100% correct.

Just over 3,000 men were sentenced to death by British Courts Martial during the First World War, the court records can all be read online. Roughly one in ten were actually carried out the sentences in nine out of ten cases was commuted to life sentences.

"There are numerous eye witness accounts of them taking place and the link I provided last time tells of a special group of military policemen there to carry them out when soldiers were reckoned not to have responded quickly enough to orders to go over the top - the writer describes it having been witnessed by to his grandfather#

What numerous eye witness accounts? You haven't been able to come up with any that have been substantiated -a load of hearsay and complete and utter twaddle.

Ah so the goal posts have been moved and it was a "Special group of military policemen" now is it Carroll?? Tell me Jim just out of interest how did the powers of the day know where to position this Special group of military policemen", how did they know the section of line or even in what trench those "reluctant" squaddies would be lurking? Applying logic, commonsense and a healthy dash of reasoning it all presents itself as being a bit fanciful and haphazard doesn't it.

"(more "lies" I suppose)" - Most certainly.

Knowing what I do know about soldiers if any "special group of military policemen" started shooting soldiers the members of that "special group" would all be dead in seconds - killed by the rest of the soldiers in that regiment.

The account that Tommy Kenny gave us was of soldiers being sentenced to death, locked away awaiting execution, then, if there was a push on, being taken out and put in the front line.
If they survived they were then placed back in prison and eventually executed.

Tommy burst into tears (all on tape) when he described how he got to know people in the trenches, fought beside them, then later read the notice that they had been executed"

Now all of that is complete and utter twaddle Jim - As previously stated only 1-in-10 sentenced to death were ever executed. Under Service Regulations a man under a charge or under punishment is forbidden to bear arms (Oddly enough it was that little rule that saved my paternal grandfather's life), the only exception to this regulation was shown in the film "Breaker Morant" when the Boers attacked the garrison he was being held in. The rational is that in such a situation prisoners are released and armed in order to defend themselves, under no circumstances would prisoners be left in confinement and left to the mercies of the enemy should the enemy attack succeed.

Lets face it - we have virtually no information of how the ordinary Tommy felt about the war and his experiences.
The officers were the only ones allowed to keep diaries, and the men who defied orders and wrote things down would have been insane to the point of being suicidal had they wrote about how they felt.
It took nearly a century to make available some of those forbidden writings and those few that are, obviously, censored."

More twaddle, while YOU and members of the general public have no access to the diaries and letters of common soldiers the Imperial War Museum has held absolute mountains of such records for decades and that material has been read and studied by historians studying the period. Where on earth did you get the line about officers being the only ones allowed to keep diaries? Anybody could keep a diary - NOBODY was allowed to keep or take a diary into front line positions - for what should be f**king glaringly obvious reasons. Ah but there again you haven't the foggiest notion how the "front line" worked in your BBC comedy/drama little world soldiers were sent into the front line and stayed there for years - they didn't.

"We only have the word of people like tabloid journalist Max Hastings, who cut out his career in Hitler supporter's Daily Mail to tell us that the soldiers knew why they were fighting and that they supported the cause - hardly a reliable source!"

Well damn me Carroll you could not have got this bit more wrong had you tried.

1: I believe that the first paper Max Hastings ever worked for was the Evening Standard - he became an occasional columnist for the Daily Mail much, much later on.

2: It was the very first Viscount Rothermere who was the appeaser and Hitler supporter, he was also one of the strongest advocates for British rearmament in the 1930s, he died in 1940, Max Hastings wasn't born until 1945 and he did not work for the Daily Mail until after 2007 - so I fail to see the connection or the inference you are trying to make.

3: Now as you are such a believer in what the soldiers of the time said and the stories they told how about this:

- My Paternal Grandfather certainly knew why he volunteered and fought in the British Army in the First World War

- My Maternal Grandfather certainly knew why he volunteered and fought in the British Army in the First World War

- My next door neighbour certainly knew why he volunteered and fought in the British Army in the First World War

- All of the "old comrade" friends of the above who I talked to as a child all knew why they had joined up and fought in the British Forces during the First World War

- Watch the 1964 documentary "The Great War" and all those interviewed knew why they had joined up and fought in the British Forces during the First World War

Now then Jim were they all lying?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

"hat master of complete and utter bollocks Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM"
Must be bollocks if you can dismiss it without even responding to anything said.
You really are an arrogant berk to think anybody takes ay notice of your unqualified dismissals
Are you aware that you always respond in this way when you have no answer.
You really are a creature of habit.
"Harry Patch"
he said he never saw or experienced it, but he almost certainly fought with and spoke to people who did as his statment on it makes crystal clear.
Are you really going to continue trying to make out that last veteran of World War One a liar to peddle your establishment line?
Patche's statement is perfectly in line with the link you have been given describing on-the-spot executions for not going over the top qickly enough - makes mors sense that swallowing the ffici8alk version -as you pair have
Jim Carroll
This is what he said.
"Shell shock
You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it – but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you.
An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war – they didn't. If you were there you were shot. And that was it. And there's a good many men who were shot for cowardice and they are asking now … that verdict be taken away. They were not cowards."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM

One major difference Teribus.

We only have your long remembered second hand information. Always a bit suspect as I'm sure you realise, albeit no doubt with the best of intentions.

However you and Keith have completely dismissed the testimony of a man who was there. A much revered man. Who, without him being able to answer your accusations, you have both named as a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:42 PM

Col. Blimp & Profesor: Vass you dere, Charlie?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:54 PM

Oh Raggy shell shock did most certainly exist - but tell me was Harry Patch lying when he very clearly stated on the subject of Shell Shock:

"You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it.

Now that was the quote taken directly from the very link that you yourself supplied. Now if Harry Patch was telling the truth, i.e. NOT LYING - how on earth could he have ever seen an officer summarily execute someone suffering from Shell Shock - simple enough and a reasonable enough question - please provide an explanation as you obviously believe that Harry Patch saw what he by his own admission could not possibly have witnessed.

Please don't deflect Raggy the original version had Military Policemen lined up behind our lads in the trenches forcing them over the top at gunpoint - NEVER HAPPENED. Added to this fairytale was the tale of Military Policemen shooting those who didn't move fast enough (I wonder who decided what was quick enough?) and shot anybody returning to our lines - NEVER HAPPENED. But fear not Jim Carroll shifted the goalposts on this and Military Police changed to SPECIAL GROUPS OF MILITARY POLICEMEN waiting to find out how they knew where to go to to be effective in the exercise of this "special duty" - that explanation should prove amusing.

How I do enjoy watching you lot floundering about in all this mud and confusion of your own making and only succeeding in tying yourselves in knots.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I am not suggesting for one second that Harry Patch was lying. You, along with Keith, seem to be saying he was.

I know who I am more inclined to trust even though I never met the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:07 PM

You pair have now denied the fact of summary executions several times - without proof
You have had an account from the grandson of an eyewitness you say it didn't happen
You have had the account of a veteran of world war one who says it happened, even if he didn't witness it - you say it didn't happen.
It was well known enough to have been part of the oral history of the trenches to have been used in a BBC television play entitled The Village - had it been untrue, the Beeb would have inundated with protests, especiall around the time of the Centenary - it wasn't
Do you have any examples of these executions being denied anywhere, or are your denials just on your own initiative - if so, when did you become spokesmen for the establishment?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:15 PM

GUEST,Raggytash - 16 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM

One major difference Teribus.

We only have your long remembered second hand information.

So tell me Raggy what makes Jim Carroll's second hand information that much more believable?

Oh and Raggy you don't just have to take my word for it listen to the "The Great War", a 26-episode documentary series from 1964 on the First World War. The documentary was a co-production involving the resources of the Imperial War Museum, the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation."

There is a special DVD called "Voices From The Western Front" you and your fellow travelers should watch and listen to it - you might just learn something from those who were there.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:22 PM

There is another huge difference Teribus.

You and Keith have already set out your stalls on many occasions.

I, for one, would be astonished if either of you took on board anything that didn't fit into your predetermined remit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:32 PM

Just as an aside Teribus. I will not comment on anything Jim says, he's a big boy he doesn't need me to back him up...........













............unlike the triple alliance

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:27 PM

Jim Carroll - 16 Nov 15 - 03:07 PM

You pair have now denied the fact of summary executions several times - without proof"

Not exactly true is it Jim - such summary executions would have been impossible to keep quiet - you have no proof whatsoever that any such executions ever took place - instead what you have is rumour and hearsay.

Very pleased to see that you that you agree that Harry Patch could not have possibly seen what Raggy thinks he saw.

"It was well known enough to have been part of the oral history of the trenches to have been used in a BBC television play entitled The Village - had it been untrue, the Beeb would have inundated with protests, especiall around the time of the Centenary - it wasn't"

Ah historical fact established by the BBC's Drama Unit. How f**kin' idiotic can you get!! Once more you are running on rumour, stories and hearsay - my giddy Aunt I sincerely hope that no-one ever finds themselves on trial with you sitting as part of the jury. You appear to accept any unsubstantiated fairytale story as long as it fits in with your own biased and bigoted preconceptions and stereotypes. Write to the Imperial War Museum, write to the Royal Military Police Museum in Chichester they will tell you that:

1: NO-ONE who deserted in the UK was ever shot for desertion
2: Military Policemen form no part in the actual execution of any prisoner - men from the condemned man's regiment form the firing squad, they are commanded by a Junior Officer from their regiment
3: The court martial documents of every single man who was sentenced to death are available online - I advise you to read them
4: There are no accounts anywhere of any Summary executions carried out by the British Army anywhere during the First World War and believe me I have looked long and hard for them. As Keith A has stated summary executions were carried out by the French Army on the Western Front and by the Italian Army - but none by the British.

"Do you have any examples of these executions being denied anywhere"

Ehmmm Jim if something never happened just how the f**k do you go about denying that it happened. By the way, just who on earth would be around and be arsed enough to complain to the BBC about some artistic licence being used in a costume drama on television? It would appear only you made the mistake of thinking it was a factual representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:21 PM

"Not exactly true is it Jim - such summary executions would have been impossible to keep quiet"
Ermm - they weren't - they were common knowledge among the soldiery and talked about on a regular basis
That they weren't reported publicly was totally due to fact that the government took total control of the press.
"Once more you are running on rumour,"
Nope - i have pointed out that TALK OF the executions was so well known that they could be used in a BBC drama, WITHOUT ONE WORD OF PROTEST - NOT ONE
When Philip Donellan made his filed documentary, 'Gone For a Soldier' for television, the Beeb was inundated with protests which lasted for weeks - questions were asked in Parliament.
Yet here, a summary execution was carried out without a single word of protest - that's how F**in stupid you can get.
I asked you to provide a denial that they happened - they have been mentioned often enough
You provide none so we can only assume that you and your pet monkey are mounting a defence of them off your own bat.
I have provided two statements - one form a veteran, another from the grandson of a veteran - that they took place - you are totally unable to provide examples of them being denied - in fact YOU ARE MAKING IT UP ON BEHALF OF THE ESTABLISHMENT - WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF?
"NO-ONE who deserted in the UK was ever shot for desertion"
306 British soldiers were shot for desertion "In many cases, soldiers were clearly suffering from shellshock but officers showed no compassion for fear that their comrades would have disobeyed orders and refused to go "over the top" (Guardian 16 August 2006)
The fact that it may be true that none may have been actually executed in Britain is totally immaterial - the play was a work of fiction and never pretended to be anything else - but the fact that SUMMARY EXECUTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE PLAY WITHOUT A SINGLE LETTER OF PROTEST - NOT EVEN FROM COLONEL BLIMPS LIKE YOU PAIR indicates that it was fairly widely accepted.
I ask again - where are your official denials that they took place - reports of them have been made publicly - even by that "liar" Harry Patch - Britain's last WW1 veteran.
You really have made this up off your own bat - haven't you?
Pair of clowns, or what??
Jiom Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:15 AM

Bloody hell Teribus. You are getting so confused that even Keith A of Hertford has gone quiet in case what he assumes is his credibility gets woven into your confusion.

That's the problem with cutting and pasting from anything you find on the Internet. You can always find some bollocks that backs your point, however absurd and silly.

Reminds me of the account of an officer in WW2 whose men were afraid his ineptness and callous attitude would get them all killed. On the approach to Madaloni he was the only casualty in their section. A note from a general held by The IWM notes that everybody felt it expedient to gloss over the fact he was killed by a single bullet in his back.

Not nice this war game. Glorifying it with pomp and circumstance leaves a bitter taste both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:37 AM

Jim, have you ever seen the Indian Rope trick performed by a street entertainer? Hundreds, thousands possibly millions have heard stories about it and know of the trick - yet nobody has ever seen it performed.

Jim, have you ever heard of a thing called an "Urban Myth", hundreds, thousands possibly millions have heard them and believe them - yet none of them are true.

Do I think Harry Patch was lying? What about? Never having seen anybody suffering from Shell Shock? Or about having witnessed Officers summarily executing men frozen to inaction because of shell shock? Now as Harry Patch was only in France for three months at a time when it was the British Army that was on the offensive (late summer 1917) I would say that it was highly likely that Harry Patch never saw anyone suffering from shell shock and that he himself never suffered from it. Now if he telling the truth about that how could he possibly have witnessed the summary execution by an officer of a man suffering from shell shock - it is a contradiction, so what could account for it? The link so smugly supplied by Raggy is to the BBC History website, Harry Patch came back from the First World War and kept steadfastly silent about his experiences for 80 years, he then gave an interview to the BBC as a 100+ year old man. Who thinks that the article linked to is the complete article? It would be utterly remarkable if it was, everything is edited prior to publication, now how do we know what was left out? How do we know where the gaps were? It is undisputed that the French Army carried out summary executions on the western front, could they have been the stories that British troops heard about?

Ever since you and the Musktwats introduced alleged summary executions I have looked long and hard for any substantive evidence of them ever happening in the British Army - I have found NONE

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you talked to and recorded a man who you say was a WWI veteran over the course of three days and not once in all that time did he mention what theatre of war he served in or what regiment or corps he served in. Most common experience in talking to veterans of that period the first thing they will tell you is what branch of the armed forces they served in (Army, Navy or Air Force), where it was they served and saw action, and for ex-Army men they will ALWAYS tell you what regiment or corps they served with. Your man didn't and you made no attempt whatsoever to find out. If that is your approach to gathering "history" then any work you have produced can only be viewed as being highly speculative and unreliable.

Your inattention to detail is staggering Jim:

306 British Soldiers were executed for desertion - the word according to Jim Carroll

Here is a summary, all documented, all recorded of the Courts Martial undertaken during the First World War:

The outcomes of Courts Martial

In all, 5,952 officers and 298,310 other ranks were court-martialled. This amounts to just over 3% of the total of men who joined the army. Of those tried, 89% were convicted; 8% acquitted; the rest were either convicted without the conviction being confirmed or with it being subsequently quashed. Of those convicted, 30% were for absence without leave; 15% for drunkenness;***14% for desertion (although only 3% were actually in the field at the time***); 11% for insubordination; 11% for loss of army property, and the remaining 19% for various other crimes. The main punishments applied were : 3 months detention in a military compound - 24%; Field Punishment Number 1 - 22%; Fines - 12%; 6 months detention - 10%; reduction in rank - 10%; Field Punishment Number 2 - 8%.

3.080 men (1.1% of those convicted) were sentenced to death. Of these, 89% were reprieved and the sentence converted to a different one. 346 men were executed. Their crimes included desertion - 266; murder - 37; cowardice in the face of the enemy - 18; quitting their post - 7; striking or showing violence to their superiors - 6; disobedience - 5; mutiny - 3; sleeping at post - 2; casting away arms - 2. Of the 346, 91 were already under a suspended sentence from an earlier conviction (40 of these a suspended death sentence)."

YOUR 306 does not represent those executed for desertion they include all of the above minus those charged with and found guilty of murder. The Court Martial process and proceedings for every single one of those courts martial are available for you to read, study and examine.

***14% for desertion (although only 3% were actually in the field at the time*** the 266 executions were for desertion in the field. Those who deserted whilst in training, on leave, or on duty in the UK were not subject to the death penalty and none were executed in the UK.

Tell me Jim why is it that you can never get Donnellan's name right?

Are you seriously trying to equate a 105 minute long DOCUMENTARY broadcast in 1980 on the British Army covering some 150 years which was quite correctly lambasted and criticised for the biased and poor nature of its content to the extent that it was screened only once and the BBC banned any overseas transmission to a fragment of a BBC Drama that is 100% FICTION as evidence that summary executions took place!!! Utterly ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:49 AM

Inventing people who criticise him now.

This gets better.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM

I can think of two good reasons why reports of summary executions cannot be found. From the soldiers view they wouldn't want the next-of-kin to be presented with the "fact" that their son/brother/father/husband was a "coward". From the Army's viewpoint they wouldn't want it to be acknowledged officially that they responded in that manner. They certainly wouldn't write it in their official reports thus YOU can't find an example of such.

However many years later the last surviving soldier of WW1 decides that perhaps we SHOULD know what actually happened all those years ago.

I know I am not going to change your mind, or that of the professor. You are both too involved in maintaining support for your "masters"

I am more inclined to believe it did occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:21 AM

Oh Jim, just one other point, do any of those men who were summarily executed, either by Special groups of Military Police - current flavour of the month or by their own officers right there in front of their mates have any names in all of these stories you have been told? Indian Rope Trick, Urban Myths and Chinese Whispers - all rumour, hearsay, pure invention and lies and you Jim Carroll have swallowed the lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

And apparently so have you Raggy:

"However many years later the last surviving soldier of WW1 decides that perhaps we SHOULD know what actually happened all those years ago." - Raggytash

Ehmmm I hate to keep dragging your attention back to this Raggy but how on earth could the last surviving soldier of WWI state what actually happened all those years ago to soldiers suffering from shell shock when he himself clearly states that he never saw anyone suffering from shell shock or experienced the condition himself? Just asking, and to date you have not given any explanation as to how that could be - I on the other hand have - he did not "witness" it he heard stories - nobody knows where these stories originated from - but just along the front lines in the French section summary executions were being carried out.

Harry Patch was quite good with both names and knicknames of those he served with - yet he didn't come up with any names for people he had "seen" officers shoot, come to think of it he couldn't name any of the officers either, and believe me Raggy, everybody who serves knows the names of their NCOs and Officers.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:39 AM

You can't be jingoistic with your head bowed.

Cue arguments over how bowed you should be...............

Just saying!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:51 AM

Teribus, you only person you are convincing is yourself (and the professor of course)

As for Harry Patch, who you are convinced is lying, I am not too surprised he didn't mention names. Ye gods I couldn't recall the names of most of my schoolmates from 45 years ago. Half a dozen perhaps if I put my mind to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

THE only person *((??!!!%&$£)(***!!!!~@!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:58 AM

History is written by the victors. The dead can't speak.

And just to muddy the waters, very often you find the really brave don't tell you. They know they were lucky and foolhardy as well, and did it for necessity not ideology. And they deal with PTSD in their own way - silence.

age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. Neither should we!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM

"306 British Soldiers were executed for desertion - the word according to Jim Carroll"
Nope - the word according to The Guardian,   date and quote given - please pay attention and read what is put up.
"Urban Myth"
How do you know - where has it ever been denied?
You claim that no summary executions took place - who sez so - only you so far, the authorities have never dienied it when the statement was made publicly - since when were you appointed as a spokesman for the British military establishment (you certainly strut around as if you were)
Yo fellers make a great fuss about the Commemoration, even to the extent that on;ly you Christians take part, yet when any of the veterans step out of line and tells it as irt was (first hand) you're happy to flush what he has to say down the pan - what king of two-faced twerps are you people??   
You've had the facts of the executions - respond to what #has been said by these people who have been remembered recently and who you choose to dismiss as liars
I ask for any evidence that the British authorities have denied it - you offer none and insist on speaking on their behalf
"Tell me Jim why is it that you can never get Donnellan's name right?"
Tell me - why do you always resort to misspellings and typos whenever you run out of ideas - why are you people so ***** predictable?
You waffle on about press accounts of numbers, typos etc. - but offer s.f.a in return.
By what authority do you dismiss out of hand what WW1 veterans have to say when even the establishment can't be arsed to do so.
Are you frustrated that you never made it in the military, as you once claimed to have done, and only made it as far as cooking bad fry-ups in a galley - I think they call it a Walter Mitty Complex!
Think we're done here - don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:04 AM

Loved this bit of nonsense from Raggy:

"I can think of two good reasons why reports of summary executions cannot be found. From the soldiers view they wouldn't want the next-of-kin to be presented with the "fact" that their son/brother/father/husband was a "coward". From the Army's viewpoint they wouldn't want it to be acknowledged officially that they responded in that manner. They certainly wouldn't write it in their official reports thus YOU can't find an example of such."

Ah so your best friend gets shot out of hand right in front of your eyes and you and all his other mates just stand there and do nothing - the first thing in your mind as the highest priority is We can't tell his Mum she will be upset!!!! - f**kin' laughable. If you yourselves did not immediately kill the officer who shot your mate, you would have shouted about the incident to any beggar with a pair of ears to listen, the one thing you most certainly would not do is keep quiet about it.

On to the second of your reasons - Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law so please, please,please explain to me exactly how it came about that all of a sudden Officers would be permitted to shoot troops under their command, and if such behaviour was indeed sanctioned by the Army Council and High Command why would the Army have any qualms about such instances appearing in official reports - have you any idea what is meant by logic, reason and commonsense? I ask as you appear to be sadly lacking in all three.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:10 AM

PS Raggy:

I hate to keep dragging your attention back to this but how on earth could the last surviving soldier of WWI state what actually happened all those years ago to soldiers suffering from shell shock when he himself clearly states that he never saw anyone suffering from shell shock or experienced the condition himself?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:31 AM

"state what actually happened all those years ago to soldiers suffering from shell shock when he himself clearly states that he never saw anyone suffering from shell shock or experienced the condition himself?"
It is perfectly obvious from his statement that he served with those who had witnessed and possibly experienced the results of shell shock - didn't soldiers talk to each other?
Why d you continue to denigrate veteran war heroes as gullible fools and liars - is the reputation of politicians and the military that important to you?
Where is the denials that these executions happened apart from your own?
- more than happy to drag you back to this at any time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 07:22 AM

The question was for Raggy Jim - He's a big boy and shouldn't need you to jump to his rescue.

Harry Patch never suffered from Shell Shock and he never saw anyone who did suffer from shell shock - Source Harry Patch himself in his own words.   I believe Harry when he says that I do not believe that he is lying - Do you and Raggy think he is lying in clearly stating the above fact?

Now if Harry is telling the truth there - then it becomes impossible by his own statements that he could have "witnessed" the summary execution of a soldier suffering from shell shock by an officer in a trench. He might have heard stories about it but if Harry Patch is telling the truth then he could not possibly have witnessed it.

By the way Jim can you dream up anything else that the British Goverment hasn't done that they haven't denied thereby proving beyond any doubt in your mind that they must therefore have done it?

Please indicate where anyone has formally accused the British Army of summary executions of their own soldiers THEN you might get an official response but I don't think that the Government is too fussed about what is discussed on a forum such as this or in the content of your tapes. Hey how about you, raggy, gnome and the Musktwats starting an action group, write a letter to the MOD copied to the Judge Advocate General and the Lord Chief Justice formally accusing the British Army of summarily executing British Soldiers then sit back and await the response. You could use your tapes and notes and produce them as "evidence".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 08:08 AM

"Do you and Raggy think he is lying in clearly stating the above fact?"
No I don'r but I believe that he could easily have talked to and fought beside people who knew about the executions first hand - do you consider this beyond the realms of possibility and that he was either lying or a gullible half-wit?
At no time did Patch claim to have witnessed shellshock why are you harping on him "witnessing it" - he makes it clear he didn't.

why are you suggesting he said something else - do you dislike and distrust veterans so much that you feel th need to twist their words

Once agabi, this is what he said -
"You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it – but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you.
An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war – they didn't. If you were there you were shot. And that was it. And there's a good many men who were shot for cowardice and they are asking now … that verdict be taken away. They were not cowards."

Still not find any official denials of these executions? - must be all your own work then
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 10:07 AM

Very good Jim, now tell your pal Raggy that at no time in his three months in France did Harry Patch ever see an officer summarily shooting any British Soldier. His mention of it amounts to pure hearsay, he doesn't know and cannot vouch that it ever happened with any degree of certainty at all, you suggest he talked about it and heard the story from "someone" who may or may not have seen such an act as they too could have talked about it to someone else, etc, etc - Not really all that convincing is it - 100% supposition. So much for Harry Patch who just because he was the last WWI Veteran to die does not convey any crown of infallibility on his shoulders, I say that because scores of other soldiers (And I MEAN soldiers, not officers, not Generals) wrote their memoirs and autobiographies, lots of them covering the entire span of what to them was known as the Great War, not just three months and guess what Jim? - NOT ONE mentions anything about summary executions in the field - funny that isn't it with all that talking going on, like a said "The Indian Rope Trick" and "Urban Myths" everybody has heard of them and none are real or true.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 10:20 AM

Apologies Jim I forgot to ask at the end of that last post.

How did your "Special Groups of Military Policemen" know where to position themselves in the line when they were tasked with forcing squaddies "over the top" at gunpoint instantly shooting any that didn't move quick enough? What was the time limit that defined "quick enough" and who set it? I mean it must have come down the chain of command - You obviously believe all this shit, yet you can tell us all very little about it, perhaps you need to refer to your notes, or round up some other distant relation to supply another load of unverifiable hearsay to fill in the details. Names, Regiments, places, dates would certainly be of some help. But we're not going to get any of that are we? You know it and so do I.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

If we had another go at the Germans tomorrow, MoD could employ Teribus to do the same as Comical Ali, the Iraqi who was feeding the press with bullshit about how they were winning. "What about the gunfire over there right now?" Said BBC's John Simpson. "I can't hear any?" Said Comical Ali.

Here, Teribus. Is that your only nom de plume? Only I notice Max Hastings came out with similar bullshit when he was defending the executions in his history revision 101.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM

Here, Teribus. Is that your only nom de plume?

He also goes by "Colonel Blimp".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

"Very good Jim, now tell your pal Raggy that at no time in his three months in France did Harry Patch ever see an officer summarily shooting any British Soldier."
So?]
"His mention of it amounts to pure hearsay, "
So?
He was there - he was fighting along other soldiers - He spoke too them presumably - he had a life preserving interest in what was going on.
Presumably the people who passed on the information too.
Wha are we honouring these lying bastards ya#ar after year - let them rot in hell, I say.
What kind of people are you that go to such lengths to defend an establishment that cold-bloodedly slaughtered a generation of British youth.
I asked whether it was conceivable that Harry got his information from people he fought with - you decline to reply
I ask to provide examples of denials of these executions - you decline to reply
Patch, and others who claimed these executions took place were there at the time fighting.
You were not, you have no evidence that these people were lying, you have no examples of others saying they were lying, yet you mount a one-man crusade to make them either liars or gullible eejits.
What exactly are you on?
If they are lying - where is your evidence apart from your own somewhat distasteful claims?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM

Hmmm Teribus, You seem to be cherry picking, as we all do, which bits of Harry Patch's testimony you want to believe.

Firstly you say he had not experienced "shell shock" although today "shell shock" seems to be an accepted "fact" today.

Do you really believe that he never met anyone suffering from "shell shock"?

I would proffer the argument that the term "shell shock" was not acknowledged at the time and that he didn't recognise the term. I seem to recall that "shell shock" was not an accepted diagnosis until quite late in the war.

Secondly in your rather convoluted logic you state "then it becomes impossible by his own statements that he could have "witnessed" the summary execution of a soldier suffering from shell shock by an officer in a trench. He might have heard stories about it but if Harry Patch is telling the truth then he could not possibly have witnessed it"

If he didn't recognise it as a condition he couldn't say he saw it. Being honest I believe

Thirdly, and I'm sure we'll come back to this point, I find this quite bizarre you state "Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law" Are you truly expecting us to believe this didn't happen? Do you want to tell us about the floggings of Indian troops?

Finally, as I know this is a subject you are deeply interested in,could I suggest that rather than making automatic responses claiming that the hierarchy of the British Army were all good men and true you contact the MOD, Judge Advocate General and Lord Chief Justice and just ask them the question.

Cheers

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 04:35 AM

Of the hundreds of thousands of front line soldiers, only one claims summary executions and even he does not claim to have seen it.
Is every other soldier a liar?
Many memoirs exist. Not one mentions it.
Two that I have read are those of Graves and Sassoon.
Both became anti- war and both are very critical of the establishment.
Graves says that the legal executions were not always reported, but he never mentions summary executions because they did not happen in the British Army.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:01 AM

"Of the hundreds of thousands of front line soldiers, only one claims summary executions and even he does not claim to have seen it.
Is every other soldier a liar?"

Could someone please explain the logic of this sentence to me because I'm buggered if I can see it.

So far Keith the only soldier to be called a liar is Harry Patch, by you. Remember when you typed " He was certainly wrong about it, but he never claimed to have witnessed such a thing"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:21 AM

In answer to the posts directed at me:

Firstly to Guest 12:24 and to Greg F:
Mock all you like but neither of you have ever been able to refute and counter a single thing that I have stated which makes your contributions to the discussion nothing more than irrelevant "white noise" - It would appear that you know nothing, understand nothing, are prepared to learn nothing, classic examples of boorish, pig ignorant buffoons who revel in portraying yourselves as being as thick as shit and proud of it - The pair of you make Dumb & Dumber look intelligent.

Jim Carroll:
"Hearsay" is not considered as being evidence of something having actually happened. Stories can simply be stories "urban myths" abound - none of them are true but thousands if not millions believe them to be true.

My explanation for Harry's story about officers summarily executing soldiers specifically states that he probably heard it from someone else and that the stories originated from British Units operating alongside French troops who had actually seen such executions IN THEIR ARMY.

"What kind of people are you that go to such lengths to defend an establishment that cold-bloodedly slaughtered a generation of British youth."

The kind of people who believe in the fundamental legal principle that someone who is accused of something is "Innocent until proved Guilty" - so far you have offered no substantive evidence at all to convince me of their guilt. I also believe that the people responsible for "slaughtering a generation of British youth" between August 1914 and November 1918 were the enemy, I also believe that that generation of men from Great Britain were responsible for slaughtering a rather larger number of Germans - That is what happens in War Jim, your own father must have fully realised that when he went to Spain to fight, he did not go down there to dissuade and befriend the enemy he went down there to kill and defeat them.

Now then Jim when it comes to declining to reply - tell us all about these "Special Groups of Military Policemen", how did they know where to position themselves? Who was it defined what the allowable time to "get over the top" was?

Harry Patch served as part of a Lewis Gun crew in the Cornwall Light Infantry and was sent to France with his Unit in June 1917, he was wounded in September 1917 and evacuated back to England to recover from his wounds. In France he would have moved, trained and fought alongside men that he had served with in England - He was not attending a social the other units he would come across would only be in passing as his unit moved up to the front. His main opportunity for talking to soldiers from other units would have been in hospital.

Finally Raggytash:
Cherry picking? No you specifically addressed my attention to that particular section of the interview and I answered the point that you were attempting to make, i.e. that what Harry Patch said in the interview was conclusive proof that summary executions were carried out - I merely pointed out the anomalies, which you have conveniently completely ignored.

The interview was conducted 80 years AFTER the event - if Harry Patch did not recognise the term Shell Shock in 1917 (By then the term had been coined and people were aware of it to the extent they were having misgivings about it) then he sure as hell would know what was meant by it when he gave that interview and when specifically asked to comment about it in 1997. - TRUE??

"Do you really believe that he never met anyone suffering from "shell shock"?"

While he was in France in 1917? Yes I do believe he never met anyone suffering from shell shock as his three months deployment to France would have consisted of:
- Transport to France with his Unit
- Training in France with his Unit
- Movement up to the forward area in the build up prior to the launching of the Passchendaele Offensive
- Fighting in that Offensive
- Suffering his shrapnel wound and being cleared to the rear as a casualty
- Evacuation as a casualty to Southampton.

By the way the extent to which I did not cherry-pick Harry's interview - I would suggest you read the bit right at the end about "the mutiny" where after the war while waiting for demob his section refused to turn out for bayonet practice - you will find out exactly what would have happened to any officer attempting to summarily execute one of their number.

"Thirdly, and I'm sure we'll come back to this point, I find this quite bizarre you state "Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law" Are you truly expecting us to believe this didn't happen?

On the contrary I am sure it did on occasion, but that does not negate the fact that such an action is an offence against the Army Act and if any Officer or NCO did strike a Private soldier he could face disciplinary proceedings for it - that being the case do you really think that summary execution would be sanctioned? Rhetorical question it wasn't if it happened it would be construed as "Murder".

"Do you want to tell us about the floggings of Indian troops?"
While punishment by flogging had been removed from the Army Act affecting British troops it remained as a punishment in the Indian Army (Unduly harsh?? Hardly, people are still flogged in Pakistan to this day - Pakistan being part of India during the First World War). Floggings were not carried out on the whim of any individual the punishment was handed down as part of due process - unless of course you have evidence which proves to the contrary.

"Finally, as I know this is a subject you are deeply interested in,could I suggest that rather than making automatic responses claiming that the hierarchy of the British Army were all good men and true you contact the MOD, Judge Advocate General and Lord Chief Justice and just ask them the question."

Ehmmm no Raggy the boot is firmly on the other foot. It is Jim Carroll, yourself and others that "believe" on the strength of pure unsubstantiated hearsay that those commanding the British Army during the First World War ordered or at least sanctioned summary executions of British troops by junior officers commanding them. It is therefore up to you to raise the matter with the proper authorities - that is if you can be arsed, which you would be if you really did think there was a case to answer - But you don't do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:05 AM

All bullshit designed to make veterans liars Terry
The existence of these executions are based on reports of people who were there - if they were false, they would have been denied long before now.
The authorities have respected the opinions of those who fought (those you claim are fit to be commemorated only by Christians) so much that they first forbade them to keep journals to describe their horrific conditions, then by keeping the ones that were written locked up for a century, because those experiences were as horrific as they were, even now they are available selectively.
A century after this horrific bloodbath, we still have only a partial view of the conditions undergone and the reasons men joined.
Maybe one day we'll get round to discussing honestly the justification for the war unclouded by the jingoistic bullshit.
Why the **** should we accept your one-man campaign - a serial establishment arselicker, a member of the Norman Tebbitt "Get on your Bike Club"
You haven't made your case that these men were liars and gullible morons - try harder!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:08 AM

Rag, one person in the whole period from 1914 to the present claims it.
No other of the hundreds of thousands there corroborate it.
If I put up such a thing as evidence you would rightly laugh me to scorn.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:09 AM

The existence of these executions are based on reports of people who were there

What reports?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:37 AM

You've had them Keith - there have been others, even naming the squads given the job of executing those who didn't go over the top fast enough - try to keep up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:46 AM

As asked by Keith A - WHAT REPORTS?
You cannot even verify that the Tommy Kenny you interviewed was ever in the Army FFS!! As research work goes your approach is just too damned sloppy to be of any merit or value at all.

If Journals were forbidden how come so many of them and we are talking tens of thousands here exist? There was no prohibition on keeping either a journal or a diary, what they did do was ban you from taking it into the front line - worked out as about 5 days a month - you see troops were regularly rotated - unlike the portrayal in Blackadder that they moved into their little dug outs for the duration. If what you state is true there would not be the wealth of memoirs and autobiographies of ordinary soldiers who saw action during the First World War would there. And oddly enough Jim none of those authors bang on about "special groups of military police" or about summary executions of British troops carried out by their own officers - perhaps because they were too busy writing diaries that they weren't supposed to have to have time to chat to those bending the ear of the likes of Harry Patch?

The material donated to the Imperial War Museum has been available to historians with proper accreditation for decades, but in most cases the material is normally donated on the death of the author.

I can go back to find out but it was you and your fellow travelers who challenged the three points put up in a post by Keith A relating to the First World War that post 1970 historians concluded that:
1 - The war was necessary
2 - That the people of Great Britain understood why it was necessary to fight it
3 - That in general compared to other combatant powers the British, Commonwealth and Empire armies were well led.

It was you who tried to tell us that all those volunteers were mindless morons, idiots who didn't know what end was up, fools who could be easily lied to and manipulated. Keith A, myself, Lighter and a number of others countered those slurs of yours and demonstrated that those men, those volunteers were educated men who were fully aware of the situation and responded as they did out of principle, duty and respect for freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

"As asked by Keith A - WHAT REPORTS?"
That's official then - we only take the word of the authorities and not the men who fought?
Can't say plainer than that - thanks
"who didn't know what end was up,"
Nope it was programmes like Paxman's who went in depth into why men joined up - and that's part of history
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons, idiots who didn't know which way was up" etc. Those expressions have only come from your side.

What I would suggest it that in 1914 all working-class soldiers would have been used to being at the bottom of society, with all that entailed.

And please Teribus can we not go back to the mind numbing and pointless 3 points, that was tedious by any standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:42 AM

"I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons"
It hasn't - that is Terrytoon's interesting take on what has been said.
Men joined up for a whole variety of reasons - because a "short war" was a way out of poverty, for the romance, emotional blackmail, white feathers 0- some because employers threatened them with the sack if they did not.
The main reason was a massive, totally unprecedented campaign of lies and distortion (propaganda) which ran out of steam within 18 months and was replaced by enforced conscription under threat of imprisonment and even death (when Kitchener left office he was demanding that conscientious objectors should be executed).
The "mindless morons" bit is further evidence of the#is jingoist's contempt for the serviceman
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:52 AM

Nope it was programmes like Paxman's who went in depth into why men joined up - and that's part of history

What Paxman actually said.

"Don't insult my Uncle Charlie or his comrades. Their sacrifice in WWI foiled Germany's plan to rule the world,"

"Yet we are stuck with the default conviction that the First World War was an exercise in purposelessness. That was not the prevailing view at the time. On the contrary, Lord Kitchener's appeal for volunteers in the early days of the war had been so successful that lines at recruitment offices snaked for blocks down city streets.
The great harvest of anti-war memoirs and novels did not appear until ten years after the Armistice. Throughout it all, the resolve of the British people did not weaken."

"What aggravates our ignorance is the false assumption that we do understand the First World War. We need to cast ourselves back into the minds of these men and their families, to try to inhabit the assumptions of their society rather than to replace them with our own.
How, one wonders, would the teacher explain to her students that after writing his celebrated denunciations of battle, Wilfred Owen returned to the Western Front to continue fighting and, furthermore, described himself in his last letter to his mother as 'serene'? It was, he said, 'a great life'."

"The retrospective narrative of innocent conscripts, dullard generals and boneheaded battle plans has become tiresomely familiar. It is precisely because the Great War changed so much that we understand it so little."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:54 AM

First Paxman programme of his BBC series on WW1,

About 9 minutes in, Paxman to camera.

"Most people seemed to have accepted that the war had to be fought.
To honour treaties. To defend the empire. To protect Britain.
And, what else were they supposed to do?
To sit back and watch as Germany amassed an empire from Russia to the shores of the English Channel?
Now war had broken out, almost everyone backed it.
Most trade unions suspended strikes, which had been common."