BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM

"Jim, I have been quoting Macmillan for years, from her many essays and articles."
All cut-'n- pastes Keith (about six times in all - go and count them) - every one in defence of this fucking bloodbath - never, never before you scrambled and found her on the net - earliest, December 2013 - sorry, it's all very accessible in the archive.
Jay-sus - this really is the season for pork pies. isn't it?
Keep it up - it really does round off the year nicely - beats a stocking full of Smarties and paper hats any day!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM

GUEST - 17 Dec 15 - 05:45 AM; Raggytash; OR GUEST - 17 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

Could you please get your story straight:

Was Kiggell by 1918 serving as a GSO1 on a Divisional Staff or was he serving a Chief of the General Staff (Military Head of the Army) - No man called Kiggell has ever held the post so I can only assume in your ignorance you have got your wires crossed.

You clearly have no idea how an army functions, you have no idea of how the the various "Staffs" function (i.e. Headquarters, Army, Divisional, Corps, Brigade) GSO1 stands for General Staff Officer Grade 1 warrants a rank of Lt-Colonel or Colonel if he is tasked with responsibilities relating to transport of replacements, and logistics from port to Divisional supply bases then the conditions men are living under and fighting under at the front have no bearing whatsoever on his job.

Such a busy thread this never ever seen such a clamour for people to so willingly demonstrate their ignorance about a subject before.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:31 AM

Rag,
Who should I believe the review of Gary Mead the noted Historian or the professor Keith A of Hertford.

Gary Mead calls himself a journalist.http://www.jerichochambers.com/who/gary-mead/ and I have not disagreed with him.

The myth the reviewer was referring to was that because they slept and had their offices away from the fighting, that they were out of touch.
Historian Dan Snow says of WW1 British generals,
"During the war more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or captured. Most visited the front lines every day. In battle they were considerably closer to the action than generals are today."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:21 AM

Jim, I have been quoting Macmillan for years, from her many essays and articles.
I have not quoted from here book ever. Like Hastings' it is not about the conduct of the war.
I read it some years ago and never looked at it again.
I do not lie Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM

By the way - the typos were to give the galley-swabber something to hang onto
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM

Oh ! ! Dilemma ! ! Who should I believe the review of Gary Mead the noted Historian or the professor Keith A of Hertford.

I think I'll have to go and lie down. Or I could believe my old soldier.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:18 AM

"During the war more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or captured. Most visited the front lines every day. In battle they were considerably closer to the action than generals are today."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:18 AM

"I have never quoted from Macmilan's book because I do not still have a copy"
You first quoted McMillan as a witness back in December 2013
You first claim to have read her book four days ago - I'm sure if you ahev read it . as you claim, you would have mentioned it (unless you managed to fit in her tome in the fast five days)
You are an exposed liar (again) Keith.
As I said - nobody gives a shit about WW1 anymore expest as an example of humanity at its worst - which is more or less what everybody here is saying apart from you two flag-wagging dinosaurs
Pip-pip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:12 AM

why do you claim it as fact that senior soldiers did and still do reside well behind the lines.

Because it is a fact. I did not write the review.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:49 AM

There is really no point in trying to reason with you is there, Keith. Mo matter how many ways I try to say that all viewpoints have their place you will not be happy until you feel you have 'won' or the thread is closed. Are you really so insecure?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:45 AM

Do you actually read your own cut and pastes Keith.

You copied "Mead also contributes to the refutation of some of the CONTINUING MYTHS of the war, such as the endless rows of stoic Tommies marching forward with fixed bayonets on the first day at the Somme, or that HAIG DWELT IN AN ELABORATE CHATEAU WELL BEHIND THE LINES" (my emphasis)

If Mead suggests it was a myth that Haig lived in an elaborate chateau well behind the lines why do you claim it as fact that senior soldiers did and still do reside well behind the lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:34 AM

DtG,
No one is suggesting anything has been falsified.

Dave said, " I am also perfectly prepared to believe that it has little to do with new information, and a lot to do with political expediency. "

So they lie for political reasons, even Canadian and American presumably.
To all tell the same lie, unsupported by evidence, they would have to collude.
Their students must be outraged that their professors lie about what the original sources reveal.

Rag,
My old soldier wrote: "There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front"

Of course they did, and still do!
That is how large armies fight wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:27 AM

Rag,
Now historians are being accused of lying.
Only by Dave and Musket.

Jim,
you must have skipped through 'Catastrophe" (628pp)" which you claim to have "borrowed about two weeks ago" and read by 4 days ago,

The book is largely about events prior to the invasion of Belgium, which I have never expressed an opinion about.

The chapter "The British Fight" is just 38 pages, and "The Retreat" (not just British) 19 pages.

He says almost nothing about the conduct of the whole war by Britain, and I quoted everything that there is.

Nothing in the book or your review contradicts anything I have claimed. It is about something else, hence the subtitle "Europe goes to war 1914."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM

The last guest was I

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

So both you and Terriblossom have suggested that my old soldier is mistaken. No doubt Terriblossom will tell me I didn't interview him myself or I didn't make a note of his army number or that I am lying.

My old soldier wrote: "There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

This is what I meant by the way some people state things as being black and white.

Modette, is it your experience that hiostorians all collude to create a false history for political expediency?

No. No one has suggested that all historians collude but they do reference each other. It is however in most peoples experience that that people will do whatever is required to secure funding/ ensure the faculty remains/ get published. No one is suggesting a false history has been created. Just that there are differing viewpoints and, at present, the one you suggest is ticking the right boxes.

Modette, how do you suggest people should learn about WW1 if every history of recent decades is falsified?

No one is suggesting anything has been falsified. Yet another straw man. All historic events have many different viewpoints. All viewpoints are all true to a greater or lesser extent.

Modette, do you as a historian believe that all the historians are wrong about thise, and people should refer to Mudcat Lefties instead?

False dilemma. No one believes that all historians are wrong. No one believes that all 'Mudcat lefties' (pejorative term) are right. There is a middle ground which can be agreed on.

Why can you just not accept that your viewpoint, while perfectly valid, is not the only possible answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:11 AM

From Atlantic Books review.
"Mead notes that Haig strongly supported new technologies and tactics, including aviation and the tank, and was more concerned about the welfare of his troops than most Great War commanders. He also reminds us that many of the blunders attributed to Haig were due to the inherent flaws of the British Army, and most notably to its painful change from the small highly professional force of 1914 to the improvised mass citizen army of 1916, and finally to the highly sophisticated veteran force of 1918, arguably the most able army in the world.

So Haig emerges as a rather able commander who for much of the war was both overly optimistic and expected too much from the tools that he had to work with, but who finally got it right. As he tells us about Haig, Mead also contributes to the refutation of some of the continuing myths of the war, such as the endless rows of stoic Tommies marching forward with fixed bayonets on the first day at the Somme, or that Haig dwelt in an elaborate chateau well behind the lines."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:01 AM

Rag, you are reading a biography of Haig that I have not read.
I recommend the more recent one by Sheffield.

No biography worth anything gives a purely one-sided view. Sheffield's does not.
A deceitful and dishonest person might be tempted to give a false impression of the overall conclusions by cherry picking just the negative bits.

What would you say the overall view of your biography is Rag?
Is the clue in the title, "The Good Soldier. A biography of Douglas Haig by Gary Mead?"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM

"You claimed to have read three in just a few days while doing other things in Dublin"
Made a point of saying I hadn't read any of them Keith - just skipped through them - stop lying - sorry, you can't - it's congenital.
You are ignoring what people write just as you must have skipped through 'Catastrophe" (628pp)" which you claim to have "borrowed about two weeks ago" and read by 4 days ago, at the same time as scrabbling around Mudcat for cut-'n-pastes..... and did the Christmas shopping at the same time!!!! - - are you ****** mad - or do you think we are?
Is this really how you spend your life - reading about a century old war that nobody gives a **** about and flag wagging on this forum - really explains a lot about why you are the sad, sad individual that you are?
Nobody gives a shit about World War One anymore - the ones that experienced it are dead, those who are still around who lived through the aftermath remember the period following it as one of hardship, misery and a betrayal of the 'war to end all wars' promise' - another avoidable World War - another betrayal, both of the 'Land fit for heroes to live in' and the original 'war to end all wars' promises.
The world has been in a permanent state of warfare since the end of WW2, has gone through a series of crises one after the other, those of us at the lower end of the scale have watched our standards of living, our security of employment, tenure and access to health treatment wither away, our chances of seeing our children having a good secure future on a clean, healthy planet being taken from us, while at the same time, being treated to financial and political scandal circuses and the wealth of our nations disappearing into fewer and fewer hands.
You pair are like those Japanese soldiers who were found on South Sea Islands still fighting a war that had been over for decades.
World War One was a sordid bloodbath that decimated the world of its young men - nothing glorious, and certainly nothing to be proud of or to defend - it was a war fought to allow the wealthiest to stay wealthy and go on on pillaging, raping and exploiting the planet - it was what it said on the tin 'The Great/Imperial War'.
Debating with you pair is like watching one of those Medieval, or Civil War, or Battle of Waterloo reconstructions.
You are a pair of anachronisms in the extreme.
'Rule Britannia'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM

Now historians are being accused of lying. This is in addition to Jim's old soldier, Harry Patch and the old soldier who wrote the quote I placed.

An old soldier known to a family friend so I've no reason to doubt his word.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM

Apart from Hastings, all the historians I have quoted are academics.
Dave accuses them all of lying about their subject for "political expediency"
Even the Canadian and American ones presumably.
He denies that vast archives of new information has become available to them, like IWM collection.http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/documents

Modette, is it your experience that hiostorians all collude to create a false history for political expediency?

Modette, how do you suggest people should learn about WW1 if every history of recent decades is falsified?

Modette, do you as a historian believe that all the historians are wrong about thise, and people should refer to Mudcat Lefties instead?
Does anyone believe such obvious nonsense.

My views come from reading history.
None of it supports you people.
You are arguing against the historians about history.
Such arrogant conceit and ignorance!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket pointing and laughing
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 02:29 AM

Just pointing and laughing, that's all.

I assume "the historians" have a secret initiation etc. Tell you what Keith, your blind faith in a title that anyone can use, and often do, is touching. Many "historians" are not quite as independent as you think. Their publishers want controversy, their readers want to take comfort in what they read and The Daily M*il want to serialise it.

At their last meeting, they presumably passed a motion to agree with Keith.

I think I'll pop and pass a motion myself.





That's better. I concur.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:37 PM

From the information I have read, I wasn't there, Haig wanted General Butler CGS at headquarters but the War Office insisted that Kiggell was appointed. Butler became his Deputy.

I would have thought it IMPERATIVE that Commanders knew the condition of the troops they commanded. But hey that's only me, what do I know. But the person I quoted also thought the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:03 PM

Whoops Raggy you've just dropped another one - FFS man why don't you just check things before you shove your feet in your mouth.

1: Nameless Guest had your Kiggell chap as ending up in 1918 as GSO1 of a Division in the Army under Haig - Go away and find out how many Divisions made up Haig's Army in France - I know YOU might find it strange but not every Lt-Colonel or Colonel was a personal acquaintance of Field Marshal Haig.

2: If Nameless Guest's chap Kiggell was as you say Chief of the Defence Staff (Well hate to be really picky but the title did not exist in 1918 it would actually have been Chief of the Imperial General Staff) and Haig would have been HIS subordinate.

Oh and Nameless GUEST it would greatly depend upon what Kiggell's duties were on his Divisional Staff as to whether or not he needed to know "the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:41 PM

Ooooh GUEST - 16 Dec 15 - 01:33 PM - Musktwat another of your vain but futile attempts to get this thread closed down?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:39 PM

I do note Modette that you have not called me to task or faulted any of the statements I have made. Liked the rather woolly "ideological" thing, not an aspect any of my History Tutors really bothered much about - smells to much of applying modern day mores and attitudes to past events and converting everything into a "class struggle" - Are you a closet Class-Warrior Modette - I can remember us exchanging views about newspaper coverage immediately prior to the start of the First World War - For someone who teaches, sorry runs, Degree Courses in History, you didn't come out of that too well either.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 04:39 PM

A slur Keith? From you thats rich, you are the one accusing people of lying. I should stick to singing shanties in the pubs of Hertford if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 04:04 PM

Actually Keith, for someone who claims to be well read and knowledgeable about WW1 I am surprised you have come across Lieutenant General Sir Lancelot Edward Kiggell KCG KCMG

I presume you know what they are ........... oh well perhaps not, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath and Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George.

Chief of General Staff under Haig 1915-1918 and had no idea how men at the front lived.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 03:36 PM

I'll post it again just for you Professor. I'm sure you tell me it never happened or it is made up or create some other excuse.

"I served on the western front during the 1914/18 war as a platoon commander in 914 rising to GSO1 of a division by 1918. I never once saw Haig, nor did I ever see him after the war …. I can never forgive a General who intrigues, as Haig did – against his C-in-C, and against his political chief …....... There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front …....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 03:23 PM

Raggy, I have no idea who Kiggel was, but so what?

Are you claiming that your book questions Haig's competence?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 03:20 PM

Musket,
Your first line is deeply questionable .....but true.
Your second line is laughable. Factual actually. You must be a giggling fool.

Dave,
And I am also perfectly prepared to believe that it has little to do with new information, and a lot to do with political expediency.

That is an outrageous slur on professional people.
Ignore him Modette.
Of course there is new information. Historians are independent people and do not bend their findings for the sake of "political expediency!"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:36 PM

Sorry, Pennell, Catriona Pennel is someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:32 PM

What rattled Michael Gove was that Baldrick was far more on the button than the brain washing jingoistic shit he wanted to inflict on our children.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:30 PM

Thanks for the post, Modette. At least I no longer have to put 'him or her' :-) Please don't go as I am more than interested in what you say. I have, as I have repeated over and over again, little knowledge of the actual facts surrounding the event but I am intrigued by the process and procedure of assimilating that information and felt pretty sure it is not as cut and dried as some on here would have us believe! Nothing ever is :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:22 PM

I do notice the two main protagonists do not argue with my post of 08.24 which some may consider to be somewhat Black Adder (ish) or even Oh What A Lovely War(ish). A post which to my mind sums up a lot of what was deficient in the leadership of WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM

Modette,

Even if you will not comment I hope you are still reading the thread. I am not an historian, but I am an academic and I have many times witnessed what you refer to as hegemonies. You won't get grant money, or access to facilities, or appointments to peer review panels when your views as expressed in your applications run counter to the current consensus. Then, suddenly, the consensus moves and you do. Or not. So I am perfectly prepared to believe that there has been a move in the last 20 years towards a reactionary view of the histories of the world wars. And I am also perfectly prepared to believe that it has little to do with new information, and a lot to do with political expediency. But I am also prepared to believe that Keith is wrong in his interpretation that all modern historians agree with the reactionary viewpoint, indeed we have already seen that Ferguson, and the two I gave who Keith decreed to be too old (although they are still living) do not. Much of the support for Keith's viewpoint seems to come from Catriona Pennel, who is the one serious academic (i.e. REF submittable) in his list. But I can't at the moment access her work.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:52 PM

Before you disappear, I put this to you yet again Dr. Modette,

My views come from reading WW1 histories.
Nothing written in the last twenty years contradict them.
Nothing written in the last twenty years supports the views expressed by Jim.

Do you challenge any of those facts Modette?
If you do, please give details.
I provide quotes from numerous historians working on that period.
What can you provide?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:49 PM

Jim,
your first claims to have read McMillan and Hastings were two days ago , before that, despite having quoted bits from both extensively,

That is not true.
I have never quoted from Macmilan's book because I do not still have a copy and it is a couple of years since I read it.
I borrowed a copy of Hastings' book about two weeks ago, and have never before claimed to have read it.


You have your chance to prove me wrong simply by answering the points I put up

I thought I had.
Put up anything you want me to answer but just 2 at a time.

Two days to have read two enormous books - Commmme oooon!!!

You claimed to have read three in just a few days while doing other things in Dublin!
I told you, "I spent about three weeks on Macmillan's book (some years ago), and have now had Hastings' for two weeks."

and please explain to me how you can possibly say she does on the basis of a couple of lines

Because those lines unequivocally and unambiguously rubbish your views, and she has done so in several articles and essays.

but you refuse to respond to that aspect of how the war was conducted.
Yes I have. I have shown you that the historians agree that the British Army was generally well and competently led.
They know more about it that you Jim.

While you both refuse to responds to the points made about the actual cock ups that lost so many lives you will continue to appear the tossers you are

Of course mistakes were made!
Do you really think that a WW1 historian is less aware of that than you?
Taking all that into account, they conclude that the British Army was generally well and competently led.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM

...oh, and conversely there is an element of bad even in the best!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM

Sums the opposition up perfectly Guest
This is going to go the same way as Keith's horrific 'Muslim implants' claim - blamed somebody else for telling him to say it, was given hundreds of chances to reveal his sources and humiliate us all but he refused - speaks for itself really
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:34 PM

Good! Glad we all agree that some were better than others. Like everything else in this life there was some good and some bad. This is what I find quite alarming about the attitude of some posters. Everything is either black or white. You are either for us or against us. I have found from experience that life just isn't like that and there is an element of good comes out of even the worse things. Like war!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:31 PM

"Jim, you are entitled to your opinion about WW1, but not to lie that any historian agrees with you."
You have your chance to prove me wrong simply by answering the points I put up - it really doesn't get more complicated than that.
A lie is when someone claims that "none does" - when not only haven't they read all (a fairly daunting task for a non-historian anyway) but has openly lied over and over again about books he simply has not read - I repeat " your first claims to have read McMillan and Hastings were two days ago , before that, despite having quoted bits from both extensively, you claimed only to "have read much""
Two days to have read two enormous books - Commmme oooon!!!
"Macmillan certainly rubbishes all your views,"
no she doesn't - and please explain to me how you can possibly say she does on the basis of a couple of lines
"Bad, poor incompetent British Generals"
Good butchers don't make good generals - but you refuse to respond to that aspect of how the war was conducted.
While you both refuse to responds to the points made about the actual cock ups that lost so many lives you will continue to appear the tossers you are
KEITH'S APPROACH TO HISTORY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:28 PM

I've been at work all day, hence my late response.

Had Teribus been one of my students, his obnoxious and obstreperous behaviour would have resulted in a sudden need to find a new course of study. [Yes, Teribus, I run History degree courses. You wouldn't be accepted.] As a woman, I am also aggrieved by your condescension.

Teribus also clearly lacks any understanding of the ideological nature of history, otherwise he would have appreciated my earlier comments.

Keith has that all too common failing of not recognising how hegemonies operate. The fact that numerous historians may claim the same thing at contemporaneous times is an indicator of influence.

I cannot comment on anything to do with WW1 - my field is firmly set within the post-WW2 world. However, Keith clearly exhibits a characteristic which some historians call the 'Eccles piece of paper'. It has to be true because it's written on said piece of paper.

I definitely won't comment on this thread again. Life is far too short and Teribus and Keith are far too ugly.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:14 PM

You might have suggested it Lofty - your pals all to keen on
"The Butcher of the Somme" MYTH and baiting Keith A.

The conclusion reached by those writing about the Great War in recent times has been that in general compared to other combatant nations the British Army during the First World War was well led. And in assessing the veracity of that claim using any metric you wish to name it comes up as being a fairly accurate statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:08 PM

Jim, you are entitled to your opinion about WW1, but not to lie that any historian agrees with you.
None does.

Macmillan certainly rubbishes all your views, and does so unequivocally IN THE LINK YOU JUST PROVIDED, and which I have given several times already.

Dave,
Meaning that some were (incompetent.)

Huh?
Obviously Dave, and never denied.
I have referred more than once to the incompetence of French, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM

Isn't it what I just suggested, teribums? Some good, some better, some bad. The point being they were not all bad or good.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM

That's the trouble with the Oh What A Lovely War crowd. The stage and screen play relied heavily on Alan Clark's "The Donkeys" and unfortunately none of the left wing CND anti-war Luvvies realised that Clarks book was all about Sir John French and what happened in 1915 - they mistakenly took it to be relevant and representative of the entire war - which of course it was not.

Bad, poor incompetent British Generals? How about Sir John French? Superb job in keeping the BEF intact in the opening months of the war but far too timid by half thereafter so he had to go. Fortunately he was replaced by Douglas Haig who had been giving the Germans headaches since Neuve-Chapelle. At Gallipoli Ian Hamilton distant and unimaginative aided by Fredrick Stopford (A T.A. General for a T.A. Formation) totally useless and incapable of using any initiative he sat around on his arse and allowed his soldiers to do the same under conditions at Suvla where he could have cut the Turks off in one day. Then there was Nixon, Lake and Townshend out in Mesopotamia (Townshend being the worst of the lot) ALL from 1915 the last year commanders of British formations were selected on the Buggins turn principle - AFTER Haig took over on the Western front and Allenby went to Palestine and Maude took over in Mesopotamia they never looked back. But then if any of you clowns HAD done any reading up on the subject you would have known that.

Townshend is compulsory reading for anybody interested in object lessons of how not to lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 12:48 PM

I think you are right, Jim. The village idiot stands on the sidelines whooping and screeching without really understanding what is going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 11:49 AM

"are enjoying their thrashing just a little too much for it to be altogether healthy "
In your dreams Ake - don't suppose you'd like to put us right - no - didn't think so.
Hit 'n run trollism is much more your style
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 11:39 AM

Teribus, I suspect Dave, and GUESTS are enjoying their thrashing just a little too much for it to be altogether healthy :0(

Pin dancing is simply a device to encourage more scolding from you and Keith.

None the less it is excellent entertainment for a winters evening and if you've nothing better to do ....swing the whip!   :0)