I'd love to know how Mons could be considered as a defeat, when outnumbered two to one the BEF managed to inflict casualties on the Germans of ~2.5 to 1, delayed the German advance, prevented the outflanking of the French Fifth Army while managing to withdraw in good order to re-engage the enemy two days later, then decisively defeat him while fighting alongside their French Allies two weeks later on the Marne?

But there again what would you expect from someone who on another topic claimed to know better the details of a meeting than someone who actually took part in the meeting in question. No wonder Christmas that you think you know more about the subject than both Jeremy Paxman and the consulting historian for the series Gary Sheffield, I mean you even claim to know more about what they meant - Do you really honestly claim to know what a person means better than they do themselves? If so your arrogance is astounding!!!

" it was a struggle for the domination of Europe by two Imperial powers - full stop" Quoth Christmas

What Imperial Powers are you referring to Christmas? Certainly could not have been Great Britain looking at it logically could it? I mean stack up the facts:

The Imperial German Army - It's peacetime Army numbered 500,000 and it raised an Army of 13,000,000 men in the First World War

The Imperial Austro-Hungarian Army - Peacetime Army of 450,000 and a mobilised field army of 3,350,000 in 1914.


The British Army of the day numbered at most 100,000 men - Logically hardly the sort of number you need to take on the above.

By the way Christmas care to enlighten us as to any period in the history of Great Britain when it has ever shown any interest in the "domination of Europe"?? I would have thought that if it ever had (Which it didn't) then 1815 would have been a good opportunity, but oh yeah, of course, how silly of me even at that time Britain didn't have a big enough Army.

How did Britain find itself involved in hostilities? Treaty obligations Christmas to both France and Russia and to Belgium. National interests they did not want to see Imperial Germany exercising hegemony over Europe and see Germany, Britain's greatest rival in terms of naval might with naval bases less than 100 miles from London. Seems logical and reasonable to me.

As far as records show in 1914 there was no need for any recruiting campaigns, the young men of all the combatant nations were rushing to join, simple matter of record Christmas. Great Britain did not have to introduce conscription until late 1916.

"Over before Christmas" - Nothing to do with the Government (Who knew a damned sight better) or the Army - just a popular misconception believed by the populations of all the combatant powers, not just that of the UK.

"White Feathers" - Nothing to do with the Government or the Army - IIRC it was instigated by civilians and pushed into prominence by the founders of the Movement for Women's Suffrage and they encouraged their members to distribute them to young men in civilian clothes. By the way it was the Women's Suffrage Movement that was advocating universal conscription in 1914, so it would appear that they were certainly all for the war, wouldn't it? The Government and the authorities in charge of the armed forces and the civil service were against the practice and were forced to bring out their own lapel badges to indicate that their personnel were engaged in the war effort although not in uniform.

"The Angel of Mons" - Pure fiction Google "Angels of Mons" and "Arthur Machen and The Bowmen". If you believe in such as the Angel of Mons, Christmas please give my regards and best wishes to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.