Classic Christmas Carroll tactic - when losing an argument invent stuff and put words into other people's mouths

1: "Individual accounts are interesting, but have to be assessed in conjunction with the tens of thousands of accounts that are preserved."

None of which have been made fully public and there is no indications of what these diaries contain so there can be no possible conclusions like your %80 = men going willingly, knowing what they were fighting for and returning with the same convictions.

Two points here Christmas the first being for something to be a fact does not require it to have been made "fully public". Now accredited historians have access to material that the general public do not and there are extremely good reasons for that mainly to do with preservation. The second point relates to the last part of the section in italics above, i.e.

"...like your %80 = men going willingly, knowing what they were fighting for and returning with the same convictions."

Could you please give me a direct quotation from anything that Keith has written that - I won't hold my breath, because Keith has never contended anything of the sort, he has never stated anything at all about anybody returning with the same convictions

2: "Writers like Sebastian Faulks not only researched the diaries for his highly regarded writings, but he interviewed many soldiers - he was considered authoritative enough to have been chosen to write the commentary for an official exhibition of war paintings."

Ah so the works of those in the rather long list of names of degree qualified historians, supplied by Keith, who are known and recognised internationally as being specialists in the subject and period we are talking about, are to be discounted, yet "A writer" a novelist, broadcaster and journalist has to be regarded as the the only opinion that has to be considered - by the way wasn't Max Hastings a journalist too.

By the way are you 100% sure that Sebastian Faulks has been the only person to research the contents of those diaries? Or have others also looked at them as part of their research? I know for a fact that other historians have interviewed soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought and served in the "Great War". The 1964 BBC Documentary series is full of such interviews, oddly enough many of those interviewed did state that they knew full well why they enlisted to fight, they believed the cause to be just and right and still thought so at the end of the war. Many of those same men also said that it was terrible beyond imagining and that they would not willingly go through it again, and the expression of such sentiments are perfectly understandable, but that does not support any argument that you have put up to date.

By the way Christmas do you want to know the number of men who had volunteered for the army by Christmas 1914? You know the date by which, according to you, the Government and the Army recruiters had promised them they would all be back home? 1,186,337

3: "Historians like Liddell Hart were fighting in the field (he was an officer) and again, his writings on the war were fully accepted by fellow historians and by those who were there, or the families of the soldiers who fought, as fair and genuine."

Captain Basil Liddell Hart's wartime experience was fairly brief and confined to a total of three short trips to the front (two in 1915 and one in 1916). He was a volunteer in 1914, so are you saying that he disagreed with Great Britain going to war? Are you saying that he volunteered on the premise that the Government or the Army had told him he would be home by Christmas? Are you saying that he volunteered not knowing why Britain was going to war. By the by, Liddell Hart's writings were written in hindsight, what did he write at the time? Were Liddell Hart's writings objective or subjective? Do you think he had any particular axe to grind. On reflection his views are ever appearing to be highly suspect, and downright ridiculous in parts.

For Example:
Britain should not have sent a large army to fight in mainland Europe, it should have left that to her allies (We'll just ignore the fact that had she done that France would have been knocked out of the War in 1914, Russia shortly after and Germany would have set the terms in any negotiated peace with Great Britain).

Britain should have used her naval power to transport our army to fight the enemy away from the principal front at places of our choosing. That was an option open to the Royal Navy of Nelson's day, but by 1914 things like mines and submarines had been invented that meant closing a hostile enemy coast was extremely risky, let alone making an opposed landing on it. Admiral Jellicoe - the only man in Great Britain who could have lost the War in one afternoon.

Basil Liddell Hart made the argument for manoeuver warfare and taking the indirect approach to reach one's objectives, which is all very good in theory and that was tried in 1914. That was what the "race to the sea" was all about, but in 1914 after the German defeats on the Marne and on the Yser an unbroken line of trenches extended from the North Sea to the Swiss border - that Christmas was the fact of the matter as plain as a pike staff for all to see - wishing that things were different is a totally futile and pointless exercise - After 1914 there was no alternative to frontal assault of the enemy as there were no flanks to turn. Liddell Hart also does not go into attempting to explain what in 1915 Britain was going to do with those 1,186,337 men who had rushed to join the colours.

I'd love to hear how you define "fully accept" and "fellow historians", do you mean like minded chaps like you and Musket, purely because the pair of you think you agree with him? After 1914 a whole new method of waging war and fighting battles had to be evolved, and Liddell Hart had no hand in it. Those who did, you know all those incompetent bastards that you, anonymous Guest and Musket keep banging on about, they worked it out, and what they worked out still, by and large, holds good to this day. The British Army of 1914 was about 240,000 men in total, by November 1918 it was 16 times bigger, the army's artillery had undergone a revolution as had its ability to lay down accurate and intricate barrages that would ultimately defeat Rommel in North Africa. The new Tank Corps and a completely new branch of our armed forces had come into being, the Royal Air Force - all created, established and honed into an all arms fighting force by those incompetents who succeeded in defeating the established premiere military power of the day who outnumbered us three to one.

4: Who has Keith branded as a "liar" - apart from yourself that is, because on a number of occasions on this thread you have attempted to present complete and utter untruths as established fact and on each occasion you have been caught out.   

Rather liked this from our anonymous Guest:

"My Great Granddad used to say that if there was a lull in the fighting on Xmas Day, it would have been in defiance of the top brass and the implications were harsh. He used to say the unforgiving nature of the military was to cover up their incompetence and lies.

He was there, unlike most of the sources mentioned here.

How convenient, but most likely the post quoted above is 100% bullsh*t. Now why do I suppose that? Where are the bits that don't ring quite true? Here:

"My Great Granddad used to say that if there was a lull in the fighting on Xmas Day"

After the one and only partial truce that occurred on the first Christmas of the Great War, to prevent any chance of such a thing ever happening again barrages, and raids were ordered on Christmas eve to ensure that there were no lulls in the fighting.

Unfortunately anonymous Guest it is a fact of life in the military that you have to obey all legal orders, and I am sure that your Great Grandfather would have known that, I am sure you can regale us, with countless examples of lies he was told, lies that he must have swallowed.