The red herring was introduced by you Jim the red herring was the snide - "Rule the waves" dig - All I pointed out was that in 1914 not a single country in the world had a navy capable of taking on and defeating the Royal Navy. Glad that that one has been put to bed.

Great Britain fought to maintain and protect her Empire - WOW - as a statement of the blindingly obvious that takes the biscuit - of course Great Britain fought to maintain and protect her Empire that after all is what all countries with empires do - Putin at this very moment is struggling with every fibre in his being to re-establish Russia's lost "empire".

Ah yes your "wrong sized shells" MYTH - tell us again what shells were the wrong size Christmas - we've pounded this one out before and you were proved as wrong on this as you were on the "Kitchener forced to resign" MYTH - Wasn't the wrong sized shells you prat it was the wrong type of shell and in 1915 that should have surprised no-one. Unfortunate fact of life Christmas, when you get pulled into a war that you didn't specifically prepare for, you have to go with what you have got, not what as it turns out in hind sight what you should have had. During the First World War that was true in 1914 and in 1915, after that things started getting turned round most of that being due to Kitchener - who was responsible for building Great Britain's first citizens army - the Army that ultimately defeated the Germans in 1918.

By the way Christmas - we've done this before as well but as usual you failed to answer - exactly why would you and how would you force someone to offer/threaten to resign when you know that it would be both unthinkable and impossible for you to accept that resignation? As with much of your thinking and your statements - It just does not make any sense at all

Concentration camps?

The ones first introduced by the Spaniards in Cuba in 1896 - which resulted in ~300,000 dead?
The ones subsequently introduced by the Americans in the Philippines in 1898 - which resulted in ~200,000 dead?
Or the ones adopted by the British, under Lord Roberts, in South Africa in 1900 - which resulted in 45,000 dead?

Odd thing about those "inhuman" British "concentration camps" Christmas - roughly the same number of British troops died in their tented camps as Boer prisoners did in theirs. Poor diet and insanitary conditions leading to disease and death - mind you considering the populations of both they stood better chance of survival than the poor in certain towns and cities in England at the time particularly after administration for the civilian camps was taken over by the British Proconsul in South Africa Alfred Milner.

Did these "concentration camps" work? Did they do what they were supposed to, i.e., shorten the war? Yes they did, a peace was sought by the Boers because they could not continue because of the policy of clearing the land (It could not support their guerrilla war) and the public outcry in Great Britain against the camps turned the populace against the war at home.

All the above were established to control civil populations in time of war - the Soviet Gulags and Nazi Concentration camps were established to control dissenters, political opponents and ethnically cleanse entire groups from their respective societies in time of peace.

But in the deflection from the discussion of the First World War Christmas has just thrown in another red herring.

By the way Christmas please do tell us what "thuggery - thug Kitchener" brought into World War One (Absolutely dying to hear what complete and utter tripe this is going to turn up).