The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #156239   Message #3684536
Posted By: Teribus
11-Dec-14 - 02:26 AM
Thread Name: BS: I am not an historian but........
Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
"Wasn't this exactly what many of us were saying, and which Keith hotly denied, claiming that the sole cause was German aggression against Belgium.

We've said all along that it was about the defence of Imperial possessions." - Troubadour


Sorry Troubadour but that was not the original argument relating to the First World War at all. On that Keith A of Hertford has always contended that:

1: The First World War was a war of necessity as far as Great Britain was concerned.

2: The population of Great Britain fully understood the reasons for going to war with Germany and backed their Government and supported the decision to go to war with Germany and that they maintained that support throughout the war.

3: That in general the British and Commonwealth Armies during the course of the First World War were well led in comparison to the armies of the other combatant nations.

As far as the first point goes most on this forum have argued that there was no need for Great Britain to involve herself in the war - That is wrong because it would have been against the best interests of the country to have stayed neutral. "Most WWI historians" agree with that and conclude that Sir Edward Grey did not have any other choice except to declare war on Germany after German troops invaded Belgium.

As far as the second point above goes, we have the facts about recruitment between 1914 and 1916 and the fact that among all combat nations involved in 1914 Great Britain was the only major power whose armies did not mutiny and whose Government did not have to face anti-war or anti-government riots throughout the entire course of the war. We also have the facts relating to changing over the industrial base of the country from one used to producing goods to serve the peacetime, civil needs of country and empire to one geared entirely to support the war effort, this was done with amazing speed and could only have been accomplished with the total support of the country. "Most WWI historians" support those facts.

Most on this forum are trying to tell us that all those 2.6 million volunteers who initially overwhelmed the recruiting offices as bad news was pouring in of a British Army being driven back and suffering losses had to be tricked and coerced into joining the Army. That they were all gullible dupes, so stupid that they must have been capable of believing any lie told to them. Most on this forum believe that the biggest lie told those volunteering in 1914 (1,200,000 of them) was that "It would be over by Christmas" - yet when asked to identify who it was in authority who started this lie they fall silent. Not surprising because you see the "Over by Christmas" as official propaganda was a myth. From records we know for certain that in August 1914 Sir Edward grey believed that the war would be prolonged and we know that in August 1914 Lord Kitchener told the Cabinet that the war would last between three to four years and that to fight it Great Britain would have to raise an Army numbering in the millions to fight it.

Keith's third point, is supported by every single metric for success that can be applied and the only ammunition used by those disputing the point with Keith have to resort to distortion. Neither Keith of myself are saying or have ever stated that Haig was a military genius, we are not saying that mistakes were not made, what we are saying is that in general and in comparison to those commanding the armies of the other combatant nations Haig proved himself to be a better commander than they were. That is borne out by the fact that he commanded an army that went through the greatest degree of change, that saw the greatest expansion, that conceived and adopted the greatest number of technological advances and changes, that rose to meet and overcome every problem and challenge thrown in its path. By 1918 even when Germany could instantly double the size of its Army, the most powerful and most professional in the world, and throw it against the British and Commonwealth forces in Northern France, Britain's two year old Citizen Army accepted everything that was thrown against it and succeeded in first stopping the German offensive then 21 days later went over onto the offensive themselves and in only 100 days succeeded in defeating the German Army - that offensive still remains to this day as being the most successful military campaign ever mounted by any British and/or Commonwealth Army and the commander of those armies and the architect of that offensive was Haig.