"You were a greasy fry-up slinger, weren't you - lots of action in the kitchen, especially when you burn the bacon!!"

Really Jom where on earth did you get piece of fiction from? One of your own troll pals or was it just more Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit"

""But armies [NOTE JOM "Armies" as in Armies in general] did not leave men's behaviour in battle down to chance: the system of military discipline existed to coerce them into obedience. Punishments for disobeying orders could be severe, and men who were convicted of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' or desertion from their unit could receive the death sentence. Many hundreds of soldiers were executed by their own armies for military offences during the conflict [However NOT in the British Army - 346 does equate to many hundreds]."

Look up the figures if you like Carroll (I know neither you nor any of the usual suspects will) but during the First World War there were 304,262 Courts Martial held and of those defendants 265,496 were found "Guilty". Just taking the crime of desertion that accounted for 14% of that total meaning that during the First World War 37,169 men deserted - 29,205 did so in the UK. Yet the Courts Martial only resulted in death sentences being carried out on 245 men being shot for desertion and a further 17 being shot for "cowardice". Perhaps you should stick to Traditional Folk Songs JOM - you seem to know quite a bit about that - on this subject you are totally clueless.

""Any chance of learning debate Keith?""

WHAT??? Debate against the likes of this?

" Raggytash - 19 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

actually don't bother to reply to that I'm not really interested in anything you have to say"

Hey Raggy if you aren't prepared to listen then butt out of the discussion - you obviously have S.F.A. to add to any discussion OR debate.

"A historian collates, assesses and presents information. When he says the future would be x y or z he says it as a person and his view has no more weight than anyone else."

Ehmm NO anonymous GHOST - As a historian and specialist in the subject and the period just purely by the information at his fingertips his opinion would have far, far greater weight than say yours, purely because it would be based on a far greater understanding of the times, the people and the era than you have.

Ah have a word with your "Historian" Jom - and by the way my recollection is it was you and your grinning hyena "mates" who started taking the "piss" out of historians - as David Englander when it was during the First World War that the French collapsed at Sedan, now I know he is referring here to the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 - but the man's writing is all over the place - no wonder you like his style Jom - it's as chaotic as your own. David Englander was not a historian who specialised in the study of the First World Was his area of specialisation lay elsewhere - why didn't you mention that Jom?

As to whether or not things would have been better or worse under the Germans, who would have annexed Belgium and taken over all of the French overseas possessions - as you mentioned Belgium and their treatment of their subjects in the Congo - have a look at how the Germans treated the indigenous tribes under their care - you might just learn something.