" Could of course be "a battle of attrition" but even there you've got it wrong."
Typos again shipmate and yet more talking down to -that short of argument again?
If you can't understand the sentence, you shouldn't be here - you should be at literacy classes - it was a typo that, for the literate, in no way obscured the meaning.
If I am wrong - show how "good leadership" was anything more than sending wave after wave of young men to go out and kill other young men who they didn't know or have a particular gripe with?
It wasn't warfare, even as we know it to day, it was war by force of numbers.
Enough of arguing with a pair of semi-literate eejits who appear not to have read anything on the subject (certainly one of them -the other doesn't disclose what he might have read but just makes bullying pronouncements)
What it boils down to is this - If the war was well led, show us how - show us that the picture most people have of how the war was conducted is wrong - that it was not a matter of a military acting on behalf of politicians defending an Imperial system that was long overdue for demolition and which was to disappear within a few decades, largely due to the excessive carnage that took place during that war.
It was an Imperial War - Imperialism was based on the exploitation of poorer nations and was one of the great evils - that was what we were defending.
The ordinary British person - the cannon fodder of the war and their families got S.F.A. from the massive sacrifice they made - they were no freer, no better off, no more secure than they were before the war began - that was the case in Britain, Germany, Belgium, France...... anywhere.
The German people tried and failed to change things for the better and Russia at least grasped at a straw of a chance to actually make things better for the working people, but that was whipped away from the people eventually by corruption and callous incompetence)
A decade later the world was plunged into a recession; thanks to right-wing policies fascism (largely appeased by our leaders) got a grip and we were plunged into yet another world conflict - what was it all about Alfie?
What do you pair think - was that not what happened?
I'm not interested in out-of context fragmentary quotes (largely of opinions) from historians none of us have read - neither am I interested in the usual three Bs - (bullying, bluster and bullshit) from the usual suspect.
If the war was "well led" - how was it well led?
If it was a "just war" - why was it just?
If we, the ordinary British, German, French, Belgian.... people, actually gained anything from the massive sacrifice that was made what did we get?
If the world became a better place after the slaughter of so many young man - how did it?
All these points have been raised over and over again and you pair have remained silent on them - (no - fair's fair - Captain Pugwash did say colonising the poorer nations was a good thing)
Your starter for ten.....!
Jim Carroll