Ah Jom - so good at asking questions - so poor at providing answers.

Now we have three armies A, B & C. They are engaged in a massive conflict involving millions of men for a period of over four years. It is a desperate struggle that quickly establishes itself as a static war in which the normal tactic of manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre are rendered impossible, leaving frontal assault as the only means of engaging and attacking your enemy. At the end of this war taking into account all the men mobilised, all the men who fought the percentage of casualties (killed & wounded) for each Army is as follows:

Army A 35%'
Army B 75%
Army C 70%

Taking into account that all three armies fought in the same theatre of operations and all fought under similar conditions which Army would appear to have been the best led?

"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?"

Ehmmm Jom every conflict since the beginning of time has involved "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"

Liked this though as it reveals the greatest weakness in your argument and your total lack of reality:

"It wasn't warfare, even as we know it to day, it was war by force of numbers."

Sorry Jom but that is exactly what warfare was all about, it is war by force of numbers, and in terms of conventional war fought between two armies today, or the conventional conflicts of recent times, those have been fought by and large exactly in accordance with the tactics thought out and developed by the British Army during the First World War - the concept of a closely co-ordinated all arms integrated attack. Neither the French or the Germans developed that, Haig and his Divisional Commanders did.

"If the war was well led, show us how"

(a) We ended up on the side that won?
(b) Our casualties were roughly half those of the other combatant nations
(c) Our first ever citizen army built from scratch in time of war took on and defeated what was considered to be the most powerful army on the planet at the time
(d) Throughout the course of the war the armed forces fighting in the various theatres of war and the populations at home and throughout the Empire and the Dominions backed the Government and the war effort to the hilt.

"show us that the picture most people have of how the war was conducted is wrong"

I have no idea what "most people" think - and neither have you Jom.

"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."

Ah Jom, you're ranting now, I can almost see you frothing at the mouth in frustration and indignation. Yes the military were ordered by their duly elected Government to defend the country which in 1914 did happen to be an Imperial power. That you think sat on your arse out there in the west of Ireland in 2015 that that Imperial system was long overdue for demolition in 1914 is merely your opinion - please do not try to present it as a fact. Yes it was an Imperial War started by the rulers of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Emperor, it was fought in an attempt to hold the Austro-Hungarian Empire together and was seized on by the Kaiser as a way of extending German power in Europe and overseas through aggression and conquest. What the British were doing can be summed up as follows:
1: Meeting our solemnly given Treaty Obligations to Belgium
2: Looking after our own best national interest
3: Preserving our way of life

"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"

Really? Not the picture painted by studying the political, social and economic history of the period 1914 to the present day. And if as you say it was the same for everybody how then is that the fault of the British Government or the British Generals of the First World War?

"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"

Frothing again Jom, but I suppose by the time you got to writing this idiotic left-wing drivel you were well into your stride. What right-wing policies, how on earth did fascism create or spark off the Great Depression of 1929 - I thought that it was the other way about. And we were plunged into yet another world conflict due a German desire for domination through force of arms.

"If the war was "well led" - how was it well led?" - Answered above.

"If it was a "just war" - why was it just?" - Answered above:

"If we, the ordinary British, German, French, Belgian.... people, actually gained anything from the massive sacrifice that was made what did we get?" - For the people of Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine and Northern France - they got their freedom and liberty Jom. As far as the British go the entire nature of the country, politically, socially and economically was pointed in a new direction, the pre-war days were never going to return, the rate of change might have been described as evolutionary rather than revolutionary but the desire for change was there and people in general were better off in 1939 than they had been in 1914.

"All these points have been raised over and over again and you pair have remained silent on them"

Nope, the bullying and mobbing of Keith A on threads relating to the Great War started when Keith A put up three conclusions reached by modern day historians who specialised in the study of the First World War:

1: That it was through necessity that Great Britain got involved, it was not simply a matter of choice.
2: That in general the population of Great Britain knew and understood why Great Britain had to get involved and that in general they supported and backed the Governments decision.
3: That in General the British Army was well led in comparison to the armies of other combatant nations.

It must be almost two years now that we have argued back and forth. In the main where Keith A, myself and others have put forward factual arguments that can be checked and verified, you and others have put forward rumour, myth, fiction and fairytales which when pressed to provide any substantive evidence to support your claims has resulted in personal insult, bluster and a silence that is deafening - but at no time have any of you ever managed to produce anything of any substance to support your wildly inaccurate and ill-informed claims or beliefs.