GUEST,Raggytash - 27 Dec 15 - 04:00 AM

Just for clarity and just for you, in an attempt to prevent you from repeating this by now very tired line of argument:

1: What old soldier of Jom's? Jom has got no proof that the man was ever in the Army (He didn't check) - This old man's story has changed quite dramatically since the day first introduced us to Tommy Kenny, that story has altered by Jom to cover all the glaring anomalies that have been pointed out to him - Now we have the admission by Jom that Tommy Kenny NEVER, EVER, actually saw anyone being shot by the military police in the situations and circumstances he first described.

2: Harry Patch was interviewed by the BBC over 80 years after he had fought in France for three months in 1917, he had never spoken about the war in all that time. The link put up was what the BBC decided to print and in all probability does not reflect the entire interview. In that interview Harry Patch contradicts himself and if he was telling the truth then he could not have possibly witnessed any summary execution carried out by an officer as described. Later in the interview he describes what did occur when an officer drew a weapon on a platoon of men and tried to order them out of barracks for bayonet practice - the men, who were carrying their rifles chambered rounds and threatened to shoot the officer - THAT Raggy would have been exactly what those same men would have done in a trench in France if ANYBODY Officer or Military Policeman had indeed shot any of their number.

3: Robert Keating - In no way have I ever stated that he was in any way lying - you on the other hand have completely misrepresented what he did in fact say:

He did not mention any gun being fired - he did mention a gun being turned on the men on top of the parapet - YOU assumed that to mean that the gun was fired - the Diary evidence supplied by Sir Ian Colquohoun indicates that no shots were fired - now who is lying about what happened Keati, Colquohoun OR YOU (My money's on you)

4: YOUR old soldier? No idea who he was, perhaps you could tell us, but ALL he is doing is stating his opinion, he is perfectly entitled to that but it does not make his opinion FACT.

(a) I do not believe that every soldier in the Army saw Haig - so nothing too unique or damning in that.

(b) Had French not been replaced then the BEF would have been defeated by the Germans in 1916.

(c) Haig's refusal to follow orders of French Generals placed over him at the insistence of British politicians saved thousands of British lives. Both the Somme and Passchendaele were battles forced on Haig against Haig's own better judgement which he clearly voiced at the time.

(d) "There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front"

Yes there was up until this point no-one had ever fought a war on this scale - another big difference the "Staff" visited "The Front" every single day whereas the "fighting Army" spent only three weeks in the front lines before being sent to the rear areas for two months.





…....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"