History and mythology of WW1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:22 AM

The quote I provided from Montgomery came from Gary Meads book The Good Soldier, do you really expect me to type out the entire book? Try going down to your local library and borrowing the book yourself, if they don't have I am sure they will source it for you.

The quote from Keating came from an article that I provided a link to, if you cannot even be bothered to follow a simple link why on earth should I be bothered to type out the entire article.

Of course the information from both might upset your preconceived adherence to the glory of war and the fact that you keep banging on about "that we won"

We know "we won" but some of us are concerned not only about the cost of "winning" but the manner in which many men died in futile circumstances.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM

Jim, I think you sum up the difference here, which is that you think, and I agree, that nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth that sacrifice of life and health. And that Keith and Teribus will not even understand that point of view. I have said that peace could have been negotiated at least twice, and maybe before hostilities even started. And that I at least will go further, if Britain had surrendered to Germany in July 1914, that would have been a better outcome than what actually happened. But I don't think it need have come to that, if the rulers were not so pig headed and egotistical it could have been a peace with honour.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:06 AM

"I do not rely on cut and pastes hastily sought to back up a jingoistic viewpoint."

No you don't Raggy you rely on cut-n-pastes hastily sought to back up your own rather feeble arguments and fail on every single occasion to achieve your aim - the Keating example is one such instance, and your Montgomery example another. The former where YOU deliberately misrepresented what actually occurred and the second which was just so much waffle about nothing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM

Keith,

The minor point being that peace could have been negotiated on at least two occasions with goodwill from the rulers on all sides. And that had they done so, millions of lives could have been saved. Very minor point according to you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:56 AM

"Individual anecdotes do not give a balanced view, and may be wholly unrepresentative.
Not a case of giving a "!balanced view"! Keiuth - this twot says again and again that what these soldiers say happened never happened - therefore the men who fought an
d risked their lives were liars.
That is about on par with both of your positions - that everyone who gives evidence contrary to your claims is telling lies - sewer-level debate.   
Your carefully edited century-later less than half dozen 'historians' certainly don't give a "balanced view" - you even dismiss what they say when it doesn't suit.
I'm grateful for Terrytoon's magnificent summing up of Military mentality
"there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE" military brain-dead thuggery at its very worst -
8.5million - Killed:
21 million Wounded:
7.7 million POW's + missing:                
37 million Total casualties
57% casualties in % of men mobilised                 
Doesn't matter a flying ****, as long as you ended up on the winning side.
And for what? - the settling of a family squabble over who gets to sit on the throne and run the estate.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM

Professor please stop showing your utter ignorance. I have read Marc Ferro's book from cover to cover, and Gary Mead's book cover to cover, two of numerous books I have read on the subject.

Unlike you I do go beyond the title when reading a book, I do go beyond reviews that are found on the internet. I do not rely on cut and pastes hastily sought to back up a jingoistic viewpoint.

I doubt if you have read a WHOLE book in your life, with the possible exception of Janet & John which frankly seems to be about the summit your mental capacity.

Try reading both books and come back to me when you have. I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:27 AM

Dave, that was a very minor point.
In the all the years we have been discussing this, I have never before or since referred to peace initiatives during the war.
I gave the quote making my point, but also gave the link to that the whole thing could be seen.
I did not pretend, as Rag does, that it was the only point.

My only case in all this has been that the army was generally well and competently led, that Britain had little choice but to fight and that the people supported the war.

I have quoted the historians on that with links to their articles.
That proves that it is indeed the view of the historians, and not just me.
None of you have been able to do that in support of your views because no historian holds them.
They are discredited and debunked myths.

You have still found nothing written in recent decades in contradiction.
I have.
Lots.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:15 AM

Rag,
No professor I suggest you read because it might, just might, give you an insight into the various truces that happened throughout WW1 not just Christmas 1914 but Christmas 1915, 1916 and 1917.

So you have not read any book on the subject!
I have.

Professor, how the **** you can make such a statement when you haven't actually read the book should amaze me, but it doesn't.

It would be a rubbish biography if it gave a one sided view of the man.
I have read Sheffield's biography which concludes he was a competent general, but gives a balanced account. If you just picked out the negatives you could give the same false impression.

I have no doubt that Mead's book is the same. The title is very positive about Haig which gives a clue to the overall view. You have been deceitfully and dishonestly giving a false impression of the work.

Jim, millions of British men served as soldiers.
Individual anecdotes do not give a balanced view, and may be wholly unrepresentative.
Historians study the accounts of thousands to give a balanced and representative view.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM

Keith, re: cherrypicking

On 20th December at 09:07 you quote one sentence, and one paragraph from one of your favourite historians, unfortunately for you also a link where you can read the paragraph in between which you conveniently left out, and which rather damages your argument.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:27 AM

"When did you give me your Uncles name."
There - you can stop holding your breath
Will you stop implying that people are lying while at the same time lying through their teeth - it makes you look stupid
Jim Carroll

"Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 09:14 AM
Terrytoon - if you're still there
You claim you can find the record of all servicemen with ease, and on that basis, you have denied the service record of Tommy Kenny
My family includes several with service records - would be grateful for your assistance in confirming them
My Uncle Gerry (Carroll) served in Europe during WW2, and was decorated for exceptional bravery under fire.
He was later tried and convicted by the army for refusing to go to Greece to train fascists during the Civil War there.
Who was he, where did he serve, what was he awarded his medal for and what regiment was he in?
There - you have three times the amount of information than you had on Tommy - should be a piece of cake for someone with your super-human skills.
More to come, when you reel off that one."
Your reply was that you never claimed to be able to do such things - another lie
Jim Carroll"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:06 AM

"So all those posts of yours SCREAMING about Military Police and then latterly "Special Squads of Military Policemen" lined up behind our gallant chaps about to "Go Over The Top" with specific instructions to shoot them if they didn't get out of the trenches are just a load of bollocks are they Jom?"
No - the only bollocks here is your lying claims that I have altered my Tommy Kenny story at any time - which you have not acknowledged, nor will you.
Are you now claiming that what I have put up is based on my experience of spending three days recording an old man talking of his experiences as a soldier.
"Jom NO MAN under arrest OR punishment can bear arms in the British Army - HAVE YOU GOT THAT ? THAT IS A FACT "
Another "fact" for which you provide no evidence!!
I believe that it is against regulations for an officer to strike a man under his authority, yet it was common for officers to use their sticks to beat men out of the trenches and into the field
The story of the special squads and summary executions had nothing to do with Tommy - you appear to have linked to thee story put up by a man who recorded the facts from his grandfather, just as we recorded Tommy's story - it seems you have lumped them all into one to make it easier for you to denigrate one old soldier. .   
You have attempted to denigrate Tommy's story - you have claimed his war record doesn't exist, you said he lied to take the piss out of us (including his grandson), in front of his mates in the pub.
You do the same with Harry Patch - only served four months on the Western Front.
You are a real pieces of low-life - true patriots all .
"The defeat at Loos – F**K All to do with Haig"
Who the **** said it had - stop making things up
I have not commented on Haig's leadership, or any individuals - that would have meant only one bad apple instead of the ****** shambles of sending inexperienced young men to their deaths instead of the ****** bloody shambles of an incompetent higher command who couldn't agree fighting with the politicians back home that it was - you couldn't hope to organise a works outing on that basis, never mind a war.
You refuse to respond to the cock-ups, you refuse to refuse to respond to the morality of sending so many young men to their deaths, you refuse to respond to the fact that this was done in order to continue a system which exploited the people of the world - a system that was due to collapse a few decades later anyway (when another equally rapacious method was found to Carry on Exploiting (I think the 'Carry On' team dipped out by not making that one)
Your entire argument is made up of deliberate lies on your part and Establishment makkie-ups: a "classless" army, pre-Tolpuddle democracy, a Liverpool flowing with Milk and Honey, soldiers ignoring the massive recruiting campaigns and going to their deaths willingly, like lemmings - Barbara Cartland couldn't have made it up in her long career - you are a couple of jokes, the pair of you.
You couple of Tory-Boys really are going above and beyond the call of duty.
One more try- without the smokescreens and the bullshit:
You have yet to explain how you found four Tommy Kennys while you couldn't find one Jerry Carroll
You have to produce another version of Tommy's Story
You have to explain how this war of attrition – sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths – was not efficient butchery but good leadership
You have to explain how "good leadership" led to the defeat at Loos – The Dardanelles, the massive loss of life at the beginning of the Somme, the wrong ammunition fiasco and the internecine in-fighting that was taking place between the wartime Government and the Military...... and all the other sit that happened, can possibly be described as "good leadership"
No hurry – we've waited this long
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 11:37 PM

Ahh Jom - Jim Carroll - 27 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM

1: "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."
Once again you are reduced to simply lying
At no time have I claimed Tommy witnessed and execution – courts martials were not public events, nor were executions
Tommy's account – which you have been given several times, said that men were picked up for walking away from the noise, were tried and sentenced to death."

So all those posts of yours SCREAMING about Military Police and then latterly "Special Squads of Military Policemen" lined up behind our gallant chaps about to "Go Over The Top" with specific instructions to shoot them if they didn't get out of the trenches are just a load of bollocks are they Jom?

Your Tommy Kenny didn't say anything at all about witnessing any Summary executions? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE NOW SAYING? A simple yes or no would suffice.

You did not check whether or not anyone called Thomas Kenny served in the British Army and that is the truth. I FOUND SIX possible candidates - none of whom fitted the profile of the man you described.

Hey Jom your next load of complete and utter bollocks
If there was a push on thy were taken from where they were being held, placed in the front line and if they survived, were then taken out and executed.

Jom NO MAN under arrest OR punishment can bear arms in the British Army - HAVE YOU GOT THAT ? THAT IS A FACT - So what your Tommy described could not have possibly happened - My own Paternal Grandfather survived just because of that fact - that is why I know that what Tommy told you was complete and utter bollocks.

I have been proved a Liar? I don t think so.

Now this one really puzzles me Jom because it only seems to have existed inside your own imagination>

When did you give me your Uncles name.    Please provide the deatils of the post, date and time. First mention of Jerry Carroll if that is indeed his name has been on this thread, in this post – Please prove me wrong – I won't hold my breath.

Harry Patch only did serve three months in France that is a well documented fact. No denigration at all just simply a matter of FACT. Do you have any problem with that?

The average life expectancy was six weeks was it / tell me Jom if that was the case how come only 1 in 10 died?

There is no reason for us not to believe Tommy Kenny served ; we met some of his old mates at his funeral, we saw his photo in uniform – both his and Harry Patch's experiences makes shit of your defence of this squalid bloodbath.

Only thing is Jom you told us that they saw men summarily executed by military policemen when they very clearly and patently didn't.

"You have to explain how this war of attrition – sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths – was not efficient butchery but good leadership"
Jom it is you who believe incorrectly that wave after wave of young men were sent to their deaths our fatalities were less than any other of the 1914 combatant armies how do you think we did did that if we we sent wave after wave of young men to die??
Now we are discussing the leadership of the British Army under Douglas Haig:
The defeat at Loos – F**K All to do with Haig
The Dardanelles – F**k All to do with Douglas Haig
The massive loss of life at the beginning of the Somme – Haig was opposed to the attack on the Somme in 1916 (Matter of record) The British Government and the French High Command insisted on it against Haig's best advice.

"The wrong ammunition fiasco" – 1915 absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Haig

" the internecine in-fighting that was taking place between the wartime Government and the Military...... and all the other sit that happened, can possibly be described as "good leadership"
No hurry – we've waited this long
Jom do you mean reasonable argument against decisions by the British Government, primarily David Lloyd George to place British troops under French command so that French Generals could order British troops to march to their own destruction? As they tried to do on the Somme in July 1916 as they insisted on doing at Passchendaele in 1917?
You've been given the answers many at time and oft Jom – you just ain't prepared to accept them. Just before you forget in November 1918 the victory celebrations were held in Paris and in London – NOT in Vienna or Berlin. If you are involved in a war there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE. Our "good leadership" guaranteed that – simple matter of record Jom.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 10:35 PM

" it might, just might, give you an insight into the various truces that happened throughout WW1 not just Christmas 1914 but Christmas 1915, 1916 and 1917. Easter at times, Holy days and perhaps (and this is purely conjecture)the men were simply tired of killing each other."

And ALL OF IT Raggy completely inconsequential as the nation states invoiled at the time were engaged in a global conflict - you seem to lack not only knowledge but a sense of logic and more importantly perspective - but there again Raggy old chap I get the distinct impression that you have never had to fight for anything in your life - there have always been others prepared to do your fighting for you to enjoy your freedom of speech and your freedom from persecution.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 10:28 PM

Ehmm No Raggy you tell us all about Launcelot Kiggell and how he was so instrumental in us "winning" the war despite not knowing how the chaps were doing up at the front. You see despite the opinions at the time of some junior Divisional General Staff Officer, Haig's Staff dealing and directing the activities of the entire British, Commonwealth and Empire Armies in France from 1916 until November 1918 did rather well - a damned sight better that the Generals and the nsataff's of the German armies opposing them - this evidenced by the fact that the Germans did actually lose the First World War - any problem disputing that fact Raggy?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 07:55 PM

" Rag, you suggest we read Marc Ferro's book. Why? Have you read anything relevant in it, or are you just trying to give the impression that you read something"

No professor I suggest you read because it might, just might, give you an insight into the various truces that happened throughout WW1 not just Christmas 1914 but Christmas 1915, 1916 and 1917. Easter at times, Holy days and perhaps (and this is purely conjecture)the men were simply tired of killing each other.

" Rag, you dishonestly pick out only the negative from a balanced account to give a false impression of the work"

Professor, how the **** you can make such a statement when you haven't actually read the book should amaze me, but it doesn't.

Unlike you I actually went beyond the front cover and read the book. When you actually read a WHOLE book on the subject it might help.

Do try Gary Mead's book it's quite interesting.

Oh and while your about it try reading a little about Launcelot Kiggell.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM

"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."
Once again you are reduced to simply lying
At no time have I claimed Tommy witnessed and execution – courts martials were not public events, nor were executions
Tommy's account – which you have been given several times, said that men were picked up for walking away from the noise, were tried and sentenced to death.
What you were told was that Tommy was fighting next to someone one minute, then shortly afterwards reading a notice saying their earlier sentence had been carried out.
If there was a push on thy were taken from where they were being held, placed in the front line and if they survived, were then taken out and executed.
That is the account Tommy gave which was recorded by four of us, and is housed in the British Library along with the rest of our collection (and in The Traditional Music Archive in Dublin)
If you can come up with an alternative account – do so – otherwise you have bee4n proved once again the liar you are.
You will find no other "version" of this story – on the contrary – in order to prove Tommy never served you claim to have researched his name and could only come up with four other Tommy Kennys – none from Liverpool.
When I gave you my uncle's name (a medal winner) – you came up with no information and said that it was not possible to research soldiers names how the **** did you come up with four Tommy Kennys if you aren't a liar?
Similarly, you have tried to denigrate Harry Patch as a liar or gullible because he only "served for three months"
The time Patch served was on The Western Front – he was wounded out at Passchendaele
The average life expectancy in action was six weeks – Patch served sixteen – I would have thought that would have elicited a little respect from even wee jobbies like you pair – obviously not.
At least it was enough time to pick up the information that has got up your nose enough to lie like a politician.
Why on earth do you sink to such depths – more than a little sick, don't you think?
There is no reason for us not to believe Tommy Kenny served ; we met some of his old mates at his funeral, we saw his photo in uniform – both his and Harry Patch's experiences makes shit of your defence of this squalid bloodbath.
Now
You have yet to explain how you found four Tommy Kennys while you couldn't find one Jerry Carroll
You have to produce another version of Tommys Story
You have to explain how this war of attrition – sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths – was not efficient butchery but good leadership
You have to explain how "good leadership" led to the defeat at Loos – The Dardanelles, the massive loss of life at the beginning of the Somme, the wrong ammunition fiasco and the internecine in-fighting that was taking place between the wartime Government and the Military...... and all the other sit that happened, can possibly be described as "good leadership"
No hurry – we've waited this long
And please stop lying so stupidly – it's become embarrassing to watch you humiliate yourself.
Keith remains the joke he always was      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM

Dave, if you are suggesting I have ever done that, I challenge you to give an example.

I quote historians, and provide links so that the quote can be seen in the context of the whole article.
What have you ever put up Dave?
Nothing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:40 PM

Did I really there see Keith accuse Raggy of cherrypicking quotes!? My mind is well and truly boggled!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:19 PM

GUEST,Raggytash - 27 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM

All the wrong reasons Raggy?

Gave the Germans such a fright on two occasions in 1915 that they specifically ordered that defences had to be prepared and and manned at at least double strength if German troops found themselves facing sections of the line manned by British Troops.

In 1916 it was Haig with Britain's first ever citizen army that forced the German Army commanded by Falkenhayn to retreat, Falkenhayn was dismissed as a result and the Germans sued for peace - unfortunately their terms were not and never, ever would be acceptable to either the Belgians, the French or the British.

In 1917 he introduced the bit and hold raids on German positions, whilst doing so the system of all arms integrated warfare was further developed. By and large still used to this day.

In 1918 even after the German Army doubled it's size on the western front and threw it against Haig's Army within 21 days of the five German offensives reaching their high water mark Haig attacked and 100 days later the war was over.

I would say he did rather well and a damned sight better than anyone he opposed. But of course being a complete and utter buffoon you would have to disagree.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:13 PM

Rag, you suggest we read Marc Ferro's book.
Why?
Have you read anything relevant in it, or are you just trying to give the impression that you read something.

Did you read the translation or the original French?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:08 PM

Les - Churchill "ran it" at the only time it mattered to rob the Germans of the victory they wanted 22nd June 1940 until coincidentally 22nd June 1941.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 11:52 AM

Err.. There was summary execution, as most historians have established.

Name? Quote? No. Not a single historian has ever said any such thing. Entirely false.

Rag, you dishonestly pick out only the negative from a balanced account to give a false impression of the work.

Look at the front cover for a clue.
"The GOOD SOLDIER. The Biography of Douglas Haig. Gary Mead."
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/391349179074?adgroupid=13936810266&hlpht=true&hlpv=2&rlsatarget=pla-124296488226&adtype=pla&ff3=1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Les from Hull
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 09:30 AM

Fortunately Churchill was never in a position that the others you mention of being a general organising a battle. He would have been chap. Couldn't even catch Peter the Painter!

Actually Churchill didn't get to much opportunity to run the Second World War, and when he did he usually made a mess of it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM

"their record and actions proved it."

We know Haig's record and actions too well, and for all the wrong reasons.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 09:09 AM

Well then Raggy just one of those accidents of history that we were lucky enough that the right man was in the right place at the right time, others have been, Marlborough, Clive, Wolfe, Wellesley, Churchill - None of whom were considered to have been "the best of the bunch" by their peers but when the challenge arose they all proved to be more than equal to it and their record and actions proved it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 08:15 AM

Whatever Teritowelling,

If you want to believe that a second rate soldier was the best thing before sliced bread you carry on. I've just read Gary Mead biography of Haig. He starts by saying he wants to portray Haig as you do.

All I can say it's just as well he didn't try to do a hatchet job because if what he has written is correct Haig wasn't even the best of a bad bunch.

Without his connection and sycophancy to royalty he would have been sacked near the outset of the war. In fact without his sycophancy to royalty he would never have got near a command of any description.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM

Well thank you for that Raggy - probably the first time that you have answered a direct question with a direct and straightforward answer.

Now toddle off and compare how long it took Montgomery to learn the lessons Haig had to learn - you will find that Haig was a far quicker learner and a far greater innovator, especially when you take into consideration that Haig faced the best the German Army could throw against him for his entire time as Commander. The BEF in 1914 survived as an effective fighting unit, the BEF in 1940 was thrown out of France and ceased to exist. The most successful offensive campaign ever carried out by the British Army in its entire existence? Haig's 100 days campaign in 1918 NOT Montgomery either in North Africa or in Northern Europe.

Montgomery fought two battles where manoeuvre wasn't an option at Alamein and in the Normandy Landings he chose attrition as his weapon of choice through necessity, Haig on the western front between 1915 and 1918 never had any other choice, and it was Haig who developed the tactics that enabled armies to break the stalemate NOT Montgomery. Kiggell apart from being sacked from his Liaison job with the French appears to have been of no significance whatsoever.

During the course of the First World War 9 out of every 10 men who joined up survived.

During the course of the Second World War 9 out of every 10 men who joined up survived.

And for Nameless GUEST:

"The terms and procedures of some Court Martial trials did not follow the law prevailing at the time. Study of court documents and correspondence between Generals in the field and the War Office, and between The War Office and the judiciary make it quite clear that there were political decisions for expediency. By definition" They were carried out with procedures agreed to and in force at the time.

Over two years to come up with one single instance of a summary execution as described by the likes of Jom the infallible, i.e. a British Soldier being executed on the spot for not getting out of a trench quick enough or on returning to that trench - NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF IT.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM

The last post of course was I.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 07:21 AM

From Teribus "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.

Interesting Teriblossom, my old soldier is none other than










FIELD MARSHALL BERNARD LAW MONTGOMERY, 1ST VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN KG, GCB, DSO

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 06:51 AM

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"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 05:37 AM

Err.. There was summary execution, as most historians have established.

The terms and procedures of some Court Martial trials did not follow the law prevailing at the time. Study of court documents and correspondence between Generals in the field and the War Office, and between The War Office and the judiciary make it quite clear that there were political decisions for expediency. By definition, summary "justice."

Another piece of intrigue was that officers were afforded post mortem to begin with where their bodies were available, but not other ranks. This was quietly dropped when it was established that some killed going over the top had bullet entries in their back.

I do wish the jingoistic fools on here would read rather quote titbits.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 04:49 AM

Teribus says:

"A former US President who died in office put it brilliantly - ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Very easy to say when you are the guy at the top who stands to benefit from the things that other people are being asked to do.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 04:00 AM

Ahem, You and the professor have managed to disabuse Jim's old soldier, Harry Patch, Robert Keating ......... the only old soldier who you have not called a liar yet is my old soldier who wrote:

"I served on the western front during the 1914/18 war as a platoon commander in 914 rising to GSO1 of a division by 1918. I never once saw Haig, nor did I ever see him after the war …. I can never forgive a General who intrigues, as Haig did – against his C-in-C, and against his political chief …....... There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front …....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:24 PM

Only problem for you Raggy is that both Keith A and I can prove that we are not dreaming. Same cannot be said for you.

From a multi-coloured screaming rant from Jom the infallible we got this:

"WHAT MAKES IT ANYTHING BUT BUTCHER FOR EMPIRE WILL DO FOR A START AND TELLING US WHAT WE GAINED OUT OF IT AS ORDINARY CITIZENS MIGHT HOW THAT IT WAS ALL WORTH WHILE - DON'T BE COY - GIVE IT A GO!!"

A former US President who died in office put it brilliantly - ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Now then Jom the people who were of a certain age back there in 1914 they had absolutely no problem with that - The baby-boomers who came after their grandfathers and their fathers fought and died for the freedoms and liberty that we all take for granted don't and you prove that by your incessant carping about nothing:

But by way of explanation just for you Jom:
- That Empire gave people jobs
- The people of France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc, etc, did not fight that war in the expectation of GAINING ANYTHING - they regarded it as being their patriotic duty.
- You see Jom the people of those days were not you, they were not professional tooth-sucking victims, "always somebody else's fault" isn't it Jom. In those days Jom people still stood on their own two feet and took responsibility for their own lives and that Jom included fighting for their countries when necessity demanded it - just as their forefathers had done (Pssst Jom - and they didn't expect anything for it either)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:14 PM

Keep on dreaming children

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 04:07 PM

And reading about the Christmas Truce of 1914 would tell me what about the absolutely scurrilous allegations that you along with your fellow travelers have tried to promote on these WW1 threads? All Keith A and I have tried to do is to get you to provide evidence to support your dearly held myths - and you have failed at every turn.

NOT A SHOT WAS FIRED - it was you that put the spin on that and gleefully stated about British troops firing at fellow British Soldiers, even although the link you supplied said nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 02:30 PM

Teribus, Initially I had you down as a reasonably intelligent man. Over the past few months you have shown yourself to be far less than that. More's the pity.

Could I suggest that you and your monkey try reading "Meetings in No Man's Land" by Marc Ferro.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 02:27 PM

Still no evidence to substantiate summary executions by either Officers or by "Special Squads of Military Police" - remembering of course that to date the only people who have mentioned this have admitted that they never actually witnessed any such executions.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:38 PM

One of the officers was aquitted, the other sentenced to a reprimand but Haig remitted that sentence.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:31 PM

The book actually contains accounts of the same incident at Lavantie, including from other 15RWF Privates, Bertie Felstaed and Harold Diffey.

They both report artillery fire ending the incident.
Very early on a British sergeant was shot and killed standing on the parapet, but this was taken as an accident.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:17 PM

""fortunately, no one was killed" Is a bit of give-away"

Only indicates that the gun did not have to be fired.

After the 1914 Christmas Truce orders were given that there should be no reccurrence, trench raids and actions were deliberately planned and timed so that it could not happen again they also gave orders that artillery and the machine gunners were to fire off salvoes every few hours over the Christmas Period including throughout Christmas Eve and Day. Appparently this isolated instance in 1915 didn't in anything like the scale and form of what happened in 1914 - the account in the link basically says so.

Captain Ian Colquhoun and Captain Miles Barne of the Scots Guards were Court Martialled under what charge Raggy? You forgot to mention it, so I will - Both men were charged with:

"Conduct to the prejudice of good order of military discipline in that on 25th Dec he (1) Approved of a truce with the enemy (2) Permitted a cessation of hostilities".

He did that for one reason and one reason alone - so that the Germans could collect and bury their dead who were lying in "no mans land".

Oh by the way Raggy Sir Ian Colquhoun in his diary entry for the 25th December 1915 specifically states that during the 45 minute "Truce" period Not a shot was fired The only shots actually fired that day were fired later on at night when the Germans put "fairy lights" up and the machine gunners fired at them from the British Trenches, this resulted in the lights being taken down.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:12 PM

I have a copy of Christmas Truce by Malcolm Brown and Shirley Seaton.
It is about Xmas 14 but the final chapter is about Xmas 15 and there is a postscripts chapter about later events not always at Xmas.

In 1915 strict orders were issued on both sides against fraternisation, and harassing fire was used by both sides to deter it.
All the incidents described are of artillery fire on opposite lines and no man's land. There were casualties on both sides.

The incident mentioned is unusual and probably unique. The machine gun fire would have been indirect and fired from well back, but anyone exposed in NML would have felt fired on. A machine gun firing at close range directly at exposed troops would have killed people.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 12:30 PM

What you people don't seem to grasp is that we were engaged in a bloody war of attrition and neither fraternisation nor refusal to fight could be seen to be allowed.

Warfare has always been conducted thus. Primitive, bloody, pitiless, but once embarked upon, there are no choices.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 12:24 PM

I know little of warfare, but from what I have read, "fraternisation with the enemy" has always been regarded as a serious crime; for very good reasons, one being security and the safety of the regiment.

The officers had their standing orders and to disobey these orders would be construed as mutiny.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM

"fortunately, no one was killed" Is a bit of give-away

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:43 AM

No Raggy - you assumed the gun was fired, but there is no evidence, or clear statement that it was. I have no idea if an officer did shout, "Coooeeeeee !!! Come on boys, back to your trenches" but there is a clear statement that an officer did shout to tell the men to come down from the parapet.

"As it happens Captain Ian Colquhoun a Company Commander and the Commanding Officer of the 1st Scots Guards, Miles Barnes, were taken before a Court of Enquiry and were later Court Martialled. Barnes was acquitted and Colquhoun received a reprimand which wasn't followed up."

Care to tell us what the charges were?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM

If the machine gun was merely pointed at them but not fired why would Private Keating write "fortunately, no one was killed"

You, as always, are putting your particular spin on it and not reading what is actually written.

In the early hours in December do you think they could clearly see it was just being pointed and not actually fired.

Do you really think one of the officers shouted Coooeeeeee !!! Come on boys, back to your trenches. No doubt he made them tea and crumpets and told them they were naughty boys.

As it happens Captain Ian Colquhoun a Company Commander and the Commanding Officer of the 1st Scots Guards, Miles Barnes, were taken before a Court of Enquiry and were later Court Martialled. Barnes was acquitted and Colquhoun received a reprimand which wasn't followed up.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM

Ehmmm GUEST,Raggytash - 26 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM - What bit "about firing a machine gun on our own troops". I believe the article mentions something about turning (training) a machine gun on the troops out in "no man's land" - nothing whatsoever about it being fired.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 08:13 AM

The diary states unequivocally "So we went on till the early hours of the morning and the only thing that brought us down was one of our machine guns being turned on us - fortunately, no one was killed."

Read the bit that says "TURNED ON US" not opposing lines not no-mans land "TURNED ON US" ......... "FORTUNATELY, NO ONE WAS KILLED"

For ****'s sake.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:59 AM

Rag, to prevent fraternisation there was firing into the opposing lines and no man's land. It happened in many places and by both sides. Your article said no-one was killed.

Do not try to confuse the issue with summary execution which never happened in the British Army.