History and mythology of WW1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 02:09 PM

Terribulus doesn't need to be called a TC. You see, Keith can appear credible till you notice the detail. Terribulus's posts don't require qualifying. Anyone's reaction if they bother reading them to the illogical end tends to be two words, beginning T and C. Waste of effort pointing out the obvious.

Oh gosh..😳 "He knows he would be caught out in a blatant lie if he ever..."

Not a lie then, but a blatant one! He'd be caught out too! Naughty Musket to be potentially caught out, being blatant too, the little scamp.

Ever thought of getting a job on The Daily M*il Terribulus? They sensationalise when trying to come out with bollocks too. They do it with far more panache and style though.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:54 PM

"Political Blunder - nothing new there, but not with regard to the First World War, The German Emperor wanted the war and he got it, not a single thing anyone else could have done about it."

Yes there is, they could have refused to engage. There have to be two sides in a fight.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:28 PM

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:27 PM

"It was Musket who started on Keith A with the TC jibes "
Did you really say "He hit me first sir"?
Jim Carroll"

Nope Jom - just plain simple statement of FACT - go and look it up.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:21 PM

An amalgamation of consensus coupled with historical fact and present day evidence.

The sanitisation of military incompetence, political blunder and callous indifference to those in your charge are there

WHAT amalgamation of concensus? Those put forward as representing views similar to your own fall into two categories:

1 - Revisionists who wrote about the Great War between 1929 and 1969

2 - "Historians" who are not specialists in the subject

WHAT historical "Facts" as far as can be seen from this thread and others on the same subject you have not put forward any FACTS and you have been completely unable to refute those put forward by either Keith A, myself or by others

WHAT present day evidence calls into question the work of modern day historians who are writing and studying the period in question armed with far better knowledge and information than any who have covered the same work previously.

The second paragraph is just a collection of tired old cliches:

What military incompetence to the likes of you lot the military is always incompetent - funny but going by track record I wish that our politicians, leaders of industry and trades unions had proved to have been half as effective and willing to adapt to new ideas and technology as the the military have proved to be.

Political Blunder - nothing new there, but not with regard to the First World War, The German Emperor wanted the war and he got it, not a single thing anyone else could have done about it.

As for "callous indifference" - again only YOUR OPINION, but in time of war the political leadership of any country has committed itself to putting people deliberately into harms way with the inevitable result that some will get killed both civilian and military and if numbers of dead are the metric you judge things by then the British were less "callously indifferent" than many others.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:08 PM

..and Victoria was dead.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:05 PM

Jim, I think we all knew already what imperialism was and is, but this is about WW1.

I think the Germans were more confident of their huge armies winning than their handicapped leader.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:01 PM

my view that the default position was to do as you were told.

I do not think the Lefties and Socialists of that time would accept that slur.

I earlier quoted the Socialist Party of Belgium in 1914 who issued a statement to say that their members were defending themselves against 'militarist barbarism' and fighting for liberty and democracy.

The leading left wing paper in Britain then was The Manchester Guardian.

"The Manchester Guardian had been very strongly opposed to war, and frankly isolationist. No one was more insistent on the need to keep out of a European war than the paper's chief leader writer and deputy editor, CE Montague. But when war was declared, he was so appalled by German perfidy that he enlisted, aged 47, dying his grey hair to conceal his age."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:00 PM

"but sometimes making a stand against an aggressor is the lesser evil."
Then why not put Vickie in the ring with Kaiser Bill and let them kick it out - it had sweet FA to do with the millions of lads who had no quarrel with each other perished in the mud of Europe while they both sat at home in comfort (or back safe at Central Command, quaffing Whisky and sodas).
One was no more "evil that the other - ask the 10 million dead Congolese or those being treated as wealth-producing slaves throughout the British or any other Empire.
Jim Carroll

imperialism
......Before the 1800s, Western nations did business in Africa and Asia within existing trade and political networks. After the Industrial Revolution, Western powers used their superior weapons and powerful iron warships to conquer much of the world, especially lands in Africa and Asia. In 1800, Western powers controlled 35 percent of the world's land surface; by 1914, they controlled 84 percent. When a nation dominates or controls another land physically, economically, or politically, it is called imperialism. Western imperialism placed millions of black and brown people under the control of white people.
......Imperialism was encouraged by nationalism; European nations wanted to increase their power and pride by adding new colonies. Imperialism was also supported by racist attitudes like social Darwinism. Europeans claimed to be doing "backward" people a favor by conquering their lands and bringing them Western advancements. But the most important force behind imperialism was money. The Industrial Revolution changed Europe from a consumer of manufactured goods to a producer, and Europe's factories needed places to sell their products. One Englishman said, "There are 40 million naked people [in Africa], and the cotton spinners of Manchester are waiting to clothe them." Colonies provided Europe's factories with new markets for manufactured goods, and cheap raw materials to feed Europe's machines.
A guide to teaching World History

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:32 PM

Don't suppose youd'd care to comment on Israel banning the book 'Borderlife' in schools....

Hey Jew hater, the topic is WWI - can't pass up any opportunity, can you, oh obsessive one?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:28 PM

Dave, you asserted that the people were lied to about the Germans in 1914.
Asked to support that statement, you suggested a book that you had not read and which did not support your assertion anyway!
Nothing else from you on that so far.
You made it up.

Today you asserted that your opinions are based on a lot of reading, but you declined a request to say what.
As nothing written in the last twenty years by any historian does support your views, I think you made that up as well.

Will you tell us now what you have read that supports your opinions on WW1?
Will you tell us now what you have read that supports your assertion that the people were lied to about the Germans in 1914?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:27 PM

"It was Musket who started on Keith A with the TC jibes "
Did you really say "He hit me first sir"?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:25 PM

"Oh Jom, I take it then that you were never bullied at school then."
Let's say I'm usd to thugs like you - I invariably found them pitiful know - nothings who ran squealing and whining to the teacher when the tables were turned - recognise the description?
If you think it important enough to defend people like Keith, who is quite capable of his own hand-wringing bullying and insulting, then try to behave like an adult and stop it yourself - it makes you look stupid to accuse people of what you have become noted for.
You really are not tall enough to talk down to anybody so stop digging holes.
Get a grip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:25 PM

Dave, you asserted that the people were lied to in 1914.
Asked to support that statement, you suggested a book that you had not read and which did not in anyway support your assertion anyway.
Nothing else from you on that so far.
You made it up.

Today you asserted that your opinions are based on a lot of reading, but you declined a request to say what.
As nothing written in the last twenty years by any historian does support your views, I think you made that up as well.

Will you tell us now what you have read that supports your opinions on WW1?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:24 PM

Correct Keith. No "single" historian at all.

An amalgamation of consensus coupled with historical fact and present day evidence.

The sanitisation of military incompetence, political blunder and callous indifference to those in your charge are there, as an elephant in The Litte Englander's room. No amount of scoffing or treating opinion as fact can alter that.

Guest- Whilst I accept that church attendance was dwindling slightly in Edwardian times, the rise of many alternatives at that time reinforces my view that the default position was to do as you were told. Clergy were, as ever, good recruiting sergeants.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:20 PM

"Keith, let me ask you again:

Do you deny that 17 million died?"

Let me ask you academic GUEST Dave - are you really as thick and indoctrinated as you appear to be in print?

I ask as your question has been answered quite a number of times now and the answer has been that NO-ONE denies the number of people who died in the course of the First World War - now what part of that do you not understand - or do you seek further clarification?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:16 PM

DtG, I have not changed any of my claims.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:11 PM

No-one thinks wars are a good thing, but sometimes making a stand against an aggressor is the lesser evil.

WW2 cost 60 million lives, but most of us would still argue it was the right thing to do.

I have just said what the history books all say about WW1.
Jim, Dave and Musket hold views that no single historian of WW1 endorses.

Unless every historian is wrong, they are.

None of them has read any history of the subject written for at least twenty years. Their opinions are not based on any actual knowledge, just politically motivated propaganda.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 11:21 AM

Incidentally Brucie
Don't suppose youd'd care to comment on Israel banning the book 'Borderlife' in schools because it "encourages assimilation" - didn't think so!!
They'll be burning them neext.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 10:59 AM

"My, my but isn't someone totally lacking self awareness."
Want to show where I'be behaved like a thug - O anonymous one (probably Bruce again)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:56 AM

Your persistently thuggish behaviour.....

My, my but isn't someone totally lacking self awareness.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:38 AM

I have not made many comments on here for reasons given very early on but since teribums seems to insist on bring me into it...

The war was necessary has now become That Great Britain viewed the war as one on necessity to protect its own national interests and to honour Treaty obligations.

That everyone supported it has now become That in general the British people supported the Government view and reading of the situation and backed the Government in the pursuit and prosecution of the war against Germany throughout the war.

That the British troops were well led has now become That in general compared to the other combatant powers the British, Commonwealth and Empire armies were well led.

I expect before long that machine guns will become tickling sticks, mustard gas will become happy juice and 17 million dead will become a host of golden daffodils.

You will get used to this, Guest, Dave. When faced with any opposition the usual tactics are abuse and a quick re-write of the rules. You will get used to it and realise that the only thing you can do is either get out of it altogether or just take the piss.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:07 AM

Keith, let me ask you again:

Do you deny that 17 million died?

If you do, then you will be able to point to the historians whose research casts doubt on this number. Even if its David Irving.

If you do not, then your opinion is clearly that the deaths of 17 million were worthwhile in your cause. If that is your view, they you can hold it, I find it repugnant. If historians also hold that view, then I find their views repugnant also, but they are no more qualified to express an opinion than you or I. If that question is in academic realm, it is moral philosophy not history.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:38 AM

"Your post referred to above. If you take as a start point the time when you and your lot jumped in to mob and bully Keith"
Your persistently thuggish behaviour gives you the least right to call anybody a bull;y - go and read your own disparaging posts and count the growing number of questions you still refuse to answer
Th pair of you have persistently resorted to lies - Keith at least attempts to hide behind cut'-n-pastes - you just pronounce and expect everybody to fall flat on our faces.
Give us a break - you wannabe Flashman - stop addressing people as if they are all oiks - that world is as outdated as the one that gave us WW1, fags and common-rooms - you're not at Greyfiars now.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:23 AM

"The informed, evidence based opinion of an historian "
It is opinion - Sheffield's brief if not to give such opinions, his opinions are worth no more than anybody else's
The same goes for every other historian past or present.
Whether the war was worthwhile is a philosophical or political subject not a historical one.
You have been given the political outcome, you choose to scurry behind historians you have not read and don't understand - you are defending your right-wing political position and totally ignoring the obscenity that the war was - very Christian of you!!
"Can you name a single historian who holds a different view?"
Society in general holds that the war was an obscenity - that's why this 'Blackadder'/'Oh What a Lovely War' campaign has been launched.
For Christ's sake Keith - if you support this slaughter, say so and stop hiding behind "experts" again - what do YOU think anout it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:04 AM

"I challenge and defy you". This is a debate forum idiot, not a mediaeval chivalric tournament.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:59 AM

Dave, if your opinion is based on any history written in the last twenty years, then tell us what it was.

I do not believe there is anything you could base those opinions on.
I challenge and defy you to identify anything.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:57 AM

Guest, not to mention Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg, which killed around twice that number. And the codename of the operation suggests that they knew exactly what they were doing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:53 AM

"Again, what is you opinion worth when it is based on an absence of any knowledge or reading?"

It is based upon quite a lot of knowledge and reading. And the fact, which you have not denied, that 17 million died.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:52 AM

Jim,
yet he still thinks the war was worthwhile - no argument there - he is entitled to his opinion - that's what it is AN OPINION

The informed, evidence based opinion of an historian is worth more than than any number of uninformed whims founded on nothing but political dogma.

And not just Sheffield.
Can you name a single hhistorian who holds a different view?
No. You have been trying for years.
All you can do is selectively quote Sheffield hoping to misrepresent his actual view.

Either every historian is deluded, or you are Jim.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:35 AM

Civilians killed in Belgium in the German advance approx. 8000

Civilians killed in one bombing raid on Dresden approx. 22,700 maybe more.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:01 AM

"Jim you know well that Sheffield believes the war to have been necessary and the army generally well and competently led."
And you have exactly what he said in exactly the words he used
He describes incompetence and ignorance, yet he still thinks the war was worthwhile - no argument there - he is entitled to his opinion - that's what it is AN OPINION
He is a spokesman for military affairs, an employee of the war department - he is bound to think as he does, but it has nothing whatevr to do with the fact that he knows and says that the lives lost where "wasted" - which is, as far as I;m concerned, what any discussion on this ****** war should be about - the decimation of Europe's youth to maintain the status quo pertaining at the time.
The people of Britain gained nothing from the war other than depression, mass unemployment and poverty, appeasement to fascism and permanent war from then till now.
That was what all those lives were expended for - Sheffield supports all that and no doubt you do.
""Douglas Haig was 'brilliant to the top of his Army boots'."
You don't even understand Lloyd George's caustic comment on Haig - he hated the man and pointed out that he totally lacked humanity and was incapable of thinking outside of the military box - he couldn't even communicate with his own fellow officers and staff, - that is what that comment is about.
Probably the greatest betrayal of the British people was the fact that the political and military leadership spent as much, if not more time fighting each other than they did the Germans - they were all remote and elitist, defending a rigidly class-divided society and Haig was the worst of them (Kitchener was a close runner-up to the extend#t that it was rumoured that his death was deliberately brought about).
Sheffield attempts to rehabilitate Haig from his widespread reputation of "the Butcher of the Somme" and fails miserably.
"The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability."
McMillan makes the same point, but she points out that it took four years of horrendous war to arrive at that position - both she and Christopher Clark make the point as a criticism - 'eventually, after all that carnage, they finally got there'. Clark deliberately chose his title' 'The Sleepwalkers' to emphasise Britain's unreadiness for war throughout the war.
"The victory in 1918 was the payoff. "
Sheffield's and Terrytoon's point - all those lives were worth sacrificing - cannon fodder - sacrificial lambs - expendable - the traditional right wing elitist view of 'lesser human being' outside the circle of the elite.
Wonder how you square that with your supposed Christianity - certanly not the view held by the "normal human beings" come across on a daily basis.
Any more on how the war was 'really fought' yet Keith?
Don't suppose so!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:51 AM

Dave,
"We fought to resist the invasions which also threatened our own security."
Shades of "45 minutes". Nothing changes.

You are denying that there was a threat, but the fear of invasion was genuine.
There was self interest in addition to a will to defend Belgium from an imperialist militarist invader.

Again, what is you opinion worth when it is based on an absence of any knowledge or reading?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:46 AM

This is one relevant paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15603896

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:40 AM

Greg, I think that you might need to go to an academic library for full texts of John Oxford's work, though abstracts are available on PubMed which is public domain. Careful though there is more than one J. Oxford publishing in medicine, but anything on influenza will be his.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:33 AM

Jim,
'Gallant little Belgium'was a recruiting ploy

No. It was the reason we entered the war.
Otherwise we were intending to stay out.
along with your lurid description of Germans raping and massacring their way across Europe -

"Lurid" but true. That is what happened and there was a very reasonable fear that we would be next.

If there where not enough left to volunteer where did the conscription come from - out of thin air?

People who would have volunteered anyway. To increase enlistment they had to relax physical requirements and accept older men.

All accounts from the history books and especially from the on-lin soldiers diaries explain it exactly and being like that

No they do not. I have read them. You have not.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:25 AM

Jim you know well that Sheffield believes the war to have been necessary and the army generally well and competently led.
By exquisitely selective quoting from a balanced article you have dishonestly tried to reverse its message.

Let me do the same.
Opening sentence,
"Douglas Haig was 'brilliant to the top of his Army boots'. David Lloyd George's view sums up the attitude of many people towards Haig and other British generals of World War One. "

" Haig's army played the leading role in defeating the German forces in the crucial battles of 1918. In terms of the numbers of German divisions engaged, the numbers of prisoners and guns captured, the importance of the stakes and the toughness of the enemy, the 1918 'Hundred Days' campaign rates as the greatest series of victories in British history.

Even the Somme (1916) and Passchendaele (1917), battles that have become by-words for murderous futility, not only had sensible strategic rationales but qualified as British strategic successes, not least in the amount of attritional damage they inflicted on the Germans."

Concluding paragraph
" He (Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:16 PM

I do have my own discussion forum.

Then shut it down because I don't like it.

Please do so!

Pretty please?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:57 PM

He is alive and as far as I know well, though now 73, is still one of the most active researchers in the field of virology

Yeah well, alive, OK but he still ain't one of what the Professor would call an historian, is he?

Are his works available in real bookshops??

If not, thus irrelevant.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:08 PM

Well done, gusset of 02:58pm. As inane comments go yours takes first prize but I suppose it will help to get this nonsense closed. I'll let you into a little secret though. I do have my own discussion forum. You are welcome to join if you can figure out what it is. Oh, hang on. That would mean you letting someone know who you are. I can't see that happening somehow...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:38 PM

He is alive and as far as I know well, though now 73, is still one of the most active researchers in the field of virology:

http://www.oxfordmedicine.co/john-oxford.php

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:32 PM

why Professor John Oxford's research should be considered as discredited.

HEY! First off, is he alive or dead & canhis works be found in "real" bookshops???

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:25 PM

Peeing in a onesie is bloody hilarious. Anyway, back to the substantive. England 1 Germany 0. Replay to come. Aka Chelsea 25, Man U 24 aet. Both teams really well led, especially Chelsea. Not!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:58 PM

Surely, Jeri, it is in your power to put a stop to this ludicrous thread and all the others that are bound to follow.

Please do so!

Pretty please?

Here's a friendly tip Dave the Gno-one; If you want to dictate how a discussion forum is run then start your own.......simple!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:55 PM

"Jim, Britain did not enter the war for imperial gain."
Rthey entered the war to protect their colonial and political interests - for no other reason 'Gallant little Belgium'was a recruiting ploy2 along with your lurid description of Germans raping and massacring their way across Europe - it was an Imperial War in defence of Empire.

"The numbers volunteering increased dramatically when the British Army was thought to be defeated "
These are the monthly recruiting figure from the start of the war to compulsory recruitment was introduced - no dramatic fluctuation.
298.923, 462.901, 136.811, 169.862, 117.860, 156.290, 87.896 , 119.087, 135.263, 114.67, 9 95.413 95.980, 71.617 113.285, 121.793, 55.152, 65.965

"When there were just not enough left to volunteer,"]
If there where not enough left to volunteer where did the conscription come from - out of thin air?

"Sheffield does not Jim"
""One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence."
Gary Sheffield
The word Sheffield uses was "waste" - maybe he was lying - or are you ?

Re the way the war was fought:
"Of course I disagree. Where do you get this stuff."
All accounts from the history books and especially from the on-lin soldiers diaries explain it exactly and being like that - that has never been in question certain not by any historian.
Sheffield mentions the losses of Passchendaele and the Somme, but he and others thing it (the gains of Empire) were worth those lives.
f you have an alternative - give it - I didn't ask for a denial even though I knew that's what'd get.
C'mon Keith - even you can do better than this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:33 PM

Because the peeing in a onesie thread is mildly amusing and does not denigrate the deaths of 17 million people?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:25 PM

Why on earth would you want jeri to close this thread while others like "Peeing in a onesie" are left on the board?
Besides, it is interesting and instructive to see how many knots you pin dancers can tie yourselves into, while you try to escape incoming facts and rationality.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:23 PM

Oh, but he's the world expert on health, especially twisting health statistics to support the less savoury member of his fan club.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:22 PM

"We fought to resist the invasions which also threatened our own security."

Shades of "45 minutes". Nothing changes.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:11 PM

Jim, Britain did not enter the war for imperial gain.
It was intending to keep out of it.
The invasion of Belgium was not expected, and so neither was our entry.

As a consequence the army was unprepared and ill equipped to face the German onslaught.
We fought to resist the invasions which also threatened our own security.

Of course there were encouragements to join, but the numbers volunteering overwhelmed the capacity of the army to process them anyway.

The numbers volunteering increased dramatically when the British Army was thought to be defeated and running, and total defeat imminent.
Any prospect of winning seemed years away and imminent defeat far more likely.

When there were just not enough left to volunteer, conscription was brought in but it did not produce many extra men. Those who had not volunteered mostly had valid reasons not to go. It was necessary to lower the physical requirements and to admit older men.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:53 PM

Jim says:

"World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over. "

and I entirely agree. I am not saying that the British were more culpable than the Germans or indeed less. Unfortunately only the Russians had the nous and nerve to do anything about it