BS: Lest we forget

Subject: BS: Lest we forget
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 06:11 AM

In the run-up to Armistice Day (UK) when we are buying red poppies for the Royal British Legion, can I also commend the white poppies of the Peace Pledge Union. I wear both: to show support for the RBL's fine work in supporting war-damaged personnel and their families with mental, physical and financial problems and for the Peace Pledge Union's work to promote peaceful resolution of conflicts to reduce the number of potential future casualties.
I am not naive enough to think we can abolish all wars but I think we could do more to prevent them.
Two solutions to stop the old, rich and powerful from continuing to send the young, poor and disadvantaged off to die or be maimed (neither practical as they would need both sides to agree): 1)Raise the recruitment age to 65
2)Put the members of parliament (or local equivalent) in the front line with no exceptions.
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,#
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 08:47 AM

Canadian here, Roger. I've always seen the red poppy as two things:

a) an act of remembrance
b) the hope it never happens again

I think the white poppy campaign is here, too. Frankly, I'm not sure how to view it.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 08:52 AM

If the leaders cannot serve, send their children or grandchildren to the war zone -- not to a safe billet in the rear, either, but up front. Not necessarily in direct combat, but even the supply rooms there can be dangerous and company clerks can be wounded or killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 11:33 AM

Something not terribly savoury about what is being discussed here.

Lest we forget.

Lest we forget and start wishing ill will on those who put themselves forward to represent us. People fought in wars to make a better world, or so they thought. Not to fantasise over putting the families of others in harms way.

Red poppies acknowledge the sacrifice of others. I wear one. I for one don't need to advertise my pacifism. I certainly don't assume politicians are flippant. Incompetent sometimes, crooked occasionally and ideological often, but bloodthirsty?

What a weird thought.

The sons of MPs in both world wars fought and died, in case nobody noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:09 PM

I do sympathize and , like most human beings, would like to live in peace. However, I feel that Aristice Day must be for the sole purpose of remembering those who have given so much to maintain our freedoms. My family is acutely aware of those losses to this day. Therefore I wish to see Nov. 11 devoted to them and to them alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:14 PM

the enemy would be very happy to be fighting us 65'ers with their 20 year old men and women.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:17 PM

I wish the US still called it Armistice Day. Armistice is something I can really get behind. Here it is Veteran's Day, and you are supposed to celebrate having been in a war rather than having gotten out of one, which I find sad, reprehensible, and both sadly and reprehensibly unsurprising for Americans.

I don't support the troops, as we are supposed to call what used to be called individual soldiers but you can't say soldier generically to include non-infantry apparently nowadays but using troop to mean a person is downright silly instead, who volunteered to go kill people who are vaguely associated with terrorism. I would support those who volunteer to go fight ebola, but haven't seen a surge in that yet.

But I absolutely celebrate the end of individual wars. Let's end more of them, and have more celebrations of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 12:19 PM

Also I should mention that the US uses Memorial Day (last weekend in May) to commemorate those *fallen* in battle, they are not what Veteran's Day is about here. Lest we get confused across ponds.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 31 Oct 14 - 02:06 PM

The confusion across the ponds usually lasted a couple of years at a time....

Better late than never eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 05:44 AM

Last week we visited the moat of poppies at the Tower of London, which really gives an impression (though still too few) of the numbers involved. Yesterday I also visited the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrewas for the first time since just after it opened. As well as the, sadly still growing, memorial wall to the fallen post-1945, and the memorials to the fighting services in all wars, there are memorials to the non-combatants who also served: Friends' Ambulance Unit, Salvation Army, Firefighters, Women's Land Army & Forestry Corps etc.
Both sites are very moving.
Whenever I visit war graves I am always struck by the youth of the casualties and remember my two uncles: Wilf who died in his teens in WW1 and Jack who was killed aged 27 in WW2.

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 08:38 AM

growing up in the 1950s, the memory of WWII was still pretty fresh in my family and others... both my parents were in the American Legion (the Women's Auxillary for mom) and the big parade was in May for our Memorial Day and paper red poppies are sold. Veteran's Day always more subdued. Here in western NY, many legion posts hold steak suppers, with the meals free for the vets. The bumper sticker message is "thank a vet."

Now, what I would really like to see is tomorrow's election kick out the SOBs that send young people to war and then neglect them when they return. Shameful!

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 08:41 AM

The Canadian government does that to our vets. Then we tell them November 11 is their special day. Right!

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 09:12 AM

There have been complaints that the river of poppies is 'too pretty'. I don't agree. We know war is ugly. That doesn't mean memorials have to be ugly. The poppies round the Tower of London impress by their sheer number. That is their point, and that is why they are so moving.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Nov 14 - 01:16 PM

Wow, when I saw the Tower there weren't those poppies there. That is impressive. I like it. Very impressive, and representative. And pretty, too, but that seems secondary to the initial impact of Oomph.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,Dáithí
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 08:17 AM

Remembering with respect - and sadness- is fine. i have no problem with hat at all.
Just wondering what Uk-ers think of the BBC's policy that everybody who appears on their news bulletins etc has to wear a poppy. Does the fact that it seems mandatory actually devalue it in some way?

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 08:53 AM

"Just wondering what Uk-ers think of the BBC's policy that everybody who appears on their news bulletins etc has to wear a poppy."

I don't know if it is actually compulsory, I don't believe so. I know BBC World actually banned the wearing of poppies in 2001 (It caused one hell of a stink when Robert Fox of the London Evening Standard was told to remove his poppy before he was interviewed by the BBC - they were forced to apologise later.).

"Does the fact that it seems mandatory actually devalue it in some way?"

BBC is funded from the public purse and by a compulsory licence fee. As one of the country's "institutions" it would not be out of place for them to "set the tone" - it is for us a well known mark of respect for those who gave their lives in the cause of freedom - it is non-denominational and as such carries significance to all.

So my answer to your question as far as I am concerned is a simple and straightforward NO. Presenters and Reporters on BBC wearing remembrance poppies do not devalue it - it is a personal choice, and the money raised does a tremendous amount of good.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 04 Nov 14 - 07:03 PM

What happens is the old buffers deluge the BBC with "it's disgusting" letters if someone doesn't wear a poppy, without examining what their disgust is all about.

Why does the RBL do such stirling work? Because the PM's word is worthless when it comes to the NHS treatment of injured soldiers: he said they would be given priority treatment. Not that he and his are anything more than heirs to a disgusting stitchup that's gone on since Wellington considered his men the scum of the earth, and their fathers were only in the Army because it was the only way to avoid a hanging. It was the Liberals, Herbert Asquith and David Lloyd George, who were in charge throughout WWI. Labour bears the responsibility for the latest war, and Cameron for still not doing anything now. Because there is NO decent provision ANYWHERE, in the private sector included, for the mentally harmed. Because the MOD does not treat soldiers and their families like human beings, even now. Once some charity does something the State is supposed to do, some bureaucrat starts pocketing the dosh for his own private projects, without exception. So it becomes "not the done thing" not to support the cop-out.

The poppy is redolent of WWI. It actually became part of the causus belli in Afghanistan! The focus remains around a monument marked "The Glorious Dead". Until that is removed and we weep for our dead as real people (and there are several hundred I have a small part in the responsibility for, which causes me grief each day, and will do until the day I die, I think), and not as icons (the cenotaph being an empty tomb), then we are not acting responsably. How can we really mean "we will remember them" from WWI when we never knew them. Why not Agincourt, Waterloo or any of the myriad other fields of conflict this nation has been involved in? Yet again, it's a cop-out.

It's a cop-out because there is little more that can be done for the dead. They are buried and their graves are maintained: what more can we do for them? Care for their families, perhaps, and that's patchy too. What a responsible Nation does is do what it can for the living, most specifically the injured, and as I've said, we don't. That is the fault of those who take responsibility for the management of the Nation, and when they line up for a Church Service on Whitehall, rather than do something real, anything, for the forgotten Tommies, then excuse me if I puke. I at least always worked on 11th November in Belgium, a Memorial day the Nation has as a holiday, I worked doing something to stop it happening again.

Lest we forget. That in and of itself is a cop out. It must NOT stop with remembering, it goes into the heart of that final verse of Kipling's Tommy:

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! "
But it's " Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An 'Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

It's not in the remembering once a year, it's in the doing and undoing every day of the year. Because the lad without legs has it every day of the year. Because the girl who no longer knows which way is up psychologically has it every day of the year. We should not talk of the Glorious Dead, but of the indefatigable survivors, indefatigable because they cannot afford to tire, because they do not have the option of sighing and saying "thank heavens that's over for another year". It's in the very real fact that the vast majority of homeless share a common trait: they are former members of the military. We need serious and committed provision: the US has gone a small step in realising the truth of the need for provision for veterans, but the reality of the matter even there is also scandalous: the Inspector General is mired in a major furore over Phoenix, as the tip of an iceberg.

And until that happens, the pious claptrap of yesteryear becomes a copout we should name as a hypocritical, shameful excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 08:34 AM

The money from poppies is for damaged veterans silly.
Buy one and wear it for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 08:36 AM

And,   BBC says it is voluntary not mandatory for their people to wear one on screen.
Is that OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:08 AM

I assume the point of early on-screen poppy wearing is to encourage and remind the general public.

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:25 AM

I think Keith is correct there is no such BBC directive that everyone must wear poppies so the question is a red herring. Some may feel pressurised into wearing them but that comes from viewers sometimes complaining that they aren't being worn!

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:36 AM

Guest Rahere perhaps you should have referenced that "quote" of the Duke of Wellington's and stated it in its complete form:

1: It is a note of a conversation with the Duke dated 11th November 1831 and the subject under discussion was the difference between the French and British Armies in Spain in 1813.

2: The complete quote is as follows:

"A French army is composed very differently from ours. The conscription calls out a share of every class — no matter whether your son or my son — all must march; but ours friends — I may say it in this room — are the very scum of the earth. People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling — all stuff — no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children — some for minor offences — many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are.

The Duke of Wellington was renowned for never forgetting the men who served under him. In his final years as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports a veteran of the Peninsula campaign a former Sergeant came knocking at his door down on his luck. He asked the Duke for some work and the Duke said that he needed a gardener at Walmer Castle his "Official Residence" the former Sergeant said, "But your Grace, I know nothing of gardening" and the Duke replied, "Neither do I, but you will learn." And learn he did, evidenced by a Cherry Tree that still stands in the grounds that that old Sergeant had grown from a Cherry Stone and planted.

Special Military Hospitals were built at Chelsea in London and at Kilmainham in Dublin and the Royal Hospital at Haslar. These were closed down, Haslar being the last in 2001, before our troops were sent to Afghanistan - this was done on Tony Blair's watch as a cost cutting exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 09:56 AM

I wear my poppy, although not with pride.

I fully accept that many died thinking their death was a price worth paying for future generations. It heaps insult to injury to face the truth. They were lions led by donkeys. Callous disregard by gungho fools.

One reason why WW2 was dealt with better by the top brass is that they saw the errors and criminal mistakes of the then top brass in the first war when they were junior officers and didn't wish to inflict that on their men.

The revisionists have been busy the last couple of years, trying to clean up the reputation of the butcher of The Somme, but people aren't as gullible now. Even Cameron had to upset the loony fringe of his party by removing the word "celebration" from the centennial proceedings. We don't seem to learn. Even now, fools use terms such as "legitimate targets" and other jingoistic subjective terms that slip so easily onto their keyboards from the GHQ of Suburbia.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 11:08 AM

You think you know more about the History than the historians, but you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 11:32 AM

We never forget our men. But what we are allowed to do for them by the MOD is an utter disgrace: the military are supposed to be a family, but what kind of family leaves its members dossing on the streets?
It's partly because the weight of the local regiments has been demolished. Once, the lads were locals, and owned by the locals: now they can be from anywhere.
We saw what happened when the Army was disbanded after the Napoleonic Wars. The difference between then and now is that now, these lads are all volunteers, putting their skins in the way of harm to stop it coming here. They deserve better: I quote from the MOD's own Armed Forces Covenant, "Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most such as the injured and the bereaved". So why are they not getting it? Why does the RBL and its peers have to fill in the gaps? This is obviously the Gret Lie once again, some things never change.

Keith, your comment on what the money is being raised for utterly misses the point: it should not be the RBL's responsibility in the first place. If HMG puts volunteers in harms way, it's HMG's responsibility to deal with the consequences. Fair enough, if you volunteer for something which is likely to do so, then you have some responsibility yourself, but it's part of the Military Covenant that the State must look after you reasonably if you get hurt defending the State. The RBL is simply letting warmongers and bloody incompetent MOD civil servants off the hook. Next time, i'd dearly like to send an equal number of MOD staff with the troops to get a serious experience of what they are doing: only something like that will shake their ideas up, and I'd start with senior grades. Get them to do the cooking, they spend enough time cooking the books as it is.

And as far as whether the wearing of the poppy was compulasory or not, the one time it came up in the The Papers BBC News program a couple of days back, what transpired is that one of the critics had forgotten theirs so one was provided for her - lest the oversight be taken for nonconformity.

If for some reason you dislike this bitter truth, the answer ois not to shoot the messenger, but rather target the bastards who said one thing and did another with the oprobrium they so richly deserve. and that does not mean bands and ceremonial next Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 12:02 PM

Which historians? The ones who write objective accounts or the newspaper hacks sniffing for their next gong?

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom the Boom Boom Boom moderators Boom Boom Boom Boom are Boom Boom Boom looking Boom Boom Boom for Boom Boom me Boom Boom Boom to Boom Boom Boom Noom be Boom Boom Boom calling Boom Boom Boom Boom a Boom Boom Boom thick Boom Boom Boom cunt Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 01:48 PM

Today we also remember remember gunpowder treason and plot!

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: bubblyrat
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 02:03 PM

I don't understand all the fuss . If one is conscripted in wartime,then yes,conditions of service ,pay, etc might well be less than either satisfactory or indeed attractive . However, peacetime military / nautical/ aeronautical service on a voluntary basis is very different.Of course,I cannot speak from experience of service conditions in this day and age ,but I have no complaints about my nautical (Fleet Air Arm ) service from Feb 1964- July 1974 .In fact ,when I became ill in 1971, and was treated at both Haslar and Netley hospitals , I had nothing but the best of treatment and care.Eventually, I was discharged medically,and have been in receipt of a Royal Navy pension for 40 years !!

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Nov 14 - 02:44 PM

Which historians Musket?
All of them.
Remember that you could not find a single living historian holding those views, but I produced any number rubbishing them.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 02:21 AM

"You think you know more about the History than the historians, but you don't."
Still living on invented statements by invented historians Keith - or should that be invnted statements by tabloid journalists?
Remember - you never produced one scrap of evidence disproving the argument put forward by the WW1 series which uncovered the lying and corruption that went into forcing and cajoling millions of young men to their deaths - not one
Nothing changes, other than your support for jingoistic carnage
Rule Britannia, eh what!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 03:19 AM

He put the rider "living" on account of Alan Clarke's "Donkeys."

All of them... You forgot Baldrick, you TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 03:54 AM

How far back are we supposed to remember?
I am a post WW2 person but I can remember my great-grandmother and she could remember people alive during the Napoleonic Wars.
And who are we supposed to remember?
I thought that the point of the white poppy is that is in remembrance of all affected by war not just the military. I hear that sales of the white poppy have increased this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 04:41 AM

None of the TV documentaries perpetuated the discredited "lions donkeys" slur.
I put up many historians including all those involved with BBC who rejected that.
You people could not find one single living historian who still holds that discredited view.

Historical knowledge is advanced by building on the work of previous historians and finding new evidence.
I believe the historians.
You really believe you know better.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 06:18 AM

I prefer history to historians if its all the same to you.

Jingoistic buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 06:19 AM

http://www.historynet.com/field-marshal-sir-douglas-haig-world-war-is-worst-general.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 06:20 AM

In case that was too difficult
LIONS LED BY DONKEYS

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 06:25 AM

A LION'S VIEW

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 06:44 AM

No need to repeat last year's thread, where I mentioned my ideas about politicians' responsibility, the topic of the OP.

@Black belt caterpillar wrestler: Remembering as much of history as we can is an extremely important aspect of understanding the world. In other words, we primarily need it for our own good, for our present and future societies. Those who only want to "remember" the parts that seem to support their egos, by borrowing splendour from the past of "their people", miss the point and will be easy victims of manipulation.

Right now we have wars that are commented by politicians and journalists in a dangerous manner, similar to the early 1900s. Many of them claim to work for peace, most actually gamble for their own interests. And yes, some do gamble with the lives of their sons and with their own lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 07:48 AM

Not to mention the odd journalist calling themselves historians and sanitising the past to defend the actions of the present.

Although most intelligent people see straight through it, there are always the odd bods of shallow intellect who soak up every last morsel of revisionist offal.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 09:19 AM

jim, thanks for the 'lions led by donkeys' article about Haig. it's very upsetting. i wonder how many veterans or widows of the dead lived to be aware of this view of their commander and their government/establishment? -who must really have had their work cut out to suppress these truths and keep any sense of loyalty together among their subjects of the day. i can't help thinking that the present establishment are still involved in large scale crimes against the people - using the poor and disadvantaged as expendable tools for pointless and heartless ideological tactics. i think all this is something to do with why i feel uncomfortable with a red poppy - it's somehow another establishment tactic- to honour our betrayed war dead while deflecting attention from those who were - and are- responsible for the criminal suffering they inflict on the good people of this - and any other- country.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 09:23 AM

I produced many professional historians.
You have still not found one single living historian who still believes the old lions donkeys myth.
That is because there aren't any.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 09:28 AM

Achmelvich, that article was written by some anon. blogger, not a historian.
Read some of the responses to it, and be aware that Haig was revered by veterans.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 10:26 AM

"Haig was revered by veterans"

Citation needed.

You see, I expect us all to take the word of each other, but in Keith's blinkered case, I am willing to make an exception.

The only bloke who prefers the title to the film with regard to "What a lovely war."

💣💣💣🔫🔫💣📕📗📘💷💷💷

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 11:09 AM

"I produced many professional historians."
You produced two - one employed as a lecturer by the War Department, and a tabloid journalist - neither of which you had read, just selected the convenient bits, as is your practice,
You ignored the conclusions of all the Paxman programmes, and when quotes were produced from disillusioned veteran soldiers, you called them liars.
The historians which were produced to counter your arguments, you dismissed as "unqualified" or "revisionist", just as you have dismissed the author of the above article, (published in two history journals) as " blogger)
Hague resigned in disgrace after his incompetence and arrogance caused the death of many thousand of young men at Mons - you may revere him, the men at the front gave their lives for him - donkey that he was.      
You remain the clown you always were
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 11:24 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 01:14 PM

i used to teach this stuff so know a bit - but can't really remember why it started other than it was an arms race that went horribly wrong. i believe that that is a lot more knowledge than the vast majority of the population have on the causes of the first world war (and no, some serbian getting shot was not a cause - it was an excuse. a spark.) i always think that the phrase 'lest we forget' is ironic and sick when we were never allowed to know the truth to forget it. i was guilty of forgetting just how evil and ruthless and feckless the warmongers can be - so thanks again for the reminder.
for anyone tempted to support our war leaders of the times, i suppose we can choose to interpret accounts of a century ago as we like. however, it would be awful to think that a hundred years from now anyone could look back at the likes of osborne and ian duncan smith and think they were anything but vicious, fascist idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 02:15 PM

There are cynical propagandists, but there are also people who more or less believe what they say, and may therefore be even more dangerous.

A Mudcat poster (I forgot who) held the opinion that even Hitler believed himself to be a "good guy". I am not quite convinced, but most people with a "moral compass" are quite good at justifying their actions for themselves. Even if we find their moral excuses valid, we must not praise their errors.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 02:54 PM

Jim, I produced a string of historians including all the ones involved in BBC history site.
I also produced many quotes from the Paxman programmes where straight to camera he refuted those myths.
Musket, read about Haig's funeral.
Earlier you said you prefer History to historians.
So, you think you know more about it than they do!

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Nov 14 - 03:10 PM

"Jim, I produced a string of historians including all the ones involved in BBC history site."
Yeah - sure you did Keith - don't you always!!!!
You deliberately ignored the episodes on recruiting, the fact that the main recruiter became a millionaire on the proceeds of his campaign to send young men to their deaths, the emotional blackmail involved and the fact that he was eventually jailed as a crook.
You ignored the disillusionment of the troops lucky enough to get home on leave and being disgusted to find that people were behaving as if the war wasn't happening, the fiasco of Haig having to resign because of his failure to deliver ammunition (what was it you said about him - adored by his men, or some such shit?)
You continue to ignore the charges against him, having tried to pass the author off as a "blogger".
You ranted at great length about the men who wnt away and returned "devoted to the cause" yet you choose to ignore the attitudes expressed by those who did return - oh, I forgot, tey're "liars"v aren't they...
As I said - flag-wagging clown of the first water.
Leopards, spots and all that!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 04:56 AM

Who was the author then Jim?
Obviously not a historian.
You can not deny that I produced a long list of professional respected and well known historians, and I will post it again if you have forgotten.
You have still not found one single living historian who holds those long discredited views,

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 05:25 AM

"Obviously not a historian."
Why - because he wasn't saying the things you wanted him to say presumably?
You continue to adopt the tactic of voiding what is being said (all a matter of recorded history - well covered in the second Paxman programme) and questioning the qualifications of the writer.
Why do continue to try to give the impression of actually read anything when you are noted for scrabbling round the net looking for bits to back your ignorance?
And you continue to inore the statement of the sreturning soldier - still liars eh?
Clown
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 05:41 AM

And while you bicker, a mod blocks the thread talking about the RBL plagiarising Eric Bolgle's The Green Fields of France. Uncredited, a stoned maundering of a half-remembered episode from a Cricklewood shebeen, is this really what we are come down to?
For myself, I'm outraged by the RBL wrapping themselves in the Peace Agenda.
Get out of each other's arses and get on with the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 05:51 AM

Haig was pumped up as a hero at the time of his funeral. Yes. But there again, so was Jimmy Saville.

💤

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 07:33 AM

Jim, historians' work is never anonymous like your blogger.
Musket, we tend to think that national outpouring of grief as fo Prncess Di's funeral and repatriations is a recent phenomenon.
A million lined the streets for Haig's funeral in London, and in Edinburgh the que to pass his coffin stretched for a mile despite driving sleet.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 08:48 AM

"Jim, historians' work is never anonymous like your blogger."
Respond to what he and others (including Paxman) have said, not who he is
The article is a reprint from another historical journal
You have the statement- roll out your "historians" to disprove it.
And once again, you have consigned the veterans as being "liars"
You are a Colonel Blimp caricature
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 08:59 AM

I didn't think it a recent phenomenon.




There again, I'm a historian!
😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 09:11 AM

"There again, I'm a historian!"
Ah- but are you "qualified - did you work for The Daily Mail?
No?
Then you don't count
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 09:24 AM

Ok. I once wrote an article for The Hull Daily Mail if that helps? (It included the line "Historically, services have been split between the two hospital sites" which is kind of a historical publication?)

Don't get excited Jim. He'll only move the goalposts....

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Nov 14 - 02:10 PM

Mail?
I am not a historian, I am informed by them.
That is why I no longer believe that shit about lions led by donkeys.
You will not find one single living historian who believes such tosh.
Paxman face to camera refuted it directly.
He is not a historian but many worked on the series.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: gnu
Date: 10 Nov 14 - 12:16 PM

Uncle Chic told me many stories. This is mild. Thanks, Chic. RIP.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 07:52 AM

The HISTORYnet.com – how wonderful

1: The great commanders of history fascinate us, and we read their biographies looking for one or more character attributes we believe accounted for their success. With Napoleon, for example, we think imagination. In Lee, we see audacity. Wellington, composure. Hannibal, daring. Of course, truly great generals seem to possess all these qualities to some degree. They are artists of a kind, blending in one person intelligence, intuition, courage, calculation and many other traits that allow them to see what others cannot and to act when the time is right. For students of military history, the question of what makes great commanders is inexhaustibly fascinating."

Really? Take a look at the selected "Great Commanders" – there are four of them, and of those Hannibal, Lee and Napoleon have one thing in common they were all defeated {Haig wasn't} – The last, Wellington was victorious {like Haig} .

But there is another thing that the four selected "Great Commanders" have in common with each other – they were present on each and every one of their selected battlefields and could see what was going on, because the armies they commanded were tiny in comparison to forces commanded by Haig, and likewise their battlefields were tiny in comparison, if a situation developed they just cantered over with their staff officers and put things to right. Haig could never do that purely due to size of his armies and the area he was responsible for

2: Haig's "thing for horses"?? No more so than any other commanding officer in any of the combatant armies fighting world wide during the conflict.

Under Haig the British and Commonwealth Armies singularly developed an integrated all arms approach to warfare that is still followed in conventional conflicts today – now in Haig's day an integrated all arms approach would involve artillery co-ordinated with infantry supported by aircraft, tanks and cavalry

By the way, the last British soldier to die in the First World War was?

"The final British soldier to be killed in action was Private George Edwin Ellison. At 9.30am Pte Ellison of the 5th Royal Irish Lancers was scouting on the outskirts of the Belgian town of Mons" - a cavalryman

3: Verdun and the Somme both fought in 1916 and neither fought as a matter of selection or choice on the part of the allied Generals involved saw the start of the end for Germany on the Western Front after these battles had ground to a halt Falkenhayn the German Commander was sacked.

4: Attrition is never an inspired strategy and is usually the refuge of a commander who cannot come up with anything better."

Then that should be laid at the door of the person responsible for creating it the German Commander Falkenhayn The strategy of attrition was the method chosen by the Germans, for them that was what 1916 was all about and they lost.

5: "Haig was, if anything, unimaginative. As Paul Fussell writes in his indispensable volume The Great War and Modern Memory, "In a situation demanding the military equivalent of wit and invention…Haig had none."

Still, in his defense, it's clear Haig honestly believed a massive frontal assault by British infantry would punch a hole in the German line, through which his cavalry would then charge to glory. On several occasions mounted troops were brought up in anticipation of the breakout that, of course, never occurred."

Ah but imaginative enough to change and adopt new tactics, more so than any other commanding general in the First World War. Cavalry were brought up and were used to exploit gaps and pursue the fleeing enemy from 1917 onwards - Sorry I don't think too much of this chap Fusell's research, basically it sucks..

By the way if you are faced with the reality of having a continuous line of trenches and defences running from the North Sea coast to the Swiss border – what other alternative is there for attacking your enemy other than by frontal assault?

6: 1917 was quite a successful year for the British Army no new tactics? MYTH look up the battles fought under Haig by Plumer, Rawlinson, Currie and Monash. One thing and one thing alone hampered the allies and the Germans alike during the Passchendaele Offensive and that was the weather which became a factor after the battle was joined.

7: Ah according to Fusell the Americans came riding to the rescue in 1918 – Bollocks they had no rifles, machine guns, artillery, aircraft or tanks – all those, plus the ammunition required for them, had to be given to the Americans by the French and by the British. In terms of numbers their contribution was more valuable as propaganda than in the actual contribution you could have expected from fighting men, while their losses amounted to some 112,000 men only half that number died in combat.

8: At the conclusion of Operation Michael – the last major German Offensive of the First World War which had attacked the British, it was the British and Commonwealth Armies that went over onto the offensive just 21 days later using the tactics introduced on the Somme in 1916 and perfected during 1917, the afternoon start time, creeping barrage, immediately and closely followed by the infantry supported by tanks and aircraft and the gaps exploited by cavalry and light tanks. From the 8th August to the 11th November it pushed the Germans out of France and forced then to retreat beyond their own Hindenburg Line of defences. The 8th August 1918 was described by Ludendorff as being "the Black Day of the German Army".

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 09:03 AM

5. By exploiting the salient as a form of flanking. It's how the Germans werre finally broken, and the germ of the idea was obviously there from the start, it's the understanding of it which was lacking. You stage a limited frontal assault to the point at which it is about to stall, and then exploit the containing flanks, weakened by the push. Either the troops holding the edges of the broken line retire, causing chaos in the area you're targetting, or they get cut off. Let's look at the right flank exploitation. Youe either keep going, rolling up the opposition, or you penetrate and then turn left. The troops there, probably either recuperating or second-level, will be focused on what's happening to their right, the head of the original salient, and so get flanked by the attack, and so it continues, much like following the mortar lines up a wall, where the bricks are the enemmy strongpoints.
In fact, it wasn't necessary to go that far, as the extra problem the Germans had is that they were on the outside of the curve around the north-east of France, stretching them further. The problem the defender has is that he must defend everywhere, and has to win each time: the attacker only has to win at one point and once. The Germans were stretched thin, broke, and rolled up.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 09:48 AM

Johnnie O'Neill, Indian Wars, Spanish War, Huk Rebellion; Albert Strunk, WWI; Don, Bob, Ralph and Earl Doellman, WWII; Gene and John Mueller, WWII; Roger Slocum, WWII; Don Slocum, Cold War; Bob Slocum, Vietnam; Ted Doellman, Vietnam; William Lyons, WWII; Buddy Lyons, WWII; Joe Weisgerber, WWII and Korea; Leo Weisgerber, Berlin Airlift; Tom Stahlberg, WWII; Garret Williams, WWII; Jerry Kugler, WWII; Doug Ruff, Vietnam; Leo Vogel, Vietnam; Mark Doellman, Gulf I; Nathan Mueller, Afghanistan; Al Weisgerber, WWII; Patricia Weisgerber, WWII....

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 11:39 AM

Wow! No wonder the world clamped down on David Irvine. When people are determined to whitewash the very title of this thread (ironically) it gathers pace and if you are not careful, normal people might end up believing it too.

I never realised revisionism could be so sick...

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 12:28 PM

What you call revisionism is the consensus view of all Historians today.
(Or have you finally found one that sees it your way? No hope I fear Musket, but what do they know compared to yourself!)

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 12:36 PM

I think there are a few million buried across Europe who might have time to consider it and give a perspective.

I note you have dropped the word "living" when you describe historians at this patriotic time when bleeding hearts give your views lip service.

How can a historian be wrong? Good question. How can a journalist be wrong? Good question. How can a politician be wrong? Good question. How can a dead soldier be wrong? He can't, he can just be dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 01:36 PM

An historian could easily be wrong, but not all of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Dead Horse
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 02:27 PM

As a comparatively recent (1976) serving soldier I can say that contrary to popular opinion, very few soldiers have ever laid down their lives for their country.
They may have enlisted in order to serve their country if they joined up in time of war, but they died for their mates, just as their mates would have died for them.
It is easier to understand as a civilian if you think of the army/navy/air force as a 'family'.
Once you realise that, it is easier to see why a soldier is willing to die for his/her brother/sister. It may sound trite, but it is perfectly true.
Home, England, Glory, Duty. Just words to the soldier.
What counts is not letting his brother down. He is covering your back and you are covering his.

As for the treatment of returning 'heroes' nothing has changed since Queen Elizabeth 1 watched as her seamen who had destroyed the Spanish Armada died of disease & starvation after the battle, or the survivors of the Light Brigade who were reduced to begging in the streets after the Crimean War - it has ever been thus, despite posturing by politicians who tell lies to win votes.

White poppies? Why?
Red poppies are for remembrance and are worn on Remembrance Day. Not, in my opinion, the White poppy.
The red poppy is not just for the military but also the civilian casualties.
The White poppy is for Peace and should be worn on World Peace Day.
I would happily wear one on that date, but NOT on Remembrance Day

I wont go on about what I think of the RBL or that bunch of crooks who call themselves Help4Heroes as that would take anothe couple of pages and might very well lead to my computer blowing a fuse.

Signed
'Disgusted' of Kent.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 02:58 PM

Hang on Dead Horse. Field Marshall Keith A Hole of Hertford VD & bar is just checking on the Internet to see if you are right or not.

Me? I saw a profession when I joined The RAF. Took me a few months to see the qualifications wouldn't be much use after my nine years, so I left and joined the coal board for a more recognised apprenticeship.

Like I said. A job. A job you learn to look after your mates with or there could be disastrous consequences. I looked after my mates backs down the pit, just as I would have done if I had stayed in the forces. The political arguments of whether we wanted coal I left to others. I left the romantic notions and nonsense to the MacColls of this world. Nothing funnier than hearing a teacher stick his finger in his ear and croon about how hard it is down the pit.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 05:16 PM

"According to Paul Fussell..."

Also according to "Oh! What a Lovely War," which offers a comparable view of history. The war is won in the screen version by the arrival of the no-nonsense General Pershing who, absurdly, takes silent charge of Allied Headquarters.

But seriously. The 112,000 American fatalities in World War I died no less hard than the 900,000 British (totals that include those who died not of wounds but of influenza in the fall of 1918). And since Americans were in major action for less than six months (not four years, like the British), that total is neither negligible nor incommensurable.

As another measure of the intensity of the US contribution: In terms of US combat deaths, six months of American campaigning in WW1 equaled nearly ten years in Vietnam.

Hardly a mere "propaganda" contribution.

2,000,000 Americans were in France in November, 1918, with 2,000,000 more in training in the United States. Economically weakened and psychologically weary, Germany could not hope to overcome the potential industrial and manpower impact of the United States on the conflict, no matter who provided the weapons.

While the Americans did not "win the war" (as they liked to believe), it is factually unwarranted to dismiss their contribution to the Allied victory in lives and treasure as mere "propaganda."

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Nov 14 - 07:59 PM

Actually, that figure for US combat deaths is low and the figure for VN is about half of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 14 - 03:46 AM

WW I United States Military records 1917 to 1918

"The United States entered World War I in April 1917. Over 4.7 million men and women served in the regular U.S. forces, national guard units, and draft units. There were 53,402 killed in action, 63,114 deaths from disease and other causes, and about 205,000 wounded. New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio furnished the most soldiers."

Now what was it I said Rapparee?

"their {Pershing's US Army} losses amounted to some 112,000 men only half that number died in combat."

So not really that far out considering that it was purely from memory - and certainly not understated.

The impending arrival at some point in the future of hundreds of thousands possibly even a million Americans provided the Allies with a propaganda tool that the Germans had no way of countering, while they knew that by 1918 they only had what they had and all of that, including the entire country, was worn out, war weary and fast running out of resources - the main US contribution to the ultimate allied victory in 1918 was primarily psychological.

In 1918 Pershing did not want "his" troops used until the summer of 1919 because he did not considered them to be ready for, or capable of conducting offensive operations.


"Lions led by Donkeys" By all means keep trotting this complete and utter MYTH out, but please remember that each time you do I will remind everyone of the true origins of the phrase - An ex-Tory Cabinet Minister who coined it retrospectively in the 1960s in order to sell a book he had written. "Musket" & Jim Carroll make rather unlikely supporters of anything uttered by an ex-Tory Cabinet Minister and old school Tory Party stalwart purely for his personal gain - just goes to show you doesn't it.

Fusell is simply wrong, knowing the figures right across the board, and looking back with 20 x 20 hindsight, if there was any army of the major combatant powers from 1914 fighting on the "Western Front" (British Empire; France; Germany) in the First World War that I would have had to have served in - then my best chances of surviving would have been in the forces under British/Commonwealth/Empire Command - Anyone wishing to challenge that then these are the "Official" Figures:

British Empire - Population 379.5 million, % deaths 0.27% to 0.32%

Britain alone population 45.4 million, % deaths 1.79% to 2.2%

France - Population 39.6 million, % deaths 4.29% to 4.39%

Germany - Population 64.9 million, % deaths 3.39% to 4.32%

Straightforward military deaths:
Britain - 888,246
France - 1,397,800
Germany - 2,037,000

So if the British were being led by "donkeys" WTF were the others being led by??

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 12 Nov 14 - 04:53 AM

The French Generals were all in the 60s, well past their best. Hindenburg was nearly 70. We make our troops retire at 55. So if not formally senile, the age of the commanders was certainly a factor in their intransigence and sloth in adapting.

The uS impact was not on the Germans alone: 1917 was relatively quiet because the French army mutinied and needed the arrival of the Americans to recover some morale. Had they not joined in, it is not impossible the Germans might have won.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 12 Nov 14 - 05:06 AM

Err.. Alan Clark, like his father before him was a historian first and entered politics afterwards. He may have been a bit of a shit in just about every way, (I found his diaries fascinating) but his objectiveness in his serious history work stands out for being the opposite to what you would expect from an establishment figure. He also wrote before the push to sanitise the military top brass.

Are you saying that because I might be politically different to the late Mr Clark, that I should align my views accordingly?

You do talk some nonsense Terribulus.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Nov 14 - 09:30 AM

"Alan Clark, ............. was a historian first"

Thanks Musket - the best laugh I've had all day.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 12 Nov 14 - 10:11 AM

Hi Musket

<" Nothing funnier than hearing a teacher stick his finger in his ear and croon about how hard it is down the pit. ">

How true. My father and Grandfather both worked in the pit at Elsecar in Yorkshire.

So I know about the life of miners and their families.

My grandad put in nearly 50 years and died shortly after from Pneumoconiosis. The Second World War gave my father a chance to get away from pit life. He joined the army and went to war. Was wounded and taken POW. Never went back to the coal.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 12 Nov 14 - 11:41 AM

My Dad got out in the war too. Not choice as such, just that they wanted electricians rerouting essential non military phone lines during the blitz. He never went back to the pit either. (My Aunty's husband's number came up and although he was already a miner, he was told to report to the army. To wriggle out of it, he became a Jehovah's Witness. This is how religion takes off, because as a result of the war, many towns' membership increased, but I digress.)

My memories of my work are largely good ones mind. When they shut Elsecar, many came down to our pit.

Terribulus. You are getting as daft as Field Marshall Keith A Hole of Hertford VD & Bar. Whether people agree with a historian is irrelevant. Historians are, despite the simple uneducated view put forward by Keith, subjective in their handling of a subject.

But either you know that already or, as I suspect, educating pork is something I shouldn't be doing. Got some paint drying somewhere, I'll go and stare at it.

Ask Keith what TC means and go and practice saying it in front of a mirror, there's a good whatever you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 14 - 04:22 PM

There is a consensus among Historians that the British army was well led and was decisive in preventing a German victory in 1914 and eventually defeating them.
You may think you are cleverer than the historians Musket, but you are just a fool with a laughably inflated ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 02:36 AM

Musket, that "historical" work written by Alan Clarke entitled "Donkeys", perhaps you should read some of the peer reviews it got by his "fellow historians" of the day. Then remember two things about that book:

1: That it restricts itself to the year of 1915 and the conduct of those in command in 1915 - The Commander of the BEF throughout 1915 was Field Marshal Sir John French NOT Douglas Haig - Clarke's book does not cover the entire war, or any subsequent commanders.

2: That to sell the book Clarke made up the "Lions led by donkeys" quip attributing it to two senior German Staff Officers.

Tell me Musket, honestly, how credible do you rate or think a historian is who just makes stuff up?

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 03:09 AM

1. I mentioned Donkeys as an example. He contributed to far more than the handful of books he is sole author of. Reviews by those revealed as incompetent aren't the best you can come up with, surely?

2. The main reason for quoting him was to show how stupid Keith's "all" is when he can't handle being wrong.

3. The butcher of The Somme was named as such by the er.. "well led, informed men."

I did mention somewhere that the revision of history seems to have worked, reading the likes of Keith and your dubious self but on second thoughts, your belief in establishment fantasy proves little as the pair of you get stiffies over anything overtly military judging by middle east posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 04:58 AM

When I say "all historians" I am not including the long dead and discredited.
Current historians with all the wealth of evidence not previously available have utterly refuted the wild claims of revisionists like Clarke.

You really believe that all the historians are wrong and you are right.
You are an ignorant fool with a grossly inflated ego.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 06:02 AM

3. The butcher of The Somme was named as such by the er.. "well led, informed men."
Not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 07:22 AM

Musket in response to your post of 13 Nov 14 - 03:09 AM:

1: Here is the list of the Historians who trashed Alan Clark's work, none of them have ever been accused of incompetent:

Brian Bond is a British military historian and professor emeritus of military history at King's College London. Bond served as a member of council of the Society for Army Historical Research and as President of the British Commission for Military History.

Sir Hew Francis Anthony Strachan FRSE FRHistS is a Scottish military historian, well known for his work on the administration of the British Army and the history of the First World War. He is Chichele Professor of the History of War at All Souls College, Oxford, a brigadier of reserves, and a council member of the Royal Company of Archers, the Queen's Bodyguard for Scotland.

Gary Sheffield is an English academic at the University of Wolverhampton and a military historian. He has published widely, especially on the First World War, and contributes to many newspapers, journals and magazines. He frequently broadcasts on television and radio. Sheffield studied history at the University of Leeds under Edward Spiers and Hugh Cecil. He followed his basic degree course with a research MA. In 1985, he became a lecturer in War Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, and studied at King's College, London under Brian Bond for a part-time PhD awarded in 1994. In 1999 he became a senior lecturer in the Defence Studies Department of King's College London and Land Warfare Historian on the Higher Command and Staff Course at the UK's Joint Services Command and Staff College. In 2005 he was appointed Professor of Modern history at King's College London. Since 2009, Prof Sheffield has been a Vice President of The Western Front Association.

Richard Holmes, was a British soldier and noted military historian, particularly well-known through his many television appearances. He was co-director of Cranfield University's Security and Resilience Group from 1989 to 2009 and became the Professor of Military and Security Studies at Cranfield in 1995. Of "The Donkeys" Holmes wrote the following:

"..it contained a streak of casual dishonesty. Its title is based on the 'Lions led by Donkeys' conversation between Hindenburg [sic] and Ludendorff. There is no evidence whatever for this: none. Not a jot or scintilla. Liddell Hart, who had vetted Clark's manuscript, ought to have known it."

Note: Basil Liddell Hart wrote to Alan Clark and asked him for a the source of the "Lions led by Donkeys" quote – Clark never replied (And well we know why don't we Musket).

John Alfred Terraine, though not permanently associated with any academic institution, was a leading British military historian and founding President of the Western Front Association from 1980 to 1997, after which he became its Patron. "One obituarist wrote that for sheer scholarship, the quality and accessibility of his writing and for his debunking of historical myths, Terraine was one of the outstanding military historians of the 20th century". He was for many years a member of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies; he had been awarded the Institute's Chesney Gold Medal in 1982. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society in 1987.

Robert Norman William Blake, Baron Blake was an English historian. Tutor in Politics at Christ Church, Oxford, and in 1968 was elected Provost of The Queen's College, Oxford, a post held until retirement in 1987.

Hugh Redwald Trevor-Roper, Baron Dacre of Glanton, was an English scholar and historian of early modern Britain and Nazi Germany and Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University.

Alan John Percivale "A. J. P." Taylor FBA was an English historian who specialised in 19th- and 20th-century European diplomacy. Both a journalist and a broadcaster, he became well known to millions through his television lectures. His combination of academic rigour and popular appeal led the historian Richard Overy to describe him as "the Macaulay of our age".

Sir Michael Eliot Howard OM CH CBE MC FBA is a British military historian, formerly Chichele Professor of the History of War, Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military and Naval History at Yale University and founder of the Department of War Studies, King's College London. Of Clark's book Howard wrote the following:

"As history, it is worthless", criticising its "slovenly scholarship".

By the way Musket the phrase "Lions Led by Donkeys " was used as a title for a book published in 1927 by Captain P.A. Thompson. The subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes.".

Now tell me Musket who was it that achieved VICTORY again?

2: So to counter Keith's All you come up with Clark - a total of ONE - ever heard of "the exception that proves the rule"?

3: I think that you will find that that particular nickname for Haig was coined after his death in 1928 and it was not coined by those he led but by those he reported to. Haig became Lloyd George's scapegoat.

With regard to the Somme in particular:

Haig did not choose to fight this battle. The combined political leadership of Britain and France met in late 1915 and decided on a massive joint offensive in the summer of 1916. A joint offensive had, logically, to be launched where the British and French sectors joined - ie the Somme. Haig pointed out that this was a bad choice, but was over-ruled.

He also knew that the British army wasn't ready. France and Germany had long had peace-time conscription for national service - so on the outbreak of the war they each had a couple of million trained reservists to call on. Britain had none - and the vast citizen army that Haig led had been built up from scratch. He wanted to delay - but was over-ruled.

The planning went ahead. It was thrown out of kilter by the German assault on Verdun in February 1916, which diverted a mass of French troops who would have otherwise been available at the Somme. Haig was ordered to go ahead anyway, to relieve pressure on the French (note that Falkenhayn - supreme German commander at this point - attacked the French because he considered Britain the more formidable foe of the two he faced).

The Somme faced the same old problems - poor communications, and the impossibility of moving troops rapidly from one sector to another. These were failings of technology, not of leadership. The casualties were dreadful - as everyone had always known they would be.

By September, Haig wanted to call the offensive off. He was denied the permission to do so - because of the ever-present need to relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun.

When the battle was over, Britain had suffered around 600,000 casualties, Germany 650,000 (so were the German generals worse butchers than Haig?)

After the war, people looked around for scapegoats. Aided by the machinations of the politicians, opinion latched unfairly onto Haig.

In short - though Haig was no Marlborough, he did a ghastly job better than anyone else could have done. The real butchers were his political leaders.

The funny thing was that right at the end of the battle of the Somme the British actually achieved the breakthrough that they had originally planned but worsening weather (sleet, snow and mud) prevented any possibility of exploiting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 07:42 AM

Gosh. All those letters after their names.

Their mothers must be very proud.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 08:33 AM

Good heavens Musket is that the best response you could come out with?

Mind you after your horrendous display of ignorance on the Patriot Thread you must be on some sort of a roll.

Those who "peer reviewed" Clark's book were far from being considered incompetent - TRUE?

Clark's book had nothing whatsoever to say about Haig as a commander - It only commented on Haig's succession as Commander of the British Forces in France.

The nickname "Butcher of the Somme" was not given to Haig by the men he commanded by by the REMFs (Politicians) back home trying to cover their own arses.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 10:21 AM

Makes it sound as if I pray at the altar of Saltwood Castle...

The truth is everything I say and everything you say. The difference being I don't look at one or two instances and make pronouncements on the whole war.

Butcher of the Somme was given by the men under him. The middle ranking officers in their letters home, judging by the ones in The Imperial War Museum. Unless, shock! Horror! They were faked.....

Funny how Michael Gove was pissed off with how war was being taught in schools and demanded a revision and all these "eminent" objective gong sniffers rose to the challenge.

Even poor Baldrick got lambasted for influencing people with truth, poor bugger.

I suggest you open your eyes somewhat. the backlash to this sanitisation has started, now that 11/11 is out of the way.

The opening shots by a history Don... Funny, that.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 11:20 AM

"Butcher of the Somme was given by the men under him. The middle ranking officers in their letters home, judging by the ones in The Imperial War Museum. "

Not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 11:22 AM

Fuck me, I must have been reading the graffiti in the Gents

ZZZZZZZZZZ

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 11:27 AM

A good place to produce your shit I suppose.
The archive is all available to the historians for their research.
I think it unlikely that you have done more research than them.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 11:46 AM

Like most museums, it was pissing it down and nothing better to do.

Take someone who can read and explain it all and have a look yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 02:39 PM

They have a few letters on display.
Some are available on line.
I do not have to visit to be certain that there are not more than one displayed with opinions of Haig expressed.
Again you make shit up to try and make yourself credible.
Failed again I fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 06:24 PM

The thing about historians is that you don't have to turn over many rocks to discover one, and they all have opinions on any and every side. The trick is not to believe any one of them, but to take their opinions, look at the evidence, and come to your own conclusions, because you have as much right to yours as they have to theirs. It's a peculiarly French trick to dissuade you from looking at the original data and have to rely on the experts, forgetting the definition of an expert. This is particularly important in History at the moment, given that the discrepancies which riddle the different National versions would amount in a scientific subject to a summary dismissal of the entire thing as a fabulation.
And if you can't manage that, then the stopping point is at the end of the last paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 06:29 PM

Just as a matter of fact, Haig so far as I've discovered, was not called "the butcher of the Somme" until the days of "Oh! What a Lovely War":

"It was the prototype Haig, the butcher of the Somme and Passchendaele, the ineffable forerunner of the inerrable Colonel Blimp...."

That's from Canadian Ralph Allen's World War 2 novel, "The High White Forest" (1964).

Before that, nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 06:30 PM

"Not true."

Not very good at this debate lark are you? Even if I were lying, which of course I am not, arguing your case for once would be far better for the girls and boys to read.

A pity then that your lack of knowledge means you just deny the facts.

Boom Boom thick Boom Boom etc

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 01:56 AM

"Butcher of the Somme was given by the men under him."

Prove it

See: Lighter - 13 Nov 14 - 06:29 PM.

Could not agree more with what GUEST - 13 Nov 14 - 06:24 PM states:

"The trick is not to believe any one of them, but to take their opinions, look at the evidence, and come to your own conclusions, because you have as much right to yours as they have to theirs."

If you follow that advice then you see that "Oh What A Lovely War" and "Blackadder Goes Forth" are not historical in any way shape or form and using them as "source" material for education is simply wrong. That I think was Goves point.

Only problem is Musket you do not look at all the evidence - just carefully selected bits of it.

One unassailable fact related to the "Great War" though Musket old chum - That as a common soldier under the command of your "Butcher of the Somme" you stood a better chance of surviving the war than ever you did if you were in either the armies of France or Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 02:29 AM

Heh heh.. First off he accuses me of looking at evidence subjectively then says our soldiers had a better chance of survival.

Our soldiers had a better chance of Xmas chocolate from the king. Germans had s better chance of sausage from the Kaiser. Comparing survival rates, what has that to do with the "waves of men" policy?

An efficient abbatoir slaughters more beasts than an inefficient one, but they are both set up to ensure lamb chops next week.

Want to be objective? Compare the idea of soldiers thinking they knew what they were there for with soldiers who knew what they were there for.

Your friend Michael Gove.. He certainly made an impression on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 03:23 AM

Your claim of seeing Haig called butcher in museum exhibits is simply not believable.
You are making shit up again.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 03:32 AM

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g4/cs3/g4cs3s2_bg.htm

Haig welcomed Home 1919.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 03:32 AM

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/greatwar/g4/cs3/g4cs3s2_bg.htm

Haig welcomed Home 1919.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 03:41 AM

Awww c'mon Musket tell us when it was that Haig was called "The Butcher of the Somme" - go on lad, go seek, google away all you like. You will find that not once in his life did he ever read or hear that description of himself.

Here is another question that you failed to answer:

Britain - Population 45.4 million, % deaths 1.79% to 2.2%

France - Population 39.6 million, % deaths 4.29% to 4.39%

Germany - Population 64.9 million, % deaths 3.39% to 4.32%

Straightforward military deaths:
Britain - 888,246
France - 1,397,800
Germany - 2,037,000

So if the British were being led by "donkeys" WTF were the others being led by??

Looking at those figures Musket which mob would you rather have been in, British, French or German? Put those figures to Ladbrooke's and how would they load the odds?

What on earth are you wittering on about abbattoirs for? The essence of war is basically that you kill more of them than they kill of yours (IIRC Hugh Dowding said something on those lines about the Battle of Britain: "For us to win - Our young men have got to kill their young men at a rate of 4:1"). From the Somme in 1916 onwards we did kill more of them than they did of ours - one of the reasons we won - they decided on fighting a war of attrition, a war that they could only lose primarily because taking into account our Empire and Commonwealth - we simply had more men.

Three weeks after the end of their greatest offensive since the start of the war, in 100 days in 1918 we had pushed them out of France, pushed them behind their own last line of defence - all down to Haig's perserverance, tenacity and his belief in his troops and his confidence in their commanders. It all started on the Somme in 1916. We continuously learned and modified our approach and won, the Germans stayed with the tactics they started out with and lost. Greatest compliment and validation of British tactics in the First World War under Haig? A little thing used by the Germans in the opening phases of the Second World War - they called it Blitzkrieg.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 04:12 AM

"Again" Keith?

A bit of an accusation if you were credible. Considering you aren't, allow me to live up to your expectations.

How many more years before you are allowed to work with children again?

Not nice, is it?

Just think, if you were "debating" with liars, you'd have to put up with that kind of shit all day.

I repeat. Imperial War Museum. Letters home.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 04:25 AM

Now that this thread has reached its century and November 11th has passed perhaps can we put it to bed and the trolls can carry on their "'Tis", "'Tisn't" playground spats by PMs.

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 04:28 AM

"What were the others being led by?"

Donkeys, apparently.

Not fair really. Donkeys can be stubborn and selfish, but callous and indifferent? No. In fact, you have to race them round a horseshoe track not a continuous one because if they notice they have been past this spot once, they stop, realising there is no point.

No. The men were like donkeys, not the brass. All prick and ribs.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 05:11 AM

Roger. Stop posting like a fucking troll. Theres a good ogre.
.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 06:55 AM

Musket - LIE - 05 Nov 14 - 09:56 AM - "Even Cameron had to upset the loony fringe of his party by removing the word "celebration" from the centennial proceedings."

The word "celebration" was never, ever considered, so pray tell how it could ever have been removed? (Psssst Musket: Please give the Hansard reference when you address this in substantiating the point you were trying to pass off as being true – if you don't then I most certainly will to disprove that same point just for the pleasure of exposing another of your lies and demonstration of your complete and utter "thick-as-pigshit" ignorance and ability to just "make stuff up" very much like your "historian of choice", ex Tory Cabinet Minister Alan Clark).

By the way Musket poppies are worn in remembrance of the sacrifice made by others – pride has got S.F.A. to do with it.

"They were lions led by donkeys."

Another example of made-up-stuff the man responsible for making it up admitted it, the description dates from the 1960s yet Musket is too thick to acknowledge that fact, and too dishonest to admit it.

Whereas others refer to official histories and accounts by a number of eminent historians Musket relies on one discredited "historian" who wrote the book about 1915 in a deliberately controversial manner in order to make some quick cash, a lefty-luvvie stage musical from 1960s (Oh What A Lovely War) and a sitcom written by Richard Curtis and Ben Elton in 1989 ("Blackadder Goes Forth).

Musket - 12 Nov 14 - 11:41 AM - " Whether people agree with a historian is irrelevant. Historians are, ……….., subjective in their handling of a subject. "

Ehmmmm no Musket they are not, well not if they are in actual fact Historians. A Historian will detail the subject he is studying objectively and he will come to his conclusions and fully argue his reasons for reaching that conclusion – You would probably have known that if in fact you had ever read any study of history related to the period under discussion.

Musket - LIE - 13 Nov 14 - 03:09 AM - " 3. The butcher of The Somme was named as such by the er.. "well led, informed men."

You were asked to give an example of this nickname in use from 1916 onwards until Haig's death in 1928 to refute my claim that Haig himself never saw or heard such a description of himself – care to tell us why you have failed singularly to do so? The smears on Haig only started after his death orchestrated by politicians like Lloyd George who were attempting to divert blame away from themselves – a dead man makes an extremely convenient scapegoat.

Having gone through your contributions to this thread I find that they in fact contribute nothing. When your lies, misrepresentations, half-truths and myths are exposed for what they are you do as you have always done (See Musket - 14 Nov 14 - 04:12 AM) resort to ad hominem attack. I would say that that demonstrates that it is you that is - "Not very good at this debate lark" - Not very good? – Totally bloody clueless more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 07:40 AM

Still kiddie fiddling Terribulus?

Or is that a lie?

Liars get confused you see....

"Having gone through your contributions.." That was a waste of time, considering you seem to be no wiser afterwards.

This isn't a political broadcast, it was supposed to be about something sombre, real and a stain on our past. You just seem to be glorifying in it and calling others liars. I notice others are calling you an arse too, on the no mans land thread for starters.

Keep glorifying and finding excuses for incompetence, cover up, callousness, indifference and criminal disregard for life. Keith I can understand, his lack of intellect means he can merely cut and paste opinions he finds via google and defy real people to contradict them, but despite some of your weird pro death shit, I had you down as forming your own opinions. Yet you too just seem to be propping up recent revision, just like shallow fools do.

It seems to be your one trick, my dear pony.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 08:14 AM

"Having gone through your contributions.." That was a waste of time, considering you seem to be no wiser afterwards."

Ah but Musket to glean any wisdom from any post on this forum those posts would require some "wisdom" to be contained therein - Yours unfortunately impart no "wisdom" whatsoever, merely lies, myths, "made-up-shit" and libel.

Now I'd love to hear how and why you think that our participation in the First World War in the face of aggression and in defence of freedom was a stain on our past? But somehow I don't think that I will hold my breath on that for very long.

By the way Musket - not really fussed what people call me - I can at least substantiate and back up logically and rationally any statement I have made - the same most definitely cannot be said for you and your ignorant assertions (Talking about other threads tell us all about Patriot Missiles) - Hell's teeth the one book you have referred to and waved about in this thread like a flag, you present as describing the conduct of the entire period of the First World War when in actual fact, even according to its author, it only relates to the BEF campaigns of 1915 under the Command of Sir John French. But there again, it is highly likely that you haven't even read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 08:27 AM

Always liked this Lou Reid song, reflecting on the impact of conflict on those who fought:


Home of the Brave 

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 08:32 AM

Sorry Lou, it's Reed.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 08:47 AM

Musket, when did you see those letters and when did you suddenly remember seeing them?
The "again" referred to made up massacres in Nigeria and made up Un and EU sanctions and restrictions against Israel, etc., etc.,....

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 08:54 AM

DAILY I CAN NOT FORGET THE 22 MOSTLY YOUNG VETERANS WHO WILL KILL THEMSELVES TODAY, TOMMOROW AND IN THE DAYS AHEAD.
the caps were unintentional but I prefer to go ahead rather than erase the mistake and redo the typing. Its the same with life, you really can't erase anything since it always will have happened.

All the conflicts lies, betrayal and horror endemic to war can not be forgotten but they can be processed in an ongoing way that will not call upon suicide as an answer. This is what a well conceived individual therapy of hypnosis can provide.

I haven't lost one yet. They can only be referred by a fellow veteran and no price is put on their lives in the form of a fee or donation.

Discussions with neurologists at NIH were fruitful but then again they have not spent many years as a hypnotist. The military does see the benefits of hypnosis going back to WW 1 but call it guided imagery and are half hearted and uncommitted to the returning veterans preferring to give drugs in a scatter shot modality.

What all veterans have in common is a look that haunts them with a helplessness they can not stand in themselves. It is not always the dying look of a buddy. These veterans have hundreds of looks that will last a lifetime. I try to do something good with these long lasting looks and remembrance.

I have an ashamed look of a lifetime that I too try and do something positive. Demonstrating against the Viet Nam war from campus to Washington was my commitment as a brash college student. When one haunted veteran returned to school to begin his freshman year after serving in Viet Nam in ways I will never know it was all too easy to call him a baby killer to his face. The look on his face told of the horror and complexity of all the conflicts of senseless death.

I remember his look and use it for redemption, for the innocent, the guilty and the sane who need not kill themselves today.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 09:33 AM

Yawn....

You'll be telling us Jesus existed next..

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Musket
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 10:17 AM

Aimed at Keith and his side kick by the way.. Not Donuel's glimpse of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Lest we forget
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 10:19 AM

Some don't forget... and will not be forgotten

98-year-old Scotia vet dons uniform one last time

and linked in that page is one year earlier