WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:01 PM

"One of the Muskets"

How is re-quoting an eight year old thread from me, relevant to this discussion, other than to cause drift and save yourselves further humiliation?
The post referred to the promotion of homosexuality in the MEDIA, in comedy and reality programmes.....I have explained this several times.

I stand by everything I said...... Homosexuality is repugnant to most heterosexuals, the vast majority.
I also think that psychological issues come into play in determining whether or not one becomes homosexual, certainly more so than the genetic myth.

Against nature?...perhaps a bit difficult to justify as it could be argued that every form human sexual behaviour is in some way natural.

There is a huge difference in someone presenting their opinions on this forum, as I have always done, and presenting outright lies about animal cruelty, and the quality of work which I produce.

I am supposed to have been under investigation by the GBGB for some unspecified act of cruelty to greyhounds....ridiculous and an outright lie.

I am supposed to have built a "wonky wall" just round the corner from "Mrs Gay Musket", when I have never built anything anywhere near him or his corner.

If some one wants to make criminal allegations against others on this forum, proof of these allegations is required, if not, the posts will normally be deleted by admin......quite correctly.

Now, get back to the thread and take your medicine!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 01:37 PM

Funny, isn't it Musket, how Keith always knows more than those who were there, in any situation?

Perhaps we should try to have him declared a national treasure and the definitive fount of all knowledge with the rider, of course, that he is not responsible for his utterances as he bases them all on what carefully chosen others have said.

Come to think of it, perhaps if we just send him to the showers, and discuss it with those "others".............and other "others" with opposing beliefs?

We wouldn't need him at all!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:43 PM

Whatever else you are Musket, you are a highly intelligent and articulate person.

You are more than capable of arguing a case and utterly demolishing a weak one.

The problem is that you do not have a strong case at all, so instead of debate you have to resort to obscene abuse.

Any moron could do that, but you have absolutely nothing else to say.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 11:21 AM

Interesting Keith,

I was referring to Akenaton. I know you like to defend what he says, such as;

I too think homosexuality is repugnant,against nature and based on psychological problems.
Cruiser says the answer is to turn away and let the homosexuals get on with their lives,but unfortunatly this is getting harder and harder to achieve, as "gay culture " ouzes from every media orifice,
with all its nasty innuendo,like little boys behind the bike shed
and god help anyone who tries to stop them....Ake
PS At least folk music seems to be pretty clear of this scourge.
Just shows what well adjusted ,sensible hetros we are.

But after that typical incitement to hatred, he then attacks those of us who question his credibility with, quoting above;

Liberals? you disgrace the people who went before you and the many who died, so that you could express your myths and lies.

Now, to the simple uneducated mind of a moderator, Akenaton isn't attacking anyone, because decent normal people and especially gay Muscat members don't count, but point out his hypocrisy, and you get your posts deleted.

You are right you know.

You and your sort do appear to have won Keith.

Enjoy the company you keep and perhaps try not taking a good look at yourself in mirrors eh? Perhaps your defence of his stance in many threads has worked on one of the moderators?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:34 AM

If you had a case you would not have to resort to obscene abuse.
But you have absolutely nothing else to say.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 09:18 AM

I've just emailed Max to see if he is happy with allowing hate and deleting those challenging it.

Fucking disgusting.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:23 AM

Let's leave it there.

Ooooooh. Yes please!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:03 AM

There is a consensus, as Lighter says, among the best-informed researchers, whose views are founded on the best evidence available.

What is your opinion, founded on nothing but your own ignorance and prejudice, worth against all that?

Perhaps they are all lying or deluded, or maybe you are.

Let's leave it there.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:11 PM

Consensus

noun, plural consensuses.
1. majority of opinion:
The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

No mention of anyone studying anything. Just a majority opinion. Like the majority opinion that while most historians may agree on some points; Keith still talks through his arse.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:19 PM

When the vast majority of historians reach the same conclusion on anything, it *is* a consensus.

When people who have *not* learned methods of historiography, studied official documents, soldiers' letters and diaries, other primary sources, and a few hundred historical and critical articles choose to believe something else about history, it isn't a consensus. Instead, it's a myth.

A consensus isn't "just another opinion." It's the considered view of the best-informed researchers, founded on the best evidence available. That means original documents, not poetry, fiction, or movies.
No one has ever questioned the war's unprecedented brutality. But the tons of new documents available in the 1960s (and more in the '90s after the collapse of the USSR) strongly support the original view of 1914-18: Britain (and later America) had to fight, the public understood why, men volunteered in droves (though few imagined what many would face), and the three aggressor nations who launched a bald-faced imperialist war of conquest were soundly and deservedly defeated.

Those are still facts, even if economist Niall Ferguson believes (virtually alone) that a German-Austrian victory *might* not have been a disaster if things worked out according to his informed but still hypothetical scenarios.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 02:29 PM

Teribus,

The figures I quoted can be found in paragraph 3.1.3 of the article below:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Haig,_1st_Earl_Haig

Cheers

Raggytash

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 01:23 PM

So, Teribus, when historians come to the same conclusion it is consensus. When two people who disagree with consensus come to the same conclusion it is "same crap pushed out a day earlier by a different blogger then vaguely reworded." I also note you put "the men conscripted in 1916 would not in all probability have been at the front in August 1916". Which just shows that even you have an element of doubt in your encyclopedic knowledge. I know you have already said that you will not respond. No matter. I am just pointing out the bias that you rage about in other people. Pity really. I thought you were different.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 12:52 PM

Teribus,

Again I reiterate your greater knowledge, however ..........

German losses were 134,000 at the first Battle of Ypres, total Allies losses were 154,000.

I must point out these are your figures Terribus.

I think perchance you have tried to massage Allied losses by breaking them down into individual nations. to have this amount of losses by anyone's standards is some Victory.

As for the specific information you included I am minded of the old adage "If you can't blind them with science, baffle them with bullshit"

You stated that in 1916 ALL the forces were Volunteers, that is clearly NOT the case. Of all troops enlisting in the first five months of 1916 just over 46,000 were Volunteers. Another 396,000 were conscripts. (I choose five months to allow for some training before 1st July, so I will accept I may be wrong)

The figures quoted are from UK Parlimentary Papers 1921 (Cmd 1193)General Annual Reports on the British Army (including the Territorial Force) for the period 1st October 1913 to 30th September 1919.

You didn't address my second point with how anyone can consider a casualty rate in excess of eighty three percent (83%) acceptable. I wonder if any General in history would have found such a loss acceptable. Five sixths of a force killed, wounded or missing is astonishing.

PS I too could copy and paste from Wikipaedia if I wanted :-)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 12:51 PM

One of the "muskets" 10 49 am.


"Tell you what, lets get rid of debates in Mudcat."
You lot have been trying to get rid of debate in Mudcat for years, you do any thing rather than address the issues. Insults, misrepresentation, obscene abuse, lies, multiple personas, attempted intimidation and libel.

No one can say you haven't tried......but you are without principle and moral fibre, you have been well shown up on these threads.

Liberals? you disgrace the people who went before you and the many who died, so that you could express your myths and lies.

Interesting to see my grandfathers regiment the Black Watch, were in Haigs 1st division.... and my GF would never hear a word against him

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 12:09 PM

Your entire case is now base on made up quotes and calling war heroes "liars"
You should be ashamed of yourselves, but the fact that you are not makes you what you are.
Link us to your claimed evidence and The Guardian article
Don't think for a moment you will do either
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:38 AM

They could be liars Jim.
There had to be some among those millions.
More likely a minority view, or someone trying to be nice and lelling you what you were slavering to hear.

And what did they tell you?
That they were misinformed?

The Germans really were invaders Jim.
It was all true.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:33 AM

"They could be liars Jim"
Thanks for that - confirms my opinion of what p.o.s you pair are
Do you think we han get it carved on the cenotaph in case people mistake these people with war heroes?
It seems the only ones w can trust are those who agree with you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:15 AM

They could be liars Jim.
There had to be some among those millions.
More likely a minority view, or someone trying to be nice and lelling you what you were slavering to hear.

And what did they tell you?
That they were misinformed?
The Germans really were invaders Jim.
It was all true.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:49 AM

Tell you what, lets get rid of debates in Mudcat.

After all, you can always just look up what others get paid to think and have your views made for you!

Historians this, they that, experts the other.

Looks like Keith has an unsullied mind that has not been polluted by anything other than experts..

And he still gets it wrong! (Purposely, being the only conclusion from his last attempt to make me look dishonest.)

Oh dear, I think I've just pissed melself.. Stop it Keith, I haven't laughed this much since er... since I read you previous post to that one.😹

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:19 AM

"anecdotes from a couple of individuals."
Liars then eh - brrrr, there it goes, up and down the spine
You really are a pair of wee jobbies.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 09:49 AM

Except we don't.
Historians do not rely on anecdotes from a couple of individuals.
You can find an individual you holds any opinion you want.
They have studied tens of thousands of first hand accounts, and tell us that the overwhelming majority believed in the war and the leadership.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 09:23 AM

Raggytash the men conscripted in 1916 would not in all probability have been at the front in August 1916 another myth about World War One - Men were not trained in days and thrown into battle.

1914 - 1915 the numbers required for the BEF were made up from the Regulars, the Army Reserves - these were all men who had previously completed their time in the British Army. You then had the Special Reserve, six months training minimum, and the Territorial Army which had been formed in 1908. By the end of 1915 the new training camps had been built in Great Britain and in France

1916 - Saw the use of a mixture of Original Regular Army & Reservists; "Kitchener's Citizen Army" and early Derby Scheme Recruits.

1917 - 1918 A mixture of originals; volunteers; Kitchener's Army; Men Attested under the Derby Scheme and Conscripts.

Total casualties on the British side at the First Battle of Ypres were as follows:

Killed - 7,960
Wounded - 29,583
Missing - 17,873
Unknown - 2,128

The battle was so successful from the German point of view that they called it "The Massacre of the Innocents of Ypres" - they were referring to their own losses.

British Losses - 58,155
Belgian Losses - 10,145
French Losses - 86,237
German Losses - 134,315

I have found no source for 18,000 to 3,000 story.

Haig's I Corps Order of Battle was as follows:

I Corps (Haig)

1st Division (Lomax)

1st (Guards) Brigade
1st Coldstream Guards
1st Scots Guards
1st Black Watch
1st Queens Own Cameron Highlanders
London Scottish Regiment

2nd Brigade
2nd Royal Sussex Regiment
1st Loyal North Lancashire Regiment
1st Northamptonshire Regiment
2nd Kings Royal Rifle Corps

3rd Brigade
1st Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment
1st South Wales Borderers
1st Gloucestershire Regiment
2nd Welsh Regiment

XXV Brigade, Royal Field Artillery
113th Battery
114th Battery
115th Battery

XXVI Brigade, Royal Field Artillery
116th Battery
117th Battery
118th Battery

XXXIX Brigade, Royal Field Artillery
46th Battery
51st Battery
54th Battery

XLIII (Howitzer) Brigade, Royal Field Artillery
30th (H) Battery
40th (H) Battery
57th (H) Battery
26th Heavy Battery Royal Garrison Artillery

Mounted Troops
"A" Squadron 15th Hussars
1st Cyclist company

Engineers
23rd Field company Royal Engineers
26th Field company Royal Engineers

2nd Division (Monro)

4th (Guards) Brigade
2nd Grenadier Guards
2nd Coldstream Guards
3rd Coldstream Guards
1st Irish Guards
1st Hertfordshire Regiment

5th Brigade
2nd Worcestershire Regiment
2nd Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry
2nd Highland Light Infantry
2nd Connaught Rangers

6th Brigade
1st King's Regiment (Liverpool)
2nd South Staffordshire Regiment
1st Royal Berkshire Regiment
1st Kings Royal Rifle Corps

XXXIV Brigade, Royal Field Artillery
22nd Battery
50th Battery
70th Battery

XXXVI Brigade, Royal Field Artillery
15th Battery
48th Battery
71st Battery
XLI Brigade, Royal Field Artillery
9th Battery
16th Battery
17th Battery

XLIV (Howitzer) Brigade, Royal Field Artillery
47th (H) Battery
56th (H) Battery
60th (H) Battery
35th Heavy Battery Royal Garrison Artillery

Mounted Troops
"B" Squadron 15th Hussars
2nd Cyclist company

Engineers
5th Field company Royal Engineers
11th Field company Royal Engineers

Damn sight more than 18,000 men

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 09:06 AM

Lest we forget:
"BATTLE POLICE Armed military police patrols deployed in the trenches following an attack to deal with (often by summary execution) stragglers and men who had refused to go over the top."
It really is a turn-on to see you pair dscribe veterans who fought for their country "liars".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

"Jim, you are similarly misrepresenting Paxman's series."
You've been given exactly what the programmes said, ll the aspects of recruitment - are you seriously denying that these were covered - they are common knowledge without Paxman anyway
"stupid losers."
Yeah sure, we're bowled over by the sport you are getting, making all contributors "stupid losers" I suppose.
Tell us again how you withdraw your support for the link you put up - it really does brighten up a gloomy December day
You've graduated from being a bit of a joke to becoming Mudcat's mascot buffoon
What a pair of caricatures - "lying veterans" and all!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 08:46 AM

Musket, if you had said what programme you were making false quotes from, I might have found it quicker.
I did only watch it because you recommended it.
I found that you lied blatantly about it.
The naval historian said nothing relevant to this discussion, but the WW1 historian supported me in saying that Kitchener was loved by the people and the troops.

Jim, you are similarly misrepresenting Paxman's series.
He stated, face to camera, that the war was necessary, that the people supported it, and the army was devastatingly effective.
All my three points supported by the WW1 book author, himself backed by the Open University History Dept.

You both lose, and lying just makes you stupid losers.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 08:16 AM

Teribus, This thread is like an annoying itch I keep coming back to it.

Firstly I do understand you are well versed on matters regarding WW1 and would normally defer to your far greater knowledge.

You state (17 Dec 14 05.31)that Britain had an army of 2.6 million in 1916 all of them volunteers.

I understood that conscription was introduced in January 1916 for single men aged between 18 and 41. Again I understand that this was extended to cover married men in May 1916 and that over the whole period of the war slightly more men were conscripted than had volunteered (2.77 million conscripts as opposed to 2.67 million volunteers)

One other matter. The argument regarding Haig will run and run, there will never be a consensus of opinion regarding his abilities but Guest yesterday mentioned that at the first Battle of Ypres Haigs 1 Corps were reduced from 18,000 to 3,000 over the course of the action (about a month). This indicates that 5/6ths of his force were killed or wounded slightly over 83%.

It is figures like this which makes people question his ability. You said we won that battle. Thank God we didn't lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 07:36 AM

"Come on then Jim give us substantive evidence of what you say there ever happening"
You've had the events noted in a glossary of war terms, you have been shown how common knowledge it was - that's your evidence - disprove it.
"And all this because some ex-Docker came out this crap to you telling you things he thought you wanted to hear"
Lying veterans again - it really puts you pair in the gutter where you belong
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 07:31 AM

I am not a Scientist
I am Not an expert
I am not a stamp collector
I have all the answers
Think there were a couple more when Keith made his self-evident statement
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 07:10 AM

There have been four of them?

The first one I saw was originated by Ebbie which was the Scientists one, then the one started by Keith, then one about Stamp Collectors.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 07:08 AM

"Show us that it wasn't a war of attrition, with men being forced over the top at gunpoint and battle police there to execute them if they were too slow or decided not to go."

Come on then Jim give us substantive evidence of what you say there ever happening - no long rambling vast diatribes of class war crap just one single example from a conflict that lasted 4 years 3 months and 1 week - Just one.

But just to visualise it:

There are roughly 1,000 men in a battalion (10 Companies of roughly 100 men)

You have the Reserve, or "Stay Behind" Company so roughly 900 men armed to the teeth are going to be "forced" over the top - by whom?? - Ah by the "Battle Police" - Who are? - The "Stay Behind" Company possibly? In which case when it comes to arms they would find themselves outnumbered 9 to 1 (So they aren't going to force anybody it would be them that gets slaughtered pdq) By another Battalion brought in just to "force" the "attacking battalion" over the top? In which case it would be 1 to 1. Possibly by two or three Battalions in order to give them forcing the others over the top a bit of an edge? Improve their odds of survival? (Getting awfully crowded in that trench now isn't it?) Are you starting to see how ridiculous the whole idea is?

By the way who judges what is quick enough Christmas? Or is it entirely up to the individual? And all this because some ex-Docker came out this crap to you telling you things he thought you wanted to hear between sobs interspersed in the narrative for effect.

Prediction: Jim Carroll will not come up with a real live example of this ever happening, because he can't - it never did happen.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 07:06 AM

"What you mean all one of them"
There have been four so far - been and gone
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:15 AM

Show us that it wasn't a war of attrition, with men being forced over the top at gunpoint and battle police there to execute them if they were too slow or decided not to go.
"indicates a lack of support for the war"
Did I suggest that - I did not
I pointed out the various ruses that were used to persuade men to join up, many of them having nothing to do with support for the war itself - all dealt with fully in the Paxman programmes
You continue to twist my words in order to make your feeble case a with you Germany annexing Belgium point.
The war was an Imperial struggle, one Empire against another and none any less tyranical than the other, and of all of them, gallant little Belgium is an example of that, as is Amritsar, Croke park and all the other Imperial atrocities
It was, and is fully recognised to be a power struggle between Imperial nations - nothing more.
Jim Carroll
Can't help noticing you avoid the "land fit for heroes' bit. wwhy wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:39 AM

"count the number of "I am not a..." threads he has inspired - I'm thinking of stating an "I am not a plumber" one!"

What you mean all one of them? The only people making fools of themselves on the topic of the First World War are yourself and the three Muppets.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:31 AM

"World War One was a war of attrition and the 'skill' of military leadership was based on how many young men each leader was prepared to send to their deaths."

Ah but Christmas one of your supporters came out with this:

GUEST,Raggytash - 14 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

That article from "your" historian goes on say:

"Haig should have believed in attrition. {Inference here being that he didn't} That is the tragedy of the British in the First World War. Haig should have opted for attrition in the sense of wearing the enemy down gradually - step by step, stage by stage - and devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down"

As for the tail end of your sentence:

"the 'skill' of military leadership was based on how many young men each leader was prepared to send to their deaths."

No it wasn't the skill of military leadership was demonstrated in how many of your enemies troops you could tempt him into getting killed for no gain.

The tactic Haig employed from 1916 onward were tactics of "Bite and Hold" and the Germans were forced to retreat. Once the Germans could release troops from the East with Russia out of the War the Germans once more tried to break through on the Western Front with their Spring Offensive in 1918 - their use of same old tactics and weakness in logistic support brought exactly the same results they had brought in 1914 i.e. failure. When Haig went onto the offensive in the summer of 1918 he got the breakthrough he aimed for and he had the equipment and men that enabled him to exploit it - all from lessons learned from August 1916 onward.

So the fact that in 1916 Great Britain had an Army of over 2.6 million men every single one of them a volunteer indicates a lack of support for the war?? Every other nation fighting in Europe at the time could only raise their armies, even in peacetime, by use of compulsory conscription for military service - i.e. their men had no choice, whereas ours volunteered to fight for their country.

"The jingoistic crap about the war being about opposing German tyranny has been dismissed by historians"

Really?? So the Germans were only joking when they stated that they would annex Belgium, retain French territory and take over Belgian and French overseas colonies and possessions should Germany prevail in the west? Got any proof of that?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:22 AM

Keith is now a standing joke on this forum - count the number of "I am not a..." threads he has inspired - I'm thinking of stating an "I am not a plumber" one!
World War One was a war of attrition and the 'skill' of military leadership was based on how many young men each leader was prepared to send to their deaths.
Terrytoon and his monkey have shown how well it was conducted by painting a picture of the military and the government busy stabbing each other in the back while the men doing the fighting were dying in their thousands in the mud of Europe.
Each of Keith's half dozen historians have made it clear that they had no doubt it was an Imperial war (it was even recognised as such by being called that at the time) - so basically, the men who fought and died did so in order to win political and economic power for the Empire, which collapsed as a result of the obscenity.
One of Keith's historians adds a new Imperialist perspective to the war by dealing with Tsarist Russia's part in starting it.
On Keith's claim for support for the war, Paxman's programme dealt fully with the jingoistic recruiting campaign persuading young men to fight on the basis of a short war, glamour and adventure, confirmed by a number who returned and said just that "the "liars and attention-seekers"), employers forcing their workers to join up under the threat of dismissal and women blackmailers handing out white feathers to those who refused to voluntarily join - that's the kind of support the war had.
Eventually, the support was so 'overwhelming' that 18 months into the war the government introduced compulsory conscription
The programmes also covered leading recruiter, Horace Bottomley, who speculated and became a millionaire as a result of sending so many to their deaths and was eventually jailed as a criminal - war means profits - doesn't it always?
The jingoistic crap about the war being about opposing German tyranny has been dismissed by historians, Keith's handful included - Germany was no more tyrannical an Empire than was any other (as Terrytoon pointed out - those days weer a different world), just a little more anxious to go for the big prizes at that particular time.         
Far from those who fought returning to "a land fit for heroes to live in", they actually returned to mass unemployment and starvation, more war in Ireland and Russia, and a government that was prepared to rearm Germany, stand by and do nothing while Hitler and the Fascists rose to power, and actually criminalise those who protested.
THe British leadership appeased German Fascism when it started to persecute Jews, the end result being six million massacred human beings, this appeasement continued to be the case till the point was reached when Britain had no alternative but to fight - so "we started all over again".
The world is still dealing with the after-effects of the fall of the Empire, in Ireland and in Palestine in particular, and has recently been forced to pay compensation to victims of British torture in the form of castration in Kenya.         
They are the facts of the "war to end all wars" and the only way this jingoistic pair have been ably to defend them is to invent a small band of phantom historian and to call the heroes who fought "liars".
Land of hope and glory, eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 03:18 AM

Keith. Stop it eh? There's a good chap.

Some of us can and have watched the programme for ourselves.

First you say it didn't exist, then you say you have watched it, then you misquote and misrepresent what was said on it.

Honestly, it's like reading a UKIP communique.

😹

Best bit is, if I read you right you watched a programme purely to "check up" on a few points for this thread? (And still got it wrong but there's a reason for that.)

I reckon you need help, I really do.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 02:26 AM

" GUEST - 16 Dec 14 - 04:17 PM "

Basically the same crap pushed out a day earlier by a different blogger then vaguely reworded by Andrew. Equally wrong but cannot be arsed to go into ripping it to shreds as any such exercise would fall on deaf ears wouldn't it? Dan Snow listed what are ten myths about the First World War which on critical examination of his statements are indeed exposed as being myths. By the way in future if you wish to ask any questions and expect to receive an answer then register and/or adopt some form of identifier as I will not respond to any unidentified GUEST.


"We all make sure we say things that are accurate" - The Muskets in various guises

Accurate? You lot wouldn't know accurate if it jumped up and bit you.

C'mon tell us about the RED TOPS again - that wasn't very accurate was it? We have been waiting now for over a year for you to come up with one single instance of the Military Police acting in the manner described by you clowns - one single instance in four and a quarter years of war in an army of millions - Result ZERO, ZIP, NADA, S.F.A. - And now you have the complete gall to chirp up and tell us that you collectively check things to make sure that what you say is accurate - pull the other mate its got bells on - no guessing who it is who are proving themselves to be pathetic it's you three stooges. Why don't you take your bully-boy "mobbing" tactics elsewhere - you're obviously getting nowhere with them here.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:06 PM

I see "team Musket" have run up the white flag :0)

A tactical retreat??

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:04 PM

Well this is soooo good! :0)

Lovely to see the "Bootleg Muskets" get their just deserts from T and K, just like Russell B***d on Question Time being reduced to a gibbering wreck by quiet reason and forensic knowledge of the subject under discussion. The lame jokes, insults and abuse sound hollow when confronted by people who actually know what they are talking about and have the balls to stand up to their childish bullying.

I have put up with this treatment for years, from these "liberal activists" peddling their myths, misinformation and damned lies.

As Corporal Jones was apt to say...."They don't like it up'em sir! The cold steel!!!"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:53 PM

Keith. You believe you have won. The people that matter to you believe you have won. Why does anyone else matter? If you do indeed feel you have won, why do you insist on being such a poor winner? It doesn't make you look big or clever. It doesn't make anyone like you any better. Why not just call it a day for your own sake as much as everyone elses.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:38 PM

The book was based on the Ch4 TV programme on WW1 that he made with Ian Hislop.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:27 PM

The presenter on that piece, Neil Oliver, is himself an historian and has published a book on WW1.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:17 PM

Teribus - Still don't know what the article I linked has to do with Lindsey German. Would you explain please? Ta.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:35 PM

Scots Bloke (aka Musket) you tried just such a deception a few days ago.

You made a post about the book The Edwardians, implying it contradicted me.
You hoped no-one had read it.
Bad move.

Guest, we can all say what WW1 Generals could have done better.
Historians all do it too, but Wilson states in that piece, "Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

"There's a popular view that Haig really set out to get his troops killed, believing that he would swap one of his men for one of the Germans. There would be a bloodbath on both sides; and because he had rather more men than the Germans, he would, at the end of the day, be left victorious, and the Germans defeated.

"This view of Haig is really quite untrue. Haig, in fact, remained an imaginative commander."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:01 PM

"Christmas's new flag which he seems to enjoy waving – The Western Front Association."
I have no view on The Western Front Association, particularly as its vice President is British Army lecturer, Gary Sheffield - I just wanted to see Keith disown his own posting
Mission accomplished.
The article did say there is no hard evidence to either confirm or deny Haig's leadership qualities, so at best, it was contradictory
However, watching Keith squirm - well, you could bottle and sell it!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 02:08 PM

Here's Keiths historian, see the final 2 paragraphs.

http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_wilson_05_haig.html

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:57 PM

Here is the programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039wqgq

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:55 PM

Perhaps you one that you mentioned to Raggy would fit the bill. But you seem to have forgotten him.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:52 PM

Neither Hewitt nor the presenter say anything disparaging about any war leader.
You blatantly lied.
You still have not found one single historian who still believes those old, discredited myths.
And you never will.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:42 PM

13 minutes in presenter says he was dead before the Somme, "While his soldiers and his country still loved him."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:39 PM

The presenter says, "To the people, he (Kitchener) was a hero, a patriot and a friend."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:35 PM

I have just watched Coast.
It is available on IPlayer.
The quote was not made by Hewitt at all.
Before he had even appeared the presenter says "We were two years in the making and ten minutes in the destroying, said one of Kitcher's new army."

So an apocryphal quote.
Not Hewitt's.
You lied.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:29 PM

You know, whether as some bloke in Scotland nor as a Musket have I or any of us "made things up." I doubt Musket did. We all make sure we say things that are accurate, but always in a way that Keith can (and does) misconstrue.

However, I recall a "guest" once supporting something Keith said and a moderator pointing out it came from Keith's computer.

Out of interest, it took me about a minute to see the programme on BBC listings for today. I suspect it would take Keith about the same. If he knows anything about Kitchener, the one line in the listing should be obvious. Coast was filming about his death as they were at Scapa Flow.

No Keith. Just because the moderators allow your posts to remain when you call people liars, doesn't make your putrid little minded comments valid.

If its all the same to you, taking you serious isn't an option.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:15 PM

Musket, why don't you give details of this programme so we can see for ourselves.
Nothing in the schedules about it.
Are you making stuff up again?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 01:03 PM

Raggytash, you quoted an historian back at me and some Guest asked if it supported me.
That is what I meant by your historian.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 11:04 AM

Not just us then. You get a military historian and take his words out of context in order to cast doubt on them when they make you look a prize chump.

Pathetic.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 09:38 AM

"Nick Hewitt was on. (Historian according to The BBC) speaking about Kitchener and specifically his death.

As introduction he tells of the pals brigades. "It took Kitchener two years to form them. It took the Germans a morning to destroy them." He went on to say "Kitchener was already dead by the first attack of The Somme, so didn't see the awful results of his mistakes. He was at the time of his death fired from his operational duties for his incompetence with regard to not only Galipoli but the Western front running out of ammunition."

He doesn't agree with the conspiracy theories regarding his death but did say his death was convenient for those now in charge looking for sympathy for the war effort."

Nick Hewitt is a Naval Historian that is his specialisation and judging from the remarks attributed above it shows.

1: "It took Kitchener two years to form them. It took the Germans a morning to destroy them."

What??? We lost some 1,260,000 men in one morning??? I am assuming that Mr Hewitt knows what destroyed means, being a historian and all - Hewitt's statement is utter rubbish of course.

He is talking about the first day on the Somme which cost the British Army just under 20,000 lives in one day in an offensive that Haig was ordered to undertake with men he did not feel were ready. The battle did, like Verdun taking place a bit further down the line, degenerate into a battle of attrition and Haig and Great Britain's first ever "Citizen Army" of volunteers raised by Kitchener came out of it confident that they could defeat the best the German Army could throw at them. The German Army on the other hand had lost the very best of their troops at Verdun and on the Somme and knew at the end of 1916 that they could not defeat either the British or the French on the Western front.

""Kitchener was already dead by the first attack of The Somme, so didn't see the awful results of his mistakes."

What mistakes? He was tasked with raising an Army - That is exactly what he did. It was his Army that having survived its baptism of fire in 1916 that eventually won the war in 1918.

Perhaps Mr Hewitt can tell us when the British Army ran out of ammunition on the Western front - I cannot for the life of me find any record of that.

Were those "now in charge looking for sympathy for the war effort" Sympathy from whom?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 09:08 AM

I didn't say I don't understand what "historian" meant, I merely asked if you do.

I have a suspicion you think the term has ethical levels that don't appear in reality.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:33 AM

First Battle of Ypres - 19th October 1914 to 22nd November 1914 - Allied Victory. That the one you are referring to?

Could the German superiority in numbers and in artillery have something to do with it, plus the necessity for the Allies to hold onto Ypres "at all costs" due to the fact that if Ypres fell so too would Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne.

As this battle was fought as the result of a massive German attack then I would imagine that it was the Germans who held the initiative and that it was the allied French and British formations that reacted as necessary to thwart the German attacks. As such Haig would have had very little to do with the planning of the battle.

Now as you and Steve Shaw seem to be awfully keen to castigate Haig for his poorer performances are you, in the pursuit of objectivity, prepared to give him credit for his successes?   No? Thought not.

Three times the Germans tried to take Ypres - three times they failed. After this one (The First Battle of Ypres) Falkenhayn recommended to the German Foreign Ministry and to German High Command that peace negotiations should be entered into - needles to say they disagreed and the war continued.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM

Talking of real historians, I am sat with a knackered back today so watching the telly. Nick Hewitt was on. (Historian according to The BBC) speaking about Kitchener and specifically his death.

As introduction he tells of the pals brigades. "It took Kitchener two years to form them. It took the Germans a morning to destroy them." He went on to say "Kitchener was already dead by the first attack of The Somme, so didn't see the awful results of his mistakes. He was at the time of his death fired from his operational duties for his incompetence with regard to not only Galipoli but the Western front running out of ammunition."

He doesn't agree with the conspiracy theories regarding his death but did say his death was convenient for those now in charge looking for sympathy for the war effort.

Interesting, these historians.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 07:54 AM

Whoa!!

I had intended to dip out of this thread as it has become extremely tedious ..............

however .......


What is this nonsense about "Raggytash's Historian". One of your historians Keith, you quoted him, you put the link not me. I merely used some MORE of the same article that YOU had highlighted that did not show Haig in the same light. Misleading others is something I take umbrage with.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 07:35 AM

Guest, Raggytash's Historian, Trevor Wilson, also said "Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

"There's a popular view that Haig really set out to get his troops killed, believing that he would swap one of his men for one of the Germans. There would be a bloodbath on both sides; and because he had rather more men than the Germans, he would, at the end of the day, be left victorious, and the Germans defeated.

"This view of Haig is really quite untrue. Haig, in fact, remained an imaginative commander."

Musket, I am sorry you are unable to understand what an historian is.
You must have understood very little of this whole debate.
I would try to explain it to you, but pork is such hard work.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:07 AM

Perhaps you could enlighten people as to how Haig's 1 Corps was reduced from 18,000 to 3,000 at the 1st Battle of Ypres. (Oct-Nov 1915)

He may have been the most competent leader of the era, he may have been highly regarded by his troops but with that amount of loss surely one has to ask questions about his abilities.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:52 AM

What is the accreditation body?

Who accredits that body?

Who accredited David Irvine?

zzzzzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:51 AM

Christmas's new flag which he seems to enjoy waving – The Western Front Association.

Oh c'mon Christmas don't be shy why not just include the last paragraph of that section:

"For the dispassionate observers who did not go through this ordeal on a personal basis, they found, and find, it easier to come to more rational conclusions. In recent years, most informed commentators tend to find in favour of DH, given the circumstances of his command. And there, surely, it rests: each informed observer must decide for him/herself."

Now whereas the likes of Keith and Lighter and others who have posted generally in agreement with Keith's three original contentions do give the impression of being "informed observers", the Muskets (Fat, Gay {How you described yourself pal}, Sycophant Hyena), Jim Carroll, Steve Shaw, Greg F and GUEST seem hell bent on trying to cling to myths that have long been disproved.

Now how about Pershing's opinion of HAIG? (Paraphrased: The man who won the war - couldn't have been done without him).

Cold and indifferent to his men? Well French Field Marshal Petain "cared" for his men but he still sent them to die in their droves (Their fatalities were 57% higher than ours), and while the French Armies mutinied and refused to attack, the British and Commonwealth Armies did not.

To GUEST the "White Feather Myth" was the one pushed by Christmas in one of the many WWI Threads - His claim was that the handing out of White Feathers to men obviously not in uniform was some monstrous Government Policy devised to drive men into the Army - Absolutely not true (As Lighter states it came from the Women's Suffrage Movement nothing whatsoever to do with the Government). Another of Christmas's MYTHS was the MUS Falsehood that the promise that "the war would be over by Christmas" was one given solemnly by the British Government to each and every recruit as an enticement to join up - Now not having been able to supply the source of this Government promise or any recruiting poster that states it, it rather flies in the face of well documented and recorded enlistment records for the period August 1914 to December 1914 when in answer to Lord Kitchener's appeal ~1,200,000 British men volunteered for service (NOTE Volunteered NOT Recruited) - now I make that five months and at that time, they didn't have uniforms for all these men, they didn't have rifles for all these men, they didn't have the training staff or training camps for all these men - so perhaps Jim Carroll can tell us just how the f**k they were going to get to the Front and what exactly they were expected to do to win the war before Christmas unarmed and untrained as they were.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:48 AM

"Why do you think only historians know when living memory and documented evidence is available to intelligent people to make their own mind up?"

Might well have something to do with a historians accreditation that gives him access to research material not available to the general public thereby providing him with more information on which he can make his or her own mind up.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:28 AM

Why shouldn't you quote a non historian?

What denotes a historian in the first place?

Why do you think only historians know when living memory and documented evidence is available to intelligent people to make their own mind up?

Are you debating or advertising for Amazon? Some of us are capable of forming opinions. We don't need to be star struck by what we read.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:34 AM

What about the one Raggy mentioned, does he support you

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

That article from "your" historian goes on say:

"Haig should have believed in attrition. That is the tragedy of the British in the First World War. Haig should have opted for attrition in the sense of wearing the enemy down gradually - step by step, stage by stage - and devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down"

"Your" historian names and shames Haig. No-one else.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:15 AM

He is not an historian if even still alive, so why would either of us quote him?

In fact it was just another description of Haig's funeral so it does not matter anyway.
It was factually correct, I provided three others, and I can provide more if anyone wants.

It is so easy to find all the actual historians publishing on WW1.
We have, and they all support us.
You are not going to find one now.
When are you going to give it up?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:09 PM

"Sorry, I withdraw that quote."
Too late, too late, the maiden cried.
What kind of eejit are you, using a quote to prove a point one minute then madly back-pedaling when it doesn't suit your particular like of jingoism
The quote comes from a valid historical site 'The Western Front Association'

"The Western Front Association (WFA) was formed with the aim of furthering interest in The Great War of 1914-1918. We also aim to perpetuate the memory, courage and comradeship of all those on all sides who served their countries in France and Flanders and their own countries during The Great War.
Established in 1980 by noted military historian John Giles, the WFA has grown over the years to some 6,000 members worldwide. Please see the Branches Information section for details of your nearest WFA branch.
Through the work of the Association we do not seek to justify or glorify war. We are not a re-enactment society, nor are we commercially motivated. We are entirely non-political. The object of the Association is to educate the public in the history of The Great War with particular reference to the Western Front.
Applications for membership are warmly welcomed from anyone of a like mind.
If you would like to learn more, please look through our website. If there is any information on joining you cannot find here, please contact the Membership Office.
The Western Front Association is a Registered Charity No. 298365"

Are you seriously suggesting that it is not qualified to make a statement on the subject it is dedicated to.
You really are a moron.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

I should not have have quoted a non historian.
Sorry, I withdraw that quote.

In fact it was just another description of Haig's funeral so it does not matter anyway.
It was factually correct, I provided three others, and I can provide more if anyone wants.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:33 PM

"Jim, that was written by Dr. David Payne."
You put it up as proof of another historian who backs your claim - why did you put t up if you were going to dispute it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:05 PM

Raggytash, what was wrong with my statements?
"Hmmmm" does not cover it!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:03 PM

Sorry, forgot amateur historian link.
http://www.powell76.talktalk.net/Commanders.htm

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:02 PM

no mans land 

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:53 PM

I'm afraid your correct Greg. No doubt someone will say "you lose" to me. It seems to be the level that can, just, be achieved.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:14 PM

Raggytash, what is your point about my statements?

See? Its hopeless. The pig will not sing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:57 PM

Jim, that was written by Dr. David Payne.
A medical doctor not an historian.
Here he describes himself as "an amateur historian."

Raggytash, what is your point about my statements?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:12 PM

Hmmmm....

18th Nov 10.02am "Churchill was just another politician then and it was he who was responsible for the invasion of Gallipoli"

21st Nov 12.43pm "not one historian believes(present tense)what you people believe"

21 Nov 05.46pm "Musket it is not hard to understand. I say what they say (contemporary historians I believe)while you can only quote the long dead and discredited"

23rd Nov 02.05pm "Jim, you cannot find a single historian who believes what you do" ............. "Have you found one single historian who believes the shit that you do, no because there are none"

Do I really need to go on ................

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 11:40 AM

how are you on cars that won't start? Beyond WD40 and hammer not very, I'm afraid. One or the other usually works though:-)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 11:09 AM

The white feather campaign was real, at least in 1914.

It was dreamed up by certain leading feminists, who also lobbied for universal male conscription.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:58 AM

"Mended link."
Thanks Guest - how are you on cars that won't start?
We are still being given a picture of a "well conducted war" run by Generals who can't get on with each other being stabbed in the back by politicians
"Oh, oh, oh what a lovely war", in fact.
That Haig wasn't known as "The Butcher of the Somme" in his own lifetime has more to do with the secrecy surrounding the War than his abilities as a leader.
After all, if we're not allowed to refer to what dead historians wrote, what does it matter what they thought a century ago, especially those who didn't have 'historian' qulifications
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:39 AM

Remind me, where the white feathers a myth ?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:13 AM

Mended link.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM

"Jim, what current historian is supposed to have said that the jury is still out on Haig?"
Youv been given this s a link and as a cut-'n-paste - it seems too much to ask that you read what others have to say but at least read what you have put up yourself
Jim Carroll

WESTERN FRONT ASSOCIATION
"Conclusion
There is no evidence of a consensus about the reputation of Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. By some he is greatly admired as a Commander-in-Chief bringing about victory in very difficult circumstances whilst having been neither particularly well served by the British politicians of the day, nor, frequently, by his Allied Commanders. Others are equally dismissive considering him to something of a dilettante aristocrat, overly favoured by royal patronage, and with scant concern, or care, for the troops under his command.
No doubt, DH's notoriously poor communication skills and deliberate remoteness, allied with the privations imposed on his troops by the ill-understood evolution of the stalemate of four years of increasingly technological trench-war, made it difficult for him to come to some kind of rapport with his huge army."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:47 AM

Sorry but I can't be arsed to go back through Keith's comments to pull out the numerous occasions when he's said (in various ways) that historians writing in the early and middle 20th century were either ill advised, ill informed, had their own political agenda or were just plain wrong.

Arsed or not, you won't find such bollocks.

I do not dismiss historians because they are dead, but current historians dismiss those previous ones who promulgated what are now known to be myths.

I have not dismissed anyone for being left wing, only for being extremist political activists, left or right.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:35 AM

So Raggytash exactly what is it that I have written that you actually dispute or disagree with?

Again Muskets what amazing nugget was contained in your last post that added in any way to the discussion - S.F.A. as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM

Teribus, Sorry but I can't be arsed to go back through Keith's comments to pull out the numerous occasions when he's said (in various ways) that historians writing in the early and middle 20th century were either ill advised, ill informed, had their own political agenda or were just plain wrong.

I agree with you regards Blackadder and OWALW, mainly because they were aimed at being popular entertainment and not well grounded research, artistic license no doubt played a large part.

I have refrained from personal remarks as they serve no useful purpose, although I retain the right to harbour my own thoughts on peoples intelligence. Ooops!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:53 AM

Oh dear.. it looks like our revisionists can't get away with their drivel. Someone is looking up what they said before. You have to have a good memory when you change things all the time purely to contradict.

A bit like Terribulus just repeating time after time that I haven't contributed anything. Whilst Keith spends his time trying to contradict what I contribute.

Keep it up. An agent might see your double act and book you for a fucking circus. 😹

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:52 AM

"I have not read extensively on WW1, I have read a few (I've just taken Max Hastings' Catastrophe from the library) and am open to new information gathered from new sources but to dismiss historians because they are dead or left or right wing is frankly ridiculous. Only by reading a variety of the information are you able to come to an informed view." - Raggytash

I do not think anyone has dismissed out of hand historians "because they are dead or left or right wing". What has been said is that post-1970 due to secret information being declassified and brought into the public domain, due to the Imperial War Museum opening it's archives of World War One material for examination and research by historians and through the release and translation of material in Belgium, Germany and in France the latter day crop of historians working on the Great War have/had at their disposal a greater abundance of material than those writing before ever had access to and where that material throws doubt on conclusions reached by previous historians then that aspect of that earlier work should be dismissed as flawed.

"Only by reading a variety of the information are you able to come to an informed view"

Couldn't agree more, but reading OWALW is not information, neither is "Blackadder Goes Forth". After the First World War from the late 1920s onward there was an amazing pacifist ground swell that almost sealed our fate through appeasement at any price during the 1930s. Had the President of France or the Prime Minister of Great Britain viewed the non-compliance of Treaty terms and conditions as George W. Bush did in 2002 then in 1934 when it was suspected (correctly) that Germany under Hitler was rearming in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles then the Armed Forces of Great Britain and France would have fought a German Army of roughly 100,000 men who had no heavy weapons at all, no artillery, no armour, no air force and no navy to speak of - There would have been no World War in Europe it would have been a minor skirmish that would have lasted one month at the outside.

In assessing the performance of the British Army during the First World War take into account what must be seen to be blatant untruths:

Haig was against tanks - Couldn't have been because it was under his command that they were first introduced, first adapted and improved and first had their role in warfare greatly expanded.

Haig was against innovation - Couldn't have been because it was between December 1915 (When Haig was given command of the BEF) and August 1918 that a whole host of innovations were adopted by the British Army. The differences between the British Army that entered the war in 1914 and the one that emerged as ultimate victors at the end of it in November 1918 was the difference of chalk to cheese, ten times the size with weapons the destructive power and potential of the world had not imagined in 1914. And in the summer of 1918 it was the British & Commonwealth Armies that were the only ones on the field that were capable of mounting offensive operations that ended the fighting having defeated what in 1914 was considered to be the most powerful and professional army in the world. Rationally and logically such a feat is simply not possible if you are badly led - at some point cold hard common sense has to clutch in.

Haig was known as the Butcher of the Somme - Not in his lifetime he wasn't. The Somme was a battle that was foisted upon Haig by his political masters at home and upon the insistence of the French political and military establishment. Passchendael was another offensive campaign decided upon by others who insisted that Haig undertake it and keep on attacking, if you read about it Raggytash you will find that one of the things driving decisions in 1917 from back in Great Britain had to do with submarines and shipping losses.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:46 AM

Raggytash, the only words I use in your list are "competent" and "well led."

Some of your list are quotes of well known historians.
Find a historian who does not think the leadership competent.

I do not dismiss historians because they are dead, but current historians dismiss those previous ones who promulgated what are now known to be myths.

I have not dismissed anyone for being left wing, only for being extremist political activists, left or right.

Jim, what current historian is supposed to have said that the jury is still out on Haig?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:13 AM

"David Lloyd George waited until after Haig's death to use him as a scapegoat to deflect blame away from himself for some of the most calamitous decisions made during the Great War"
So lets's see if we have this right; while Britain's youth was dying in the mud of Europe, back home, the politicians and the military were at each others throats as to who was to blame for "some of the most calamitous decisions made during the Great War", which coincides with what was being claimed by 'Oh What a Lovely War'- particularly in the ballroom staircase scene.
Is this your idea of "a well-conducted war"?
You appear to have gone over to the enemy on how the war was conducted!
As one of Keith's historians dealing with Haig pointed out, as far as historians are concerned, the jury is still very much out on his abilities as a military leader - though, I'm sure, we have a couple of 'experts' who know better
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:56 AM

Teribus, you are quite right Keith has not used the word superb.

He has however stated or quoted in his comments the following:

18th Nov 1.16pm He(Haig)encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks ......... It (the British Army- my parenthesis)was led by men who if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders.

21st Nov 05.57am Military historians all accept that the army was an effective fighting force and competently led.

25th Nov 12.16pm (with regard to the army)the army was well led and had the support of the people.

29th Nov 07.39am (Basically a repeat of 18th Nov)

5th Dec 12.24pm The army performed well under competent leadership, no historian has been found who challenges that.

14th Dec 05.24am Haig in fact remained an imaginative commander

14th Dec 06.19am Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

14th Dec 01.49pm .......Haig in fact remained an imaginative commander.

14th Dec 05.28pm He was clear that Haig was a competent General so the shit operations were someone else's

Throughout his post he has maintained that modern Historian are in agreement that the army was well led.

Yet ........ he then goes on to quote one who suggests that Haig could have done things better.

Baiscally Keith has his own viewpoint which no one, not even modern historians will be able to alter one iota.

I have not read extensively on WW1, I have read a few (I've just taken Max Hastings' Catastrophe from the library) and am open to new information gathered from new sources but to dismiss historians because they are dead or left or right wing is frankly ridiculous. Only by reading a variety of the information are you able to come to an informed view.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:38 AM

All through your comments here you have stated that all modern Historians support the case that Haig was a superb General and that all previous Historians were either left wing, subversive, has their own axe to grind etc etc.
The historian YOU quoted (05.50) said that Haig made mistakes, big mistakes.

All generals in history have made mistakes, but those historians also concluded that he was good.
Find me one who does not.

As T says, no-one has used any superlatives, just that the leadership was competent and effective.

It is not rue that I dismiss people for being left wing, but I do question the objectivity of people who are political activists, be they far left or far right.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:21 AM

"If you have nothing of interest, accuracy or note to say about WW1, may I ask that you point this out at the beginning of your drivel so people don't have to waste precious milliseconds before dismissing it?"

And your contributions have amounted collectively to what Muppets?

Square Root of F**K All as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:18 AM

" GUEST,Raggytash - PM
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM

Keith, All through your comments here you have stated that ........ all previous Historians were either left wing, subversive, has their own axe to grind etc etc."

Most supporting the "revisionist" view of history (i.e. those writing between 1928 and 1969) did fall into the categories described by Raggytash above. A.J.P.Taylor, Liddell Hart, Fuller, Lloyd George, Churchill, and Alan Clark. Post 1970 their work and their point of view on the war have been vigorously challenged in the light of new and more detailed information becoming available from all combatant nations.

OWALW - Joan Littlewood was hardly a pro-establishment right winger. Neither was that prat of a Labour MP who said that OWALW was "part me, part Liddell Hart and the rest Lenin"

They brought politics into it Muppets.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 06:00 AM

" GUEST,Raggytash - 15 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM

Keith, All through your comments here you have stated that all modern Historians support the case that Haig was a superb General and that all previous Historians were either left wing, subversive, has their own axe to grind etc etc."

Really? Are you absolutely sure that you CAN read?

What Keith has said for over one year now is that:

1: The War was necessary for Great Britain
2: That the population of Great Britain understood the reasons for going to war and supported the war effort throughout
3: That in general in comparison to other combatant powers the British Army was well led

Those were Keith's opinions based upon what he has read from the articles, books and documentaries that Commentators and Historians have been writing over the past two or three decades, works written taking advantage of material not available to previous generations of historians.

Now then Raggytash you show either Keith or myself where either of us have said "that Haig was a SUPERB General" - NOTE: If you can't then STFU about it.

Let me see now A.J.P.Taylor former member of the Communist Party, and subsequent to him resigning from it he supports and votes Labour for the rest of his life - Would that not make him "left wing" with regard to British Politics?

Liddell Hart and Fuller in the post-war years were NOT trying to push their theories on military tactics and strategy by arguing that their new ideas were better than those employed previously?

That David Lloyd George waited until after Haig's death to use him as a scapegoat to deflect blame away from himself for some of the most calamitous decisions made during the Great War - Dardanelles, Salonika, sending troops needed on the western front to Italy, placing British Troops under overall French Command subservient to French requirements. For ordering Haig to mount and maintain offensive operations when Haig wanted to halt them?

Winston Spencer Churchill wished to paint Haig in as black a light as possible in order to deflect the public gaze and conversation away from Winston's own failure in Gallipoli?

Are you really trying to tell us that none of the above considerations have to be taken into account Raggytash?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:22 AM

His lack of assessment expertise means I wouldn't want him on the jury either.

Guest. Stop asking Terribulus to address the article you refer to. He refers to articles he wants to and tells everybody it is the article you mentioned.

Do keep up..

Have you not noticed how thick skinned they both are? Mind you, I bet Terribulus at least winces slightly when Akenaton slips in a fawning post.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:09 AM

Keith, All through your comments here you have stated that all modern Historians support the case that Haig was a superb General and that all previous Historians were either left wing, subversive, has their own axe to grind etc etc.

The historian YOU quoted (05.50) said that Haig made mistakes, big mistakes.

So we have a situation that clearly contradicts your previous stance that ALL modern Historians back Haig. No they don't and Thanks to you we have the written evidence that they don't.

I wouldn't want you as my defence lawyer!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:43 AM

If anyone only looks at certain parts of a persons career very different conclusions can be drawn. I am pretty sure that Harold Shipman was probably a decent doctor and may have even saved many lives. Can we not just say that, on balance, Haig was a good general but he dropped a few clangers before he got it right? Sadly those clangers cost a lot of people their lives and whether the lives he may have saved later makes that OK is a matter of opinion?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:36 AM

Everyone could come up with something Haig could have done better.
Historians are no different, but they all conclude, including those just quoted, that he was a good general.

Steve why should I change my mind because a bunch of people, with no knowledge of what historians are saying now, refuse to change their beliefs just because of hard evidence and hard facts.

Why should anyone believe you over the actual historians?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:30 AM

Probably me being a bit thick here, but that is not the article I linked. Same message but different people and different styles. Still don't understand the relevance.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:23 AM

Lindsey German No Glory.Org Blogg

Dated 20th January 2014.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:02 AM

Apologies Raggytash forgot to add in the last post addressing your:

"GUEST,Raggytash - 14 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

Haig should have opted for attrition in the sense of wearing the enemy down gradually - step by step, stage by stage - and devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down.

That basically is precisely what he did from January 1917 onwards.

Hugely successful at Messines where Haig was allowed to plan his own attack

Calamitous at Passchendael where he was ordered to attack

Successful at Cambrai where he was allowed to plan his attack.

The process was called "Bite and Hold" and forced the Germans to concede ground and forced them to have to fight over devastated ground that slowed down their attack in the Spring of 1918 and caused it to "peter out". 21 days after it was over any loss of equipment due to enemy action in the British and Commonwealth Armies had been made good and they started the 100 days offensive that ultimately ended the war.

"devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down."

Ah you mean things like:

1: Varying the time of day you started an attack to match first objectives so that the enemy would have to mount any counterattack in the dark when his artillery would be of least use?

2: Refinement of the Creeping Barrage so that the condition of each individual gun was known and allowed for in the firing plan thereby reducing the incidences of fire falling short?

3: Use of radio? To improve communications with forward units?

4: Insistence of air superiority over the attacking formations? Using air power in a close ground support role?

5: Use of tanks to get through barbed-wire belts, use of new faster light tanks to exploit any breakthrough along with cavalry? Use of tanks to bring up reinforcements, hot food, evacuate wounded?

These were all lessons learned on the Somme in 1916 and all put into practice throughout 1917 and 1918.

The 100 Days Offensive in 1918 remains to this day to be the greatest and most successful offensive campaign ever mounted by British & Commonwealth Forces in their entire history - That offensive was prepared for, planned, led and executed by HAIG.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:59 AM

Hi Teribus. The article I linked says "Posted on January 21, 2014        by Andrew". Which is why I refer to 'he'. Not sure where Lindsey German fits is. I did say the article was probably not by a historian but I thought it seemed pretty well researched. Can you explain your comment please?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:34 AM

"GUEST,Raggytash - 14 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

That article from "your" historian goes on say:

"Haig should have believed in attrition. That is the tragedy of the British in the First World War. Haig should have opted for attrition in the sense of wearing the enemy down gradually - step by step, stage by stage - and devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down"

"Your" historian names and shames Haig. No-one else.

This was basically Lloyd George's take on things and it would not have worked. 1916 saw the strategy of fighting "attritional" battles introduced by the Germans (Falkenhayn) at Verdun and "adopted" by the British and the French on the Somme to relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun. The result was that by the end of 1916 the German High Command knew that Germany could not win a victory on the "Western Front" as long as it was fighting in the East. By the end of 1916 Haig now not only knew that he would win on the Western front (Something he had always believed) he now knew how it was going to be done - and if he had been left to pick is battles instead of them being dictated to him by politicians at home and by the French then he would have won the war not necessarily quicker but with far fewer casualties.

Had the British and the French not attacked the German lines in 1915, 1916 and in 1917 then in 1918 when the best part of 1.5 million men were transferred from the Eastern Front to the Western Front then the Germans would have won the war, the Americans would have arrived too late to be the factor Lloyd George's "attrition" was based upon (i.e. American lives).

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:23 AM

👃👃💩💩

Here, can you smell bullshit?

For once, (train running late, time on my hands) I just read Terribulus's series of communiques above.

Notwithstanding the flimsy logic, contradictions and plain bollocks, it occurs to me that some of it contradicts Keith's stance.

It'll be interesting to see if Keith shouts "liar! You lose" at Terribulus though. You see, making Keith look absurd is the easy part. You don't even have to mean to. Just put your view and Keith looks daft. However, you must point out the stupidity of Keith's comments and the right wing philosophy behind it in order for him to attack you.

He doesn't seem to know when kinder people are gently laughing. You have to make it obvious. Then, and only then, he will stalk the threads looking for any subject where he can find an obscure comment on a website to try to make you look daft.

Agree with him and well.. Even Akenaton and his depraved mind gets support.



Read Terribulus's posts above and I assure you, you don't need to again because his real level of intellect combined with his prejudice is on view for all.

🙈🙉🙊

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:11 AM

" GUEST - 13 Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

Interesting analysis of Dan Snow's myth busting here. Yes, I know it is probably not by a historian and no I do not know anything about the author but his arguments are clear and reasonable.

Lindsey German - a she - not a historian - former central committee member of the Socialist Workers Party and a current activist for the Stop The War Coalition.

The following by one of the Muskets I find hilarious:

"Of course, if the men were well led, this wouldnt be necessary."

Referring here to those executed - well even if everyone who was sentenced had been shot then they would have represented a percentage of only 0.056% of those serving in the British Army - hardly an epidemic is it? So does the fact that 99.944% of that 5.3 million didn't run mean that they were well led? The French Armies mutinied, the German Army mutinied, the German Navy mutinied, the Russian Army mutinied the British Army DIDN'T So does that mean that they were well led?

"The men were under the command of officers charged with their protection, safety and welfare."

In time of WAR????? Care to tell us how they could do that? - Muppet.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:46 AM

"GUEST,Steve Shaw - 12 Dec 14 - 09:45 AM

I must say, I'm extremely suspicious of all these contexts and perspectives being proposed in order, it seems, to justify hundreds of executions for stuff that wouldn't even get you a suspended sentence in civilian life (Ah but Stevie they weren't in civilian life were they? They were serving in the armed forces in wartime on active service). All's fair in love and war, eh? Not entirely sure about that. And again, we have conflation here. It seems to me that an execution for falling asleep on sentry duty isn't heaps better just because it isn't "summary". (What? When the consequences of you falling asleep on duty means that your trench is overrun in a raid and your entire company gets killed and God knows what sort of intelligence is gathered up and booby-traps left to kill the Company coming up to relieve your position?)

Perhaps you should actually read the transcripts and get to know the circumstances - trouble is that you won't and you will continue to think about the events of over 100 years ago from a 2014 perspective and kid yourself into believing that that is relevant.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:36 AM

Raggytash - 12 Dec 14 - 09:34 AM

Only one thing wrong with that Raggy, if that ever happened in any unit on active service, I would rate the life expectancy of any officer or NCO responsible in terms of minutes and at the outside they wouldn't last the day.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:32 AM

"I repeat the story Liverpool docker, Tommy Kenny told us about deserters.
He described them as not attempting to desert but "just walking away from the noise" - there was nowhere for them to desert to anyway.
They were rounded up, put on trial, and more-or-less automatically sentenced to death.
If there was a big push on, they were taken out of confinement and placed in the front line.
If they survived, they were returned to prison to await execution and eventually shot"

Do not believe one word of it - WHY?

1: Stragglers were rounded up, gathered together then reunited with their units. In the confusion of battle it was fully expected that men would become disoriented.

2: Take a look at where those who were arrested and charged with desertion were caught and how long after the action they were caught.

3: The percentages of those found guilty by Military Courts Martial if they appeared before one was almost exactly the same as those who if sentenced to death had their sentences commuted - 89%

4: "If there was a big push on, they were taken out of confinement and placed in the front line."

Now that Mr. Carroll would be impossible under military law, as men under punishment cannot bear arms, was the case then - is still the case now - that little quirk, that fact actually saved my Grandfather's life.

5: "If they survived, they were returned to prison to await execution and eventually shot.

Now c'mon Jim don't tell me you just swallowed that line, tears or no tears, just give me one example of this happening, there must be a trail of records? I mean:

- Arrested there must have been a record of that;
- Court martial proceedings there must be a record of that;
- Temporary release and return to duty there must be a record of that;
- Returned to custody there must be a record of that;
- Execution there must be a record of that;
- Burial there must be a record of that.

Now what can you show me - S.F.A.

So do I believe the story? No I damned well don't.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:15 AM

Well " GUEST,Steve Shaw - 12 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM":

1: Perhaps you could tell us all whether or not courts and the punishments handed down at the beginning of the 20th century were generally far harsher than they are today?

2: Perhaps you can confirm (Just in your own mind) that you realise that once you join any of Great Britain's armed forces (even today) that you immediately become subject to not one but two completely separate legal codes and back in the early part of the 20th century as stated above in 1: both were harsher than they are today. Every servicemen who is tried for any "civilian" offence gets punished twice - Once by a Civilian Court and then by the Military, it is called "consequential punishment".

The numbers i.e. approximately only one-tenth of those sentenced to death actually suffering that penalty is roughly in line with established practice (Ever heard all those stories related to capital punishment for stealing loaves of bread and poaching?) of the thousands sentenced to hang only 10% were ever actually hanged - again simple matter of record - easy to check up.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:32 PM

You know, I corrected every flippin' one of those typos before posting but summat didn't take. Sod it, iPad.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:21 PM

The thing is, Raggytash, it doesn't matter what you say to Keith. He will not change his mind and he will repeat his facile nonsense ad nauseam in an attempt to grind down the opposition. It is not debate. You will notice that every one of his posts is brief. No argument is ever developed and there are constant and predictable appeals to authority. Cherrypicked sources are quoted but he never employs them as an organic part of his case. We are supposed to just read them (never fear: he hasn't) and work out for ourselves what it is he wants us to think he's thinking (which, of course, he isn't). If you make a point that demurs even slightly from his deluded conviction, he will, again predictably, immediately shift the goalposts. What you can definitely say, before you bother to get too tangled up with him, is that the conversation, if you engage in it,will go on forever and get you nowhere. But never fear. No- one here is listening to him. Yes, Teribus has given him succour, but there is norta scrap of enthusiasm behind the supposed advocacy. In fact, Keith must be a highly-embarrassing friend to have. Here we have a man without a life. Disagree with him ten times a day and he will be back at you twelve times (try it if you don't believe me), and there will be no delay. He's at his keyboard,waiting for you. The man is a charlatan and a waste of space. Fortunately he has no influence because he's a laughing stock. Even pete could teach him a lesson or two when it comes to maintaining just a shred of credibility. Enjoy his idiocy. Have a sarky dig every now and again, but don't engage. You have a life, after all, even if he hasn't.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:34 PM

Ah, play the joker. That will do it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:32 PM

Keith and Teribus have already addressed the tactic of "doing nothing".

It would almost certainly have resulted in the loss of the war.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:20 PM

Have you not realised yet, Raggytash, if it does not fit in with Keith's view it will be dismissed. I am just intrigued to see how this one will be dealt with!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

That article from "your" historian goes on say:

"Haig should have believed in attrition. That is the tragedy of the British in the First World War. Haig should have opted for attrition in the sense of wearing the enemy down gradually - step by step, stage by stage - and devising a means of doing this without getting his own forces worn down"

"Your" historian names and shames Haig. No-one else.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

He was clear that Haig was a competent general, so the shit operations were someone else's.
Haig was responsible for all our operations after French was sacked.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

Sorry I meant to ask, when did I mention Haig in the previous post (07.27)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 02:19 PM

So.... let me get this right........ one of "YOUR" historians suggests that a particular incident was "well planned and well conducted military operation" but then further suggests, no states, "you don't have too many of those".

Yet you still insist that the whole campaign was well led, well, planned, well organised, despite one of "YOUR" historians stating quite clearly that such an event was the exception and not the rule.

I have been very tempted to follow the path of others and question your intelligence .................. but I won't.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 01:49 PM

Raggytash, that has just been explained in very simple terms.
It refers to all Western Front operations, not specifically British ones.

The same historian said,"Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

"There's a popular view that Haig really set out to get his troops killed, believing that he would swap one of his men for one of the Germans. There would be a bloodbath on both sides; and because he had rather more men than the Germans, he would, at the end of the day, be left victorious, and the Germans defeated.

"This view of Haig is really quite untrue. Haig, in fact, remained an imaginative commander."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:27 AM

Quote from one of Keiths beloved Historians: (05.50AM)

"it really is an extraordinary example of a well planned, well conducted military operation on the Western Front in world war one, you don't have too many of those".

That, to me, suggests that many other Military operations were not well planned or well conducted.

One of YOUR Historians Keith, not one we have "invented", presumably one who is still alive and "knows the truth" about what really happened.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:00 AM

Read what he and others say about the competence of the British leaders.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:32 AM

(Email me the password duck!)

Thats a rather extraordinary claim Keith. On what basis do you make the mental leap to say the author was making general claims on the armies of particular countries?

(You can't, I win, I confidently predict etc etc zzzzzzz)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:27 AM

In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is King.



I doubt anybody is saying the butcher of The Somme was incompetent. Leading so many men to their deaths takes planning and a certain flair.

Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:19 AM

He was referring to other armies.
Read what he said about our commanders, e.g.
Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

"There's a popular view that Haig really set out to get his troops killed, believing that he would swap one of his men for one of the Germans. There would be a bloodbath on both sides; and because he had rather more men than the Germans, he would, at the end of the day, be left victorious, and the Germans defeated.

"This view of Haig is really quite untrue. Haig, in fact, remained an imaginative commander.

http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_wilson_05_haig.html

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke from Scotland
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:12 AM

oh bugger. I thought this thread was going to die a natural death, unlike most of the soldiers who died unnatural unnecessary deaths.

Just look at the last sentence of you latest cut and paste Keith. It contradicts everything you say.

How can Teribus defend your stupidity when you go and paste something like that ?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

Again,

"And Haig said, 'What a lot of no-hopers these guys are,' and went ahead and attacked and broke through in 24 hours. But the British have got the artillery game so well under their belts that they just devastate the Hindenburg Line. And it really is an extraordinary example of a well-planned, well-conducted military operation on the Western Front in World War One. You don't have too many of those."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:24 AM

Trevor Wilson,

Haig was not the dunderhead, certainly not the intentional butcher, that he's often portrayed as being.

"There's a popular view that Haig really set out to get his troops killed, believing that he would swap one of his men for one of the Germans. There would be a bloodbath on both sides; and because he had rather more men than the Germans, he would, at the end of the day, be left victorious, and the Germans defeated.

"This view of Haig is really quite untrue. Haig, in fact, remained an imaginative commander.
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_wilson_05_haig.html

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:19 AM

Again,

What I'm trying to point out is that the old image of the unthinking butcher and bungling generals who are not thinking about what they're doing is totally untrue.


"In the British and Commonwealth forces, I think the Command is beginning to be decentralized in the sense that Haig leaves his subordinates, for instance, to fight the battle to a much greater extent by the end of the war than he does even in 1916. That's one process that's got to be learned. The second point, in this sort of learning curve, if you like, is the people don't learn everything overnight. It's trial and error – and that above all, is what it's about. And there were lots of errors and lots of endurance needed in order to see this learning curve through.

"So it is a bleeding curve, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating in 1918, when the formula, to my mind, is much better balanced. The army is able to win."
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_simkins_07_battlefield.html

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:11 AM

Peter Simpkins,
"One of the figures in Britain that did anticipate a long war was Field Marshall Lord Kitchener.

"He was appointed, slightly against his will, Secretary of State for War at the outbreak of war. Kitchener tapped into this mixture of local civic pride, national patriotism, a sense of belonging to a community. Once Kitchener tapped into this in end of August, beginning of September 1914, the British Army suddenly expanded almost overnight."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:25 AM

Yes.
History is based on wide research not individual anecdotes.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:13 AM

According to Keith, any quotes from Harry Patch in that or any article are invalid because a) he is dead now and b) soldiers serving in the war had to wait seventy odd years to be told what they saw or experienced.

Next!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:01 AM

Interesting analysis of Dan Snow's myth busting here. Yes, I know it is probably not by a historian and no I do not know anything about the author but his arguments are clear and reasonable.

http://memoirsandconfessionsofunjustifiedsinners.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/the-historian-dan-snow-and-his-10-myths-of-ww1/

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:26 AM

Keith is cutting and pasting his own posts now.

If anyone has seen a plot anywhere, could they pm Keith as he appears to have lost his.

🐴💩

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:11 AM

Keith, Other historians who disagree with you have been named several times by different people. Each time they have been cited you have said basically "they don't count"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 02:54 AM

You can not deny that those highest profile historians agree with me.

Right or wrong that makes them reasonable views to hold so the ridicule and abuse are misplaced.

You say there must be other historians who disagree, but you can not name one.

That is not a strong case.
That is open to ridicule.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:24 PM

And HERE they go again...........!

WWI Mudcat Debate

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:15 PM

Just assertions that can not be supported.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:10 PM

There were "offences" for which you could be executed and about twenty were. Many many more had an officer "don the black cap" but the sentence wasn't carried out.

Of course, if the men were well led, this wouldnt be necessary. The military police (commonly known as red tops and red caps) had a role in finding them and bringing them to justice, as the role of any police officer. (Teribus is wrongly suggesting people on this thread reckon they stopped and shot them. This is Teribus wriggling out of being seen to be Stupid.)

Keith just said that war is diffent to other jobs. The men were under the command of officers charged with their protection, safety and welfare. This was abused by senior officers who had callous disregard for their men. Sending waves of men over the top into the fire of German guns is not good leadership. After the first wave, competent leaders would be back to the drawing board.

But no.

Most men didn't die to save their country. They died to save the face of incompetent callous offiicers. If Keith actually has read anything about the war, he is perpetuating the insult.

Teribus on the other hand is showing his real cards now. Note the personal insults? I and the other Muskets insult the insults. His is an index insult. It is also a Teribus insult in being factually inaccurate, irrelevant to the case in hand and lacking in wit.

How sad that someone can spend all their time researching making others on Mudcat look idiots and still fail...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 12:22 PM

"Fighting a war is different to other jobs."
Certainly is - you can go and look for another whenever you please and nobody shoots you if you decide to have a few days off
"Judge the British Army against other armies"
Why - barbarism is barbarism in any army?
"Was anyone executed for that anyway?"
Two according to Terrytoon
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 11:42 AM

Fighting a war is different to other jobs.
Different rules apply.
Judge the British Army against other armies, not against civilian jobs where falling asleep is unlikely to endanger the lives of large numbers of people.

Was anyone executed for that anyway?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:45 AM

I must say, I'm extremely suspicious of all these contexts and perspectives being proposed in order, it seems, to justify hundreds of executions for stuff that wouldn't even get you a suspended sentence in civilian life. All's fair in love and war, eh? Not entirely sure about that. And again, we have conflation here. It seems to me that an execution for falling asleep on sentry duty isn't heaps better just because it isn't "summary".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:42 AM

"From a television series? "
No - from the background information to that series, from someone we recorded in 1969 and from somebody who included it as part of a soldiers glossary (given to him by his veteran grandfather)
The only reason I raised the television series was to indicate that it was common knowledge among the soldiers.
You have the statements - the only response you give is to call the veterans who are being honoured for their part in the war "liars and attention seekers".
Your list of officially carried out executions makes interesting reading in light of your argument that those who fought did so willingly
If your buddy Kitchener had had his way, it would have included conscientious objectors - that wold have sorted out some of Keith's fellow-Christians
I share Steve Shaw's incredulity that anybody could be so dispassionate at the murder of so many what turned out to be sick young men.
I repeat the story Liverpool docker, Tommy Kenny told us about deserters.
He described them as not attempting to desert but "just walking away from the noise" - there was nowhere for them to desert to anyway.
They were rounded up, put on trial, and more-or-less automatically sentenced to death.
If there was a big push on, they were taken out of confinement and placed in the front line.
If they survived, they were returned to prison to await execution and eventually shot - when Tommy told us this it was one of a couple of occasions he broke down in tears.
More lies, no doubt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:34 AM

Just mulling over the idea of summary executions. If I were a General I would not have recorded such an order in the Regimental Archives, I may not have even given such an order, although I may have closed my eyes to it actually happening.

The Soldiers in the trenches are unlikely to have told the next of kin of such events as the person shot would be branded a coward.

Thus examples of it happening are not recorded.

I may be wrong but it is perhaps a thought worth consideration.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:25 AM

Unlawful in the British and U.S. military, summary executions for desertion or cowardice were frequent and officially sanctioned in the Soviet Army in WW2.

Merridale, "Ivan's War: Life and Death in the Soviet Army, 1941-1945": "Few [Soviet] soldiers would not have heard about or seen at least one summary execution. ...At Stalingrad, as many as 13,500 men are thought to have been shot in the space of a few weeks."

Just at Stalingrad. A little perspective never hurts.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM

I find it somewhat incredible that you can list those executions so unapologetically and dispassionately. "Only 346" is 346 too many for my taste. Even under a brutal civilian justice system, no more than 40 of those executions (for murder and "mutiny") would have happened. I am no historian but I should like to suggest that most of those were carried out to keep the others in line (yes, I know the cliche). Putting your statistic alongside the overall war casualties in an attempt to minimise its impact is both disingenuous and utterly irrelevant.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:56 AM

"The twenty or so executions, not to mention the ones not carried out after sentencing are all myths now!"

What on earth are you babbling on about fatty? Or is it one of the other two?

Over 3,000 death sentences were passed by British courts martial between 1914 and 1920 - Only 346 of those were actually carried out:

266 were for desertion,
18 for cowardice,
37 for murder,
7 for quitting post,
3 for mutiny,
2 for sleeping while a sentry,
6 for striking a superior officer,
5 for disobedience and
2 for casting away arms.

In every single case above the order to carry out the punishment was signed by the Commander in Chief of the British Forces after all trial papers had been reviewed.

None of the above was subject to a summary execution as described by you clowns and by Jim Carroll - My reason for being able to make that assertion? Every scrap of paper pertaining to the events leading up to the man being buried is in existence and can be viewed.

By the way just as an aside many of those shot were under suspended sentences of death and had re-offended. All received a blanket pardon. Now why on earth a convicted murder should be pardoned I do not know.

To put things into perspective measure the 346 against the 702,410 officers and men of the British forces killed in action.

"Assistant Provost Marshals and their men had the grim duty of supervising the executions of men sentenced to death. They themselves were not required to furnish the firing squads."

So even those duly tried and executed were not shot by your RED TOPS - Muppet.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:27 AM

Remember that what I actually said was I think the "battlefield police" as described are an unlikely force. A lot different to I did not believe they existed at all. I am sure they did exist but I do not know how they were employed. As there is only hearsay supporting Jim's opinion we cannot really rely on it as hard evidence. I am not knowledgeable enough comment on what they actually did.

Armistice now?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:15 AM

The twenty or so executions, not to mention the ones not carried out after sentencing are all myths now!

This gets better.

Can't wait for us to get to WW2, David Irvine is an amateur compared to this fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

"Maybe stopping the Great War once it was clear it was a futile conflict was too difficult to achieve"

Effin right is was impossible to achieve primarily because of the German insistence that any peace deal had to be conditional on them (The Germans) retaining the ground they had already taken - A condition that neither Belgium or France would ever accept.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:05 AM

"You have been given the description of battle police executing stragglers and deserters

From a television series? Are you f**kin serious, do you honestly think something dreamed up by some bloody director of a TV series actually constitutes proof that such an event EVER took place you gullible clown.

"and you have ducked this by describing the veterans who gave these descriptions as "liars" and "attention seekers"

Likewise just because "Good old Charlie" said it happened does not make it so without some form of substantive proof.

Our prolific posting GUEST mate doesn't even believe that there ever was such a thing as "Battle Police" - I know that they did exist, I know why they existed and I know that no-one operating under the direct command and subject to the standing orders of the Assistant Provost Marshal was ever given authority to carry out summary executions of anybody in the British Army.

Now this is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact - well documented fact.

Now if you wish to persist in this MYTH then come up with some evidence of it ever happening (NOT works of fiction, not some unsubstantiated hearsay account that is impossible to verify - looking for real evidence here)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

From another thread and a man far wiser than me -

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:05 AM

Omar Khayyam ( or rather Edward Fitzgerald) got it spot on:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

Maybe stopping the Great War once it was clear it was a futile conflict was too difficult to achieve, but drawing this futile squabble on the Mudcat to an end shouldn't be impossible.

Armistice time please!!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:44 AM

"C'mon tell us again about those wicked RED TOPS, or possibly one of your other idiotic stories."
You have been given the description of battle police executing stragglers and deserters and you have ducked this by describing the veterans who gave these descriptions as "liars" and "attention seekers"
You are a shit for having done so - no way to commemorate the bravery of people who gave their lives for Britain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:35 AM

The only person(s) making a twat, or twats {Your choice of word Musket} of themself/themselves on this thread Musket are you and your GUEST clones.

C'mon tell us again about those wicked RED TOPS, or possibly one of your other idiotic stories.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:05 AM

A question: Musket - 12 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

Now which one is that?

1: - The over-weight, fat, bald, bespectacled, bully too weak to stand on his own two feet.

2: - The weak sycophantic, smart arse incapable of any original thought

3: - The weak sycophantic git, the classic bully's shadow.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:32 AM

And that is what passes for debate from Musket!

Go into a bookshop Musket.
What you will see are the books of Sheffield, Paxman, Snow, Todman and Hastings.

As you know, they contradict all the old myths you cling to.
Do your laughing boy act there.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

Funnily enough, I do struggle to keep at my best weight, and with the skiing season coming up..

But I can burn off my bit because it is neck, shoulders, belly etc, (not that being 6'4" and 13 stone is fat of course but we are talking your logic here.)

Your fat being where your brain is, exercising it just seems to make you worse.

I love insults. But just for me, be even funnier and start defending poor leadership again. I like that. What's that one you do about good decision making again? I could hear the laughter coming all the way from the war memorial.

I'd take your stand up act to the war graves if I were you. Captive large audience and all that. You and Keith could give them your latest material too. You know, about hospitals and schools being legitimate targets so long as the militants are Israeli and the victims Palestinians.

That would make good pantomime.

"where's me moral authority to preach on Mudcat?"

"It's behind you!"

Naw, doesn't work. Not sure you ever had it in the first place, fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:03 AM

No Musket with the amount of fat you carry around you'd be the provisions.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:02 AM

"The practice of summary executions was well-known enough to have been included in the highly regarded series, 'The Village', where a young lad was depicted as having been caught, taken into a field and shot by two military police - no protests from irate viewers or the powers that be." - Jim Carroll

Ah so what is depicted in a Television Series must somehow be accepted as the gospel truth? Ever heard of poetic licence?   Ever heard of altering things to increase the dramatic effect?

I have asked many times now - come up with just one instance where armed military police carried out the summary execution for cowardice or desertion - and real life example please not one from fiction based upon S.F.A.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:10 PM

2o out of how many million Musket?

Jim, OK.

Which of my three points shall I re post quotes about first?

You said that the character was arrested and shot by Redcaps.
That was bollocks.
He was taken to France to face court marshal.

"Butcher" Haig commuted the death sentence on 90% of those condemned.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:31 PM

I'd be the captain of course.

Cream always rises to the top

😼

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 01:29 PM

'Two men cast adrift in a rowing boat Musket -if they are are to stand any chance at (sic) surviving their ordeal -one has to be the captain'

i'm quoting teribus from a few posts back but also making a general point.

this is not right. we achieve much more by treating each other as equals and respecting and caring for each other.

imagine yourself and musket in the rowing boat. by the time the 4 of you had stopped fighting about who was going to be captain.....well, you'd be fucked eh?

we don't need to have a 'rank' ..nor accept any rak that anyone tries to put on....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

"If he was portrayed as being summarily shot there would certainly be complaints. I read that he was arrested in England on his farm."
Yes he was - that is how the account that the series is based on tells it - more liars eh
The authorities would never dream of letting soldiers go unpunished for such behaviour - ask the relatives of those who were massacred on Bloody Sunday!!
Any nearer to providing those links yet - no - didn't think so?
"official orders must have existed and should survive"
Yes they should - it's taken nearly a century for the illegal soldiers' diaries to surface - perhaps the bi-centenary!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:57 AM

And yet almost 20 men were executed.

Many more were given custodial sentences.

After all, well led informed men don't need such coercion eh?

Bluster and piss to avoid the reality.

Sacrifice, bad decisions, disregard for the lives of our men and jingoistic propaganda.

Carry on avoiding it. What happened happened and no bullshit from Terribulus or his little friend will alter it.

By the way, anonymous guest who thinks my beer belly is large. If yours was as small and well muscled as mine, you wouldn't have to chloroform unsuspecting women before interfering with them. (Not as anonymous as you thought eh?)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:41 AM

Jim,
'The Village', where a young lad was depicted as having been caught, taken into a field and shot by two military police - no protests from irate viewers or the powers that be.

I read that he was arrested in England on his farm.
If he was portrayed as being summarily shot there would certainly be complaints.
Perhaps you fell asleep and dreamt that bit.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:30 AM

All very good points, Lighter. Thank you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:18 AM

> I cannot envisage that 100 years ago the British press would have been given the freedom to report on such abuses and I cannot imagine they were ever recorded.

Surely correct about the press. Nor would many journalists have wished to report it if it did occur (bad for morale and/or not typical).

But for squads of "battle police" to have been detailed to execute supposed deserters summarily, or even to force men out of the trenches, official orders must have existed and should survive. (The CIA documents survive because the Agency claimed that what they were doing was clearly legal, as would the hypothetical issuers of official orders to shoot people.) The thousands of surviving private diaries would have mentioned enough of such incidents if they did happen, and surely after the war (especially now, after a hundred years) historians would have the evidence.

You can't prove a negative in this case, but there is no reliable evidence to suggest that anything of the sort ever happened or could have happened under orders.

At least in the British and American armies. The best known reference to "battle police" shooting supposed deserters is in Hemingway's novel "A Farewell to Arms." It is about the Italian army in its retreat from Caporetto.

There's also the famous scene in the movie "Paths of Glory" of a crazily ambitious French general ordering artillery fire on his own troops to get them to advance. Significantly, the artillery captain refuses to obey because the order is illegal.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:17 AM



Really? Strange because they are mentioned in lots of official sites

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:16 AM

We will see GUEST my money is on not one single person coming up with one single recorded instance of this ever happening.

And yes Jim your old soldier was shooting you a line.

I mean come on look at the supposed situation logically:

Line of armed MPs - how many? do they outnumber you? probably not

If you don't go over the top we'll shoot - What all of us?

MPs shoot one of your mates - Me along with everyone else in the Company turn round and shoot the MPs. We are after all more heavily armed than they are. It would only ever happen once and just the prospect of it would be horrific enough - Fact it never happened at all - EVER.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:52 AM

The practice of summary executions was well-known enough to have been included in the highly regarded series, 'The Village', where a young lad was depicted as having been caught, taken into a field and shot by two military police - no protests from irate viewers or the powers that be.
If these executions weren't authorised, they must have been carried out by death squads - nice thougt!
Personally, I'm getting a little sickened of reading attacks on War veterans accounts of their experiences in favour of the agenda driven opinions of war apologists and phantom historians a century later.
A shitty way to commemorate those who died, as far as I'm concerned
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:29 AM

OK - The CIA example was bad because there is much more transparency now. I cannot envisage that 100 years ago the British press would have been given the freedom to report on such abuses and I cannot imagine they were ever recorded. In any case, I cannot say which viewpoint is true as I do not have the knowledge but, on balance, I think the "battlefield police" as described are an unlikely force. I do suspect that some provosts or MPs did overstep the mark, as did some soldiers, but I do not believe it to be a general thing. As I said in my 09:14AM post, rumour is a powerful force when trying to keep scores of people in check!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:21 AM

> I suspect no authority was given to the CIA men who tortured their prisoners.

Actually, it seems that authority *was* given by the Department of Justice, on the basis of a bizarre ad-hoc interpretation of the Federal statute making torture (which was broadly defined) a crime. Interrogators were given a limited list of permissible methods.

The worst abuse, moreover, occurred when agents went beyond even those.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:17 AM

In the interests of objectivity on this matter about British Military Police or Regimental Police or Battle Police ever having the authority to summarily execute people in the course of their duties let us be perfectly clear - that sort of thing is highly illegal - they would be charged with murder - as evidenced by the recent trial and conviction of Royal Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman.

I can say with absolute certainty that during the course of the First World War "No such authority was ever given" as I can say with equal certainty that the ONLY time such authority was ever sought by the officer commanding his Regiment's battle police the Provost Marshal specifically forbade it.

Your CIA example doesn't work. People have actually been tortured or rendered to places where enhanced interrogation techniques have been used. Such instances are a simple matter of record and the subsequent court cases and award of damages are known so no-one at any time in the future can deny that they ever occurred.

I have now asked three people on this thread to come up with just one instance of the things they claim were common practice to validate their claims - to be perfectly objective - not one of them has managed to provide evidence of any of their claimed actions ever happening.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:14 AM

When I started secondary school I was terrified because all the older kids I knew said that the prefects put your head down the toilet and flushed it. I never saw any evidence of that. Not saying it didn't happen or that the older kids were liars but I am inclined to believe that rumours can become very realistic if told by enough people. Particularly if they help to keep large numbers of people under control. Just a thought.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:05 AM

Challenge away - it came from a veteran soldier and was included in a soldiers glossary
The soldier we recorded claimed that it happened too - another liar eh?
If it was not authorised, it meant that part of the army included unofficial death-squads - another insight
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:49 AM

I think you need to be careful, Teribus, of phrases like No such authority as being permission to carry out summary executions was ever given. Not saying you are right or wrong, just be wary of citing that no authority was given. I suspect no authority was given to the CIA men who tortured their prisoners. In 100 years time will historians be saying it never happened because the CIA did not have the authority?

Just trying to be objective.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:37 AM

"(You didn't mention my humongous cock. Do keep up.)"

Would that be the self same one that you haven't seen for years due to the unbelievably monstrous over-hang of your big fat gut?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:34 AM

Oh good heavens Jim has just read something on the internet and instantly accepts it as Gospel, God's honest truth, something that must be true and completely beyond question.

But wait a minute Jim Carroll always questions everything, from a lifetime of completely disbelieving anything anyone in a position of authority says ever if Jim reads IT on the internet - so why isn't he questioning this?

Well OK I will challenge Jim Carroll to question this entry from Paul Hinkley (About whom nothing, and I mean nothing is known). His Battlefield Colloquialisms appears on a Griffiths University website but Mr Hinkley was neither a student or a professor there, they know nothing about him. The glossary of terms was found on an early University Website that allowed amateurs to post hobby material for free and the University seeing no harm continues to make it available.

I also challenge Jim Carroll to come up with one single instance of this ever happening.

Ask GUEST,Rahere about"Battle Police" we thrashed this out earlier on one of these threads. These guys were not even military policemen (First World War you had MMP and MFP) the battlefield police were men of the stay behind company and when detailed they operated under the orders of the Assistant Provost Marshal. No such authority as being permission to carry out summary executions was ever given.

So c'mon Christmas give us some evidence of:

- Battlefield police lining the trenches to force men to go over the top.

- Battle field police carrying out summary executions of those suspected of being deserters.

Just one will do in an Army of over 5.3 million over a time span of four years three months - just one. But I will not be expecting anything, I will not be holding my breath, because it is yet another of those dearly held myths about the First World War, probably blabbed out to Jim from some old soldier who told Jim that he'd been there and had seen it and of course Jim knows that everyone who speaks to him always tells the truth.

Great Britain - Military Police

Excerpt from above related to the First World War:

" As far as provost duties were concerned, no instructions existed as to what these might be, and they had to be defined and acted on as they became apparent. In France these mainly included the manning of 'stragglers' posts', traffic control, dealing with crime committed by British soldiers, the control of civilians within the battle area, handling prisoners of war, and patrolling rear areas and ports. Of these, perhaps the operation of stragglers' posts has become the least understood, giving rise to the legend of the Redcap, pistol in hand, forcing shell-shocked Tommies forward to certain death. THE FACTS PAINT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PICTURE. Stragglers' posts or battle-stops, as they were sometimes called, were collecting points behind the front lines where prisoners of war were taken over from the infantry, runners and message-carriers were checked and directed. Walking wounded from Regimental Aid Posts were directed to casualty collecting stations for evacuation, and 'stragglers' were dealt with. This last-named duty involved halting soldiers who were obviously neither casualties, signalers or runners, re-arming and equipping them if necessary, and sending them forward to rejoin their units, individually or in groups. With so few MMP or MFP men available, this type of work was mostly done by 'trench police' or 'battle police', men from a division's cavalry squadron or cyclist company, regimental police or corps cavalry, who also directed traffic in communication trenches. All worked under the direction of the divisional APM."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM

I hasten to add that the author of the link I have just given is probably not a qualified historian and took his information from his veteran grandfather, so it is probably all attention seeking lies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:05 AM

Silly me. There I go again, using the words used by memoirs, interviews and recollections of those who were actually fucking there. I should know better of course.

I should believe those clever people who talk about The RAF, despite it not even fucking existing at the time this thread is about. 😹😹

About as sccurate as your description of three people. Even the physical bits you should have stood a chance with no, you can't even guess, never mind speak on any subject with conviction.

Actually Terribulus, I do feel sorry for you on one score. The only time Akenaton has posted a comment that isn't embarrassing for him was when he weighed you up.

My commiserations.



(You didn't mention my humongous cock. Do keep up.)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:41 AM

"BATTLE POLICE Armed military police patrols deployed in the trenches following an attack to deal with (often by summary execution) stragglers and men who had refused to go over the top."
BATTLE POLICE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:38 AM

Thanks in turn "GUEST - 11 Dec 14 - 06:24 AM"


To "Musket" / "Muskets" - can well believe your story it matches well to the persona:

1: - An over-weight, fat, bald, bespectacled, bully too weak to stand on his own two feet.

2: - A weak sycophantic, smart arse incapable of any original thought

3: - A weak sycophantic git, the classic bully's shadow.

By the way Musket it is RED CAPS - RED CAPS Musket they have always been known as RED CAPS

For the RAF their Military Police have always been known as SNOW DROPS

For the Royal Navy the Regulators Branch have always been known generally by Officers as the Shore Patrol and by "Jack" as the Crushers.

Perhaps you should read a bit more Muskets - you might just learn something.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:31 AM

If you had read the war memoirs of Sassoon or Graves, you would know that your "red tops" stuff is shit.
They were highly critical of almost everything about the war, but they never mentioned any of that.
They most certainly would have.

Can you find anything from anyone backing it?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:11 AM

Somebody save the "muskets"!    they're floundering. :0)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:50 AM

Of course some bloke in Scotland posts as Musket. He said so. So do I. So does the third Musket. I shared the log in when we were having a laugh at a wedding we were all at and thought the best way to take the piss out of some of the strutting cockerels was to share a log in and play a game of carrying on where the other left off. Far more fun than the verbal wanking required to drop to the level of some of the pseuds on here.

That's for BS by the way. Above the line is another barbed wire full of dead soldiers.

What's all this about clues Terribilus? If you have to call that a clue, it says something about your calibre of research...

Have you found something devastating that everybody else has always known?

By the way, the military police patrolling behind the lines were known as red tops. Pedantic versus colloquial terms are no argument unless it is a desperate attempt to look good.

You passed that point ages ago. Here's a tip Terribulus. Save the stupidity for after the first few lines of your posts when every fucker had stopped reading. You look less of an arse that way me old love.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:24 AM

Thanks Teribus. Your position seems more reasonable than some others and while I would always rail at the phrase 'believe me because I know better' I am happy to accept reasonable argument. I am not saying I will necessarily agree but at least I, and many like me, will consider the possibilities. I know it doesn't matter whether I agree or not but I think an agreement to differ may avert a war while 'I am right, you are wrong' is more likely to do the opposite. People are contrary like that and will usually attempt to defy authority. I include myself in that.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:11 AM

A couple of good posts there Guest {11 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM & 11 Dec 14 - 05:00 AM}

"My worry is that politicians will use the historic justification for WW1 as justification for the next war."

Most wars in history resulted from acts which were instigated, or from motives, which were at the time accepted and generally held as being in the national interest. I do not believe that that now necessarily holds true. Since the emergence of the "Professional Politician" national interest as the governing factor has now been replaced by what is in the best interests of the "Party". The Falklands War was the last time "national interest" was the deciding factor.

"I believe that nowadays the Generals and high command are in the same position as Tommy in the trenches. They are all being used as a weapon by the people who pull the strings."

Generally, I would agree with this, all too often since the 1960s politicians have ignored warnings and concerns voiced by senior officers in the military on military matters. The modern crop of "Professional Politicians" deliberately ignore the considered opinions of senior officers while trading on and abusing the "Can Do" attitude of our armed forces which often results in our forces being placed by those politicians in extremely awkward and dangerous situations where the "Professional Politicians" then renege on every promise and assurance given (Afghanistan and Iraq are two very good examples of this)

"Unfortunately, in WW1 at least, the impression is that the high command were the power people."

I believe that IT IS ONLY "the impression" it most certainly was not the case. Since the Restoration in 1660 the tradition in the military in Great Britain has always been to be strictly and transparently seen as being "a-political" and that the armed forces are there as the loyal servants of the Crown, the Government and the country. In the lead up to the First World War the only thing asked of the heads of Great Britain's armed forces would have been, "Are you ready? How long will it take to deploy your forces".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:00 AM

BTW - I believe that nowadays the Generals and high command are in the same position as Tommy in the trenches. They are all being used as a weapon by the people who pull the strings. Unfortunately, in WW1 at least, the impression is that the high command were the power people. Whether that is true or not I do not know but I am always willing to learn.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

We pretty much are reflecting what the majority of historians currently writing about the First World War are saying, and what they are saying is based upon a great deal more information than any who have written on the subject previously.

I think that is a reasonable statement. Hopefully it will knock the absurd claim that all historians support this or that view on the head. 'The majority currently writing' is a far cry form 'all'. I may disagree with you about war, Teribus (I am the '14 year old' guest) but at least you are honest with your analysis. My worry is that politicians will use the historic justification for WW1 as justification for the next war. We should all know by now that wars are not between ordinary people like you and I but between the people who hold the power and the money. I think a lot more effort should be put into learning the lessons that history has to tell us so my children and grandchildren will not have to suffer the same deprivations that my father and grandfather did. If that is naive, so be it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:54 AM

There is a reason why no living historian still believes what some used to believe.
It is because they have been proved wrong by subsequent research.

Why do you people dismiss the knowledge of all living historians?
Because, just like religious fundamentalists, you close your mind to anything that challenges your beliefs.

Political superstition.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:33 AM

"Musket - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:07 PM

Talking about misrepresentation Musket:

I know some bloke in Scotland and I occasionally share a post or two, but let me beat him to stating that

You complete and utter fraud you ARE GUEST,Some bloke from Scotland.

"you are not repeating what your pet few historians are saying."

We pretty much are reflecting what the majority of historians currently writing about the First World War are saying, and what they are saying is based upon a great deal more information than any who have written on the subject previously.

"You are misrepresenting their work whilst making the sacrifice of the fallen look competent and necessary."

Nope, everyone who was involved in the decision to enter the war, everyone in the country, civilian and military alike, all fully realized that there would be sacrifice – that is unavoidable in war, the other thing that was fully accepted as being a reality was that such sacrifice would only be made if it was thought to be necessary.

"You say they were well led."

They were generally well led in comparison to the leadership demonstrated in the armies of any other combatant nation, they were all fighting the same war, at the same time and facing the same problems. Under those circumstances the British and Commonwealth Armies did adopt and adapt their tactics and that is reflected in them having lower casualties than the other combatant powers. The British and Commonwealth Armies suffered no instances of mutiny in the field and from 1917 onward were the only allied power fighting on the western front willing and capable of mounting offensive operations.

"The majority died carrying out the orders of their leaders, not the inaction of them."

So Musket what you are saying is that - Leaders should not lead and orders should never be given? No bloody wonder the NHS is in such a shit state, despite the billions it has had thrown at it. Two men cast adrift in a rowing boat Musket – if they want to stand any chance at surviving their ordeal – one of them has to the Captain.

Lloyd George was all for adopting a passive attitude and had his advice been followed then Great Britain and France would have lost the war. But our men would have still died in droves Musket. Had it not been for weather in 1917 the war could have ended then, it didn't but German Armies were shifted off the high ground and they were pushed back sufficiently so that when after millions of experienced battle-hardened men had been transferred from the Eastern front in 1918 to mount the last gasp German Spring Offensive as they broke through the British Front in Flanders what did they break into? Rolling green fields? An undisturbed landscape over which they could move easily and freely? No they broke through into the quagmire that had been the battlefields of Passchendael and the Somme and their logistics chain broke down. They broke through into a landscape that "we" knew intimately a landscape that we knew how to move through and that they didn't. They broke into a landscape that exhausted them and swallowed them up. It would have been quite the reverse if Lloyd George had had his way. Had we not fought the Somme, had we not fought Messines and Passchendael then in the Spring of 1918 when the German onslaught fell we would have been thrown back into the channel and the Germans would have marched into Paris.

"The casualty numbers were not necessary."

So you say. So what was the alternative? Sit there and let the enemy artillery massacre you at will?

"You say they knew what they were doing and why."

Yes I asked both my Grandfather's and they most certainly said that they did.

"I fail to see that a whole generation of men could ignore and not be driven by the jingoistic propaganda. "

Why Musket is that because you yourself are susceptible to being overly influenced by propaganda? I'm not. Different generation Musket, these were men who were proud of their country, proud of the Empire and men who had an over-riding sense of responsibility, obligation and duty to their country - in short Musket thankfully far, far better men than you. I obviously have a far higher opinion of them than you do.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:36 AM

OK let us be honest GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland = Musket {Clue: He's the only f**kin Idiot I've ever known to refer to the Royal Military Police as "RED TOPS"}

Having run out of, or being totally incapable of reasonable argument and lacking any understanding of fact or detail, when his views are challenged and his dearly held myths are exploded he resorts first to name calling. Now by coming onto the forum under a different guise he has to introduce Time Machines FFS!!!

Tell me Musket into whose shoes would you parachute yourself into way back there in 1914? Political Leader's? Haig's? A Corps or Divisional Commander's? Someone on the Staff? A front line Officer's? A Sergeant's? A Soldier's? Or those of either of your Granddads down the pit? What and how much do you think you would see from each of those perspectives? Post 1970, the historians who have poured over the vast wealth of personal correspondence sent and received by soldiers and officers alike give a good enough snap shot, they have read through it, neither you and I have read anything like that in terms of volume or range. You rely on the stories told to you by your relatives, I rely on those told by mine who both served at the front one with the Sherwood Forresters on the Western Front and the other with the KOSB at Gallipoli and in Palestine.

Historians in 100 years time will be saying roughly what those are saying today and what those said immediately after the war, they will say only some of what the "revisionists" said between the 1930s and 1969. That prediction of mine being based on the premise that very little "new" information will emerge between now and 2114. Interesting though Musket, but typical, is your over-simplistic "either" or "or" approach to everything. In this "Time Machine" of yours why not do both.

" Neither Teribus nor Keith seem willing to look at the facts, relying instead on contradictory publications written for their own means."

Had quite a chuckle at this as in reading through the various threads on the First World War it has been myself and Keith and a few others that have introduced fact based arguments, supported by quotations, and links to documents, while you have relied on myth and rumour, which when challenged doesn't even withstand cursory examination.

Take for example your seeming obsession with "RED TOPS". What was it that you had them doing when you first introduced them again? Oh yes they:

- Were lined up armed to the teeth in the trenches and forced men "over-the-top", even held the ladders for them eh?

- Were ordered to shoot out of hand any who refused to mount the trench ladders

- Were ordered to shoot out of hand anyone who turned round to come back.

- Patrolled the trenches with orders to shoot out of hand anyone they suspected of being a deserter.

You were asked repeatedly and given ample opportunity to produce one single example of any of that ever having happened – What was the result of that Musket? Not one single instance in an Army of millions during a war that spanned the globe and lasted over four years – NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE.

So now, unable to back up your original claims, and lacking the integrity to admit your mistake, it comes down to your criticism that the "RED TOPS" patrolled – High pal I've got news for you they are still doing that to this day - You muppet that is their function, it always has been:

- They are patrolling to ensure that servicemen do not kick over the traces and stay within the bounds of the law.

- They are patrolling to ensure that servicemen do not act in any manner not considered to be conducive to good order and military discipline.

- They are patrolling to ensure that young servicemen are not set upon by gangs of thugs and beaten up.

- They are patrolling to ensure that servicemen are not robbed blind and ripped off by locals.

When were waves of men sent over the top to wear down the enemy Musket? Be careful should you answer this because I am ready to blow up the typical myths born to "Oh What A Lovely War" and the "Blackadder" crap you are going to try and peddle as fact.

" You can see photographs of the jingoism and propaganda in place."

Only British Musket? Or did it also apply in equal measure in every nation engaged in the war?

"You can see accounts of the work of the red tops and court martial system. "

Yes we most certainly can, all very well documented, and none of that matches your fairy tales Musket. F**kin RED TOPS I ask you – you're a joke.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:58 PM

I'm not dismissing alternative views in your case. I'm dismissing the views of a disreputable and bigoted man. You may have some views worth considering for all I know, but, such is your reputation here that you'll have to forgive me for not wishing to pursue the matter.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:48 PM

So you don't think my opinions count Steve? Well that's neither very civil nor very egalitarian...is it.
I think ALL views count including yours and the fraudulent Musket's they may be based on supposition, media caricature and political agenda....but they still count in debate.

Funny how you great upholders of equality can so easily dismiss alternative views as worthless. Begins to make me think that you are far from sincere in your beliefs and are in fact driven by myth and rigid ideology.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:55 PM

Yebbut Lighter, scientists have far stronger constraints. They will be quickly called out by their peers if they allow political or religious bias into their work, or if they are discovered to be selective or tendentious in their working methods. Mr Spock rules OK. Historians are, of course, also subject to peer criticism of their work, but the basis of such criticism is far less formal, and biases are somewhat easier to conceal, especially when you consider that those who think they detect bias may well be biased themselves. Biased by politics or religion (or class...), for example. That's not to diss historians, but it is to point to the fact that historians are somewhat more allowed to be normal human beings than scientists are. ;-) And that's why Keith's cherrypicking is such a dangerous pastime. It's easier to cherrypick and still seem "reasonable" in history than it is in science. I mean, just look at how we all laugh at mad pete's take on science, yet Keith's take on history is just as disreputable, and he's still here. He's the only one who can't see that. Well, I suppose there's ake, but he doesn't count (and he must be a major embarrassment to those he throws his lot in with). Even Teribus is seeing it, if my antennae are working correctly.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:34 PM

Troubadour; As someone has already said we're all wasting our time attempting to alter the views of a few contributors to this particular topic.

I am sure some of what they have said has an degree of truth but like many people sitting in the comfort of the 21st Century I recall conversations with my Grandparents who lived though and fought though WW1.

I have tried to avoid mentioning my Grandfathers, they both survived, however, they saw first hand the senseless slaughter, they lived in the trenches, they were gassed, shot, wounded by shrapnel and lived with the consequences of their time there.

Both my Grandfathers said to me as teenager it was a stupid and futile war that could have been concluded and differences reconciled by men sitting around a table and talking.

Need I say anymore.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:19 PM

Scientists discover laws of nature that require continual refinement by later scientists.

Historians interpret facts on the basis of documents; their interpretations too are continually refined.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:59 PM

if this isn't the definition of what constitutes the most callous, brutal, brainless bunch of idiots in history - then who would you suggest is more stupid?

Keith.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:51 PM

"Raggytash NO SINGLE LIVING HISTORIAN HAS BEEN NAMED."

So the works of Galileo, Faraday, Boyle, Copernicus, Newton and Darwin are irrelevant, because they are all dead?

Is that the illogical limit of your and Teribus' understanding.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

Germany invaded.
Should they have just been allowed to create a miltarist empire of all Europe.

Tell us what alternative Belgium, France and Britain had but to defend themselves from a brutal agressor.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:15 PM

We have all tried achmelvitch. Save your breath.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:11 PM

whether german, british or the leaders of any government at the time, all considered that the only way to resolve their differences was by putting hundreds of thousands of their young men in freezing, filthy trenches to kill each other to win a few metres of muddy land. when this didn't seem to work - send up a few thousand more youths to the front and repeat. if this isn't the definition of what constitutes the most callous, brutal, brainless bunch of idiots in history - then who would you suggest is more stupid?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:59 PM

Easy to say, but the Germans were not invited in to France and Belgium.
They intended to occupy all of Europe.

What should the allies have done except block their way?
The historians say it was a necessary war for us.
Are they deluded, stupid or lying?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:53 PM

for a few years hundreds of thousands of young men sat freezing in filthy trenches, killing each other to try to gain a few metres of muddy land. a hundred years on we have a furious and elongated debate about whether this was good leadership on behalf of the governments of the day. get a grip people -it was disgusting, barbaric and brainless 'leadership' by all concerned. war.....what is it good for? like this argument, absolutely nothing

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Now the perception of the Great War that had formed in the late 1920s was strengthened all over again. Working-class lads had been sent like sheep to the slaughter by brutal and stupid generals, callously indifferent to the suffering they inflicted, a theme played much later and with repellent facetiousness by Blackadder. The upper classes as a whole stood condemned for wanton bloodshed."

"The military historian Max Hastings has suggested that ...."

"Not only is our reverence for the "good war" a sentimental misprision, our generation is exceptionally ill-placed to deride or condemn those who fought in the Great War. This is a worse than usual case of the condescension of posterity. The idea that the upper class sacrificed the sons of the poor is plainly untrue. A junior officer on the western front was three times more likely to be killed than a private soldier, and the 21,000 British dead on 1 July 1916, the first day of the Somme, included 30 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel or above.

One little-remembered detail of the Great War is that between 1914 and 1918 no fewer than 22 sitting members of parliament were killed in action – a fraction of the MPs who served. There were 85 sons of MPs killed, including the eldest son of Herbert Asquith, the Liberal prime minister when the war began, and two sons of Andrew Bonar Law, the Tory leader of the opposition."

"Maybe there is no such thing as a good war, but there may be necessary wars, and a case can be made for 1914 as well as 1939, "

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:29 PM

"if"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:21 PM

I am happy to leave it at that if you are.

Yes, but you DON'T go!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:15 PM

You really are making yourself look silly.

You think quoting historians, in context, with links, makes someone look silly.
Fine
You think claiming to know more than historians who are all lying or deluded does not make you look silly.
Fine.

I think that makes you even more silly.
I think any reasonable person would too.
I am happy to leave it at that if you are.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:28 PM

I enjoyed "Blackadder" as a comedy series, mainly due to the brilliant comedy acting of Rowan Atkinson.
I did realise that it was a comedy performed by actors and not an historical document.
I don't believe there is any hidden message, other than war is not GOOD. Sometimes war is unavoidable and the tactics employed are determined by time and place.

Being a socialist, brought up on revisionist WW1 history, I always wondered why my grandfather thought so highly of General Haig; and I thank Keith and Mr T for helping to explain a lifelong puzzle.

Just try to think outside your fluffy pink "liberal" boxes for once...everyone can derive knowledge by listening to experts.
We may not LIKE what we hear, but long term, it will do us good.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:07 PM

I know some bloke in Scotland and I occasionally share a post or two, but let me beat him to stating that you are not repeating what your pet few historians are saying.

You are misrepresenting their work whilst making the sacrifice of the fallen look competent and necessary.

You say they were well led. The majority died carrying out the orders of their leaders, not the inaction of them. The casualty numbers were not necessary.

You say they knew what they were doing and why. I fail to see that a whole generation of men could ignore and not be driven by the jingoistic propaganda.

You really are making yourself look silly.

Why?

How can I take the piss effectively when you make it so easy? Fish in a barrel.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:03 PM

You are not supporting Keith, Teribus. Still some validity, you say - Keith doesn't think that. You don't think that recent work totally dismisses all work done previously. Keith does. But it does blow holes, you say, in "some" dearly held myths... Keith thinks that all the history of dead historians is all myth because all living historians dismiss it, and he believes them. Honestly, mate, you diminish yourself by clinging to Keith as an ally. Everyone here except for you and Keith can see that you and he are miles apart in terms of scholarship, thoroughness and consistency. He's a non-starter in all three respects. The other aspect of these debates here that is unhelpful is the conflation of the argument for the cause and justification of the war and the argument regarding the competence of the leadership. I'm not going to agree with you about the latter but I'm listening to what you say on the former. Unfortunately, you come across as being biased, aggressive and evangelical, putting the baby in severe danger of going down the plug with the water. Outcomes, dear chap, outcomes...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:23 AM

In the absence of time machines, historians use hard evidence for their sources.
The historians' researched opinion is clear.

You set yourself above them, as if you could possibly know more.

On the evidence of these threads you actual knowledge is trivial.
That makes you ridiculous and absurd.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke from Scotland
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:12 AM

Right, now I have built my time machine, I have a choice;

Do I travel back 100 years to see what it was really like?
Do I travel forward 100 years to see what the living historians make of it?

I shan't bother offering a lift to Keith because either way, I doubt he would like what he saw.

Neither Teribus nor Keith seem willing to look at the facts, relying instead on contradictory publications written for their own means.

You need neither historians nor a CSE in history to see the result of sending waves of men over the top, hoping to wear down the enemy. You can see photographs of the jingoism and propaganda in place. You can see accounts of the work of the red tops and court martial system.

Sanitised, glorified and stupified.

Shame on you both.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:00 AM

WTF is this "finally even Teribus has clearly, unequivocally, said they still have some validity. It would seem you're on your own now."


1918 to 1928:
Work published immediately after the First World War at the time was considered to be an accurate account of events and was extremely supportive of the steps taken by both Government and by the military.

1928 to 1969:
Work published in the period after the death of Earl Haig was "Revisionist" and many writing this history had agendas of their own - Liddell Hart; Fuller; Lloyd George; Winston Spencer Churchill; Alan Clark and A.J.P.Taylor.

OK then Raggytash did the work undertaken in this period totally negate what had been written beforehand by those "who had lived through it and taken part in it"? No of course it didn't - so stop trying to push the idea that the work by authors of this period are the alpha and omega of the matter - they most certainly are not. Much if not all of the source material was still classified and large swathes of foreign material had yet to be declassified, released and then translated.

1970 to Present:
Historians during this period have questioned the work done and published in the previous period and swung back more in line with the work done immediately after the war. This shift in opinion based upon new material becoming available and fresh interest coming with the 75th, 90th and 100th anniversaries of the conflict. By the way it was in this period that historians got to pour over the massive archives containing letters, photographs and diaries held by the Imperial War Museum, plus the material released by the British Government in accordance with their 50, 70 and 100 year rules, plus the wealth of foreign material similarly released by the Belgians, French and Germans.

I do not think that this work totally dismisses all work done previously but it does blows holes in some dearly held myths that were created between 1930 and 1969.

Keith is doing astonishingly well in holding his own in this discussion and he is far from being on his own.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:39 AM

I only referred to your friends being Lefties.
No living historian has been found who still believe that stuff, or are you going to name one?
I think not.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:34 AM

Keith,

Firstly you know nothing of my political leanings, secondly you cannot state ALL historians agree that the writings of the earlier period were incorrect, there are modern historians who agree with them as has been clearly demonstrated here by other contributors and finally even Teribus has clearly, unequivocally, said they still have some validity. It would seem you're on your own now.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:19 AM


I do not dismiss them because I, and many others, still consider that they have some validity.

"many others" includes all your Leftie friends on Mudcat, but not one single historian.
Ask yourself why.
Also ask yourself what your opinion on history is worth if all the actual historians say different.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM

Of course they have some validity Raggytash, but where new reliable and verifiable information contradicts what they have previously said then that new information must stand.

Second World War example:
The popular myth about the early air defence of Malta relying on three Gloster Sea Gladiator aircraft. The truth? There were nine aircraft in all but to preserve parts and to maintain defence and pilots only three were ever flown and put at risk at any one time. It doesn't alter the fact that the early air defence of Malta was represented by a flight of three aircraft, but it would be inaccurate to state that the air defence of Malta was reliant on only three aircraft, if push had come to shove then more could have been flown.   

As for what happens between now and 2040? I haven't got a clue, but I would doubt very much now that anything earth shatteringly new is going to be revealed in relation to the Great War. The stuff that has come out over the last forty years comes from German, French and Belgian sources, newly translated and never viewed or studied before.

One thing however is certain and that is the realisation that viewing the First World War solely on the information and conclusions reached and stated in commentaries and historical works of the 1930s to 1960s is wrong. That viewing the First World War through the prism of "Oh What A Lovely War" or "Blackadder Goes Forth" and expecting to get any real understanding of the events of the First World War is wrong.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:45 AM

I do not dismiss them because I, and many others, still consider that they have some validity.Your historians themselves may be dismissed in 30 years time when the reasoning behind their writings become apparent to the generation that read them in 2040. They too may be discredited and accused of writing myths.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:43 AM

"Some time ago I mentioned Liddell-Hart and Fuller. Other people have mentioned AJP Taylor and I even quoted Winston Churchill" - Raggytash

OK then Raggytash

Liddell Hart - 1920s/1930s - Military Theorist

Fuller - 1920s/1930s - Military Theorist

A.J.P. Taylor - 1930s to 1960s - Historian - Not a specialist on the First World War.

Winston Churchill - 1920s/1930s The six volume World Crisis basically was written by Churchill from the point of view of justifying his decisions and role in the war.

The most recent of these "historians" of yours is A.J.P.Taylor 1969 so tell me what sources other than British were available to those authors? How much of the First World War was still secret (50 year rule would mean that information would trickle through from 1964 onward so that rules three of your four out).

If the number of different sources and the transparency related to classified information is anything to go by then it logically follows that anything written AFTER 1970 must be more complete than anything written before that. Between 1970 and 1990 a flood of foreign material from both France and Germany became available adding to the historians knowledge - all of this would have been unavailable to Liddell Hart, Fuller, Churchill and A.J.P.Taylor - True?

It doesn't invalidate their work but it must modify some aspects of the earlier work due to better understanding in the light of new and additional information.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:40 AM

See my new post at the "Lovely War" thread.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:40 AM

Germany lost 2,037,000 members of their armed services during the First World War. A war that they specifically prepared for, a war that they could have halted between 28th July and the 31st July 1914 yet did absolutely nothing, a war that they they knew would be automatically triggered the moment they gave the order to mobilise their troops. A war that in the west called for the invasion of a neutral country, a country they attempted to influence by threatening that any resistance would result in measures being taken directly against its civilian population and result in the annexation of the country at cessation of hostilities. Belgium and Luxembourg were invaded by seven German Armies and ~6,000 Belgian civilians were murdered. During this period between August 1914 and November 1918 the men of the German Army were trying their utmost to kill members of the Belgian, French and British Armies arrayed against them, so it would appear that the justification for killing all those Germans would be the fact that they were trying to kill our troops - seems fair enough to me.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:38 AM

So what do you think they were too thick to understand Scot Bloke?
"Germany invaded belgium and France."
Not complicated.
"We might be next."
Not complicated.
"Treaty obligation"
Not complicated.

I showed you the Daily Mirror of day one.
It was all laid out there.

Can you find anything, even by long dead historians, that says the people did not understand or support the war, or are you making shit up?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:31 AM

That Guardian piece supports my views.

Keith, Just because a historian is dead does not mean their views are invalidated.

Correct, but if new evidence leads all historians to reject ealier findings it does.
It is not me that rejects the old views, it is the historians of today and the last thirty years.

Why do you cling to old, discredited myths?
The historians do not.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:21 AM

Teribus just said that all Keith did was state that the population fully understood.

Err.. That's why everybody is laughing at him.

Jingoism, propaganda and diplomatic failures do not lead to understanding, let alone informed consent!

Good leadership? Phew, I'm glad we had that. We would have to build cenotaphs and war memorials otherwise, on account of all the wasted lives eh?

I don't know why you are both defending the indefensible, the Ruperts won't thank you for it. They look down on fawning oiks and sycophants.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:12 AM

"Fount not font, silly me"
In the best Grauniad tradition
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:46 AM

Fount not font, silly me

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:44 AM

Oh please don't mention the Guardian that font of rabid left wing liberal Marxism. Someone will be having apoplexy now.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:34 AM

What he is saying, Raggytash, is that because there is no more documentation the current historians know better. Just in the same way as our knowledge increased and we eliminated religion and religious wars...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:31 AM

A bit of light reading from today's paper : the myth of the good war

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:29 AM

Keith, Just because a historian is dead does not mean their views are invalidated. Every historian born before 1900 is dead. Most historians who have EVER written are dead. Are we to dismiss ALL their works as being irrelevant because they are dead. Most of the worlds renowned scientists are dead too, are we to dismiss the works of Newton, Einstein et al merely because they are no longer living.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:26 AM

"representative of the First World War with regard to the British Government"
He described the the Prime minister of the day as attempting to smear one of his Generals in order to cover up his own cock-ups - is that good leadership in wartime?
What it does, in fact, is paint a picture of World War One that is far nearer 'Oh What a Lovely War' and 'Blackadder' than anybody else here
He has invented his historians and refuses to respond to the claims made by the Paxman programmes which means he is no longer claiming that they back his case (which has now changed from "everything was good" to three items - he always does this)
He and you have described the soldiers as attention seeking liars, which is as low as it gets
Between you, you present a laurel and Hardy image - you the pompous oaf, he the idiot hanger on.
You, at least, appear to be interested enough to have read up on the subject, which would make you quite interesting to debate with if it wasn't for your belligerent (and somewhat defensive) arrogance and your tendency to smear dead relatives
He has made himself a predictable figure of fun.
Fine representatives of the Good Ol' Empire days, in fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:17 AM

Those are long dead historians.
There is not one living historian who still holds their views, which are discredited by later research.

I am just stating what the historians are saying now.
You people are just stating what some historians used to believe decades ago.

Let us all acknowledge that and move on.

(Please do not deny it without an example of a living historian who still holds those old views.)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:13 AM

So, over 2 million people "invaded and attempted to occupy and annex other nations, committing crimes against humanity in the process". History in the remaking at it's best. How about you attempt to answer the 'idiotic question' and justify all those deaths rather than resorting to a rather poor attempt at personal abuse. I am not 14 BTW but I do remember being so and distinctly remember it being a time of change and excitement. Maybe we should take more note of what younger generation say? Out of the mouths of babes...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:06 AM

Yes we have and you have dismissed them as not worthy of consideration. Some time ago I mentioned Liddell-Hart and Fuller. Other people have mentioned AJP Taylor and I even quoted Winston Churchill (surely a hero of yours) and you in your infinite wisdom suggested they were all wrong.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:05 AM

"GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:36 AM

If termination of someone who is taking the lives of others is necessary to stop them then, yes, I agree it is both justified and necessary.

Good so we agree that there are such things as "JUST WARS" and "NECESSARY WARS".

"What is the justification for killing over 2 million people of the German empire in WW1?"

Because they had invaded and attempted to occupy and annex other nations, committing crimes against humanity in the process? Would they constitute justifiable and necessary reasons to oppose them and kill them. Remembering of course that of the "over 2 million people of the German Empire you mention, 2,037,000 of those German deaths were all military personnel.

"I think that your assumption that anyone who disagrees with war must be immature says realms about you."

Do you now. Well I think that anyone who writes as you have done:

"There is simply no justification for the mass termination of lives. End of story."

AND asks idiotic questions such as:

"What is the justification for killing over 2 million people of the German empire in WW1?"

Is absolutely screaming their immaturity to the world and its dog.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:02 AM

Not at all sure what "Of the five people currently contributing to this thread under multiple identities" means and I have discounted GUEST no-names like me but here is a list of contributors to the thread

Bonzo3legs
DT
Ed
Elmore
GUEST,Blandiver
GUEST,CS
GUEST,Rahere
GUEST,Some
GUEST,Steve
GUEST,gillymor
GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Greg
Herga
Jim
Keith
Lighter
Little
MGMLion
Musket
Raggytash
Richard
Steve
Teribus
akenaton
olddude

I am pretty sure that all but three are saying more or less the same thing. And it is not on the list you provided.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:02 AM

Raggytash NO SINGLE LIVING HISTORIAN HAS BEEN NAMED.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:00 AM

Pacifist Guest, I respect your views but do not share them.
Some wars can not be justified, but I believe Britain was right to stand against the agressor in 1914.

I sang the song in Hertford last night.
It went well.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:57 AM

As Teribus says, we are just stating what the historians say.
Not cherry picking Steve, they all agree on those issues.

You people all deny that, but have yet to produce a single historian who differs.

You still can't.

You are arguing against the historians and imagining you are above them.

Is there any point continuing?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:52 AM

However the historians I and others have named who do not agree with Teribus and Keith have been summarily dismissed as not worthy of consideration or as having a pre-set agenda. What would we have to do to convince you that there are different views that may be worth consideration.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:44 AM

GUEST,Steve Shaw - 10 Dec 14 - 06:26 AM

You prove the point I have just made beautifully

Keith has stated that:
1: As far as Great Britain was concerned the First World War was a necessary war that Great Britain had to fight to safeguard her own national interests.
2: That the population of Great Britain in 1914 fully understood why the country was going to war and that same population throughout the war supported the British Government.
3: That in general throughout the First World War the British Army was led led in comparison to the armies of other combatant nations.

To support those beliefs Keith has provided the names of historians, commentators and acknowledged military experts who have all in varying degrees studied the period extensively and who have reached similar conclusions. He has also provided links to the works of these individuals for those following this thread to read.

Of the five people currently contributing to this thread under multiple identities Keith and myself are arguing opinion based on fact, the others, yourself included, are arguing invective, nonsense and myth.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:36 AM

If termination of someone who is taking the lives of others is necessary to stop them then, yes, I agree it is both justified and necessary. What is the justification for killing over 2 million people of the German empire in WW1? Were they all taking the lives of other people? Were they all guilty of atrocities? I think that your assumption that anyone who disagrees with war must be immature says realms about you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:28 AM

" GUEST - 10 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

There is simply no justification for the mass termination of lives. End of story."

If you truly believe that then you yourself have answered your own question.

Now let me see now - "Mass termination of lives" - if direct military intervention and confrontation prevented such a "Mass termination of lives" would that make it both a "JUST WAR" and a "NECESSARY WAR"?

What age are you 14?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:26 AM

Wow, and I was just beginning to take you seriously. Keith is all cherrypicked quotes and no scholarship. Meretricious in the extreme. I don't really do numbers games like Keith with his "all historians", but you are severely on your own here in your (noticeably muted) defence of him. At least you (unlike Keith and meself) can claim a degree of scholarship, though you do tend to muddy it with your rather blind and ardent advocacy of one side of events. Eyes tight shut, hands clasped over ears. You have your heroes and you won't be swayed. Unfortunately, that's quite possibly not a great approach to historical enquiry. But how would I know. I'm just off to read my botany book now.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:25 AM

Let's use Keith's logic here.

Fact: He believes he is right because a consensus of people tell him so.

Fact: On this thread the consensus of people believe that Keith is a Wanker

By Keith's logic Musket is right and, sorry Teribus, you lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:08 AM

Musket - 09 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM & GUEST,Steve Shaw - 09 Dec 14 - 06:19 PM

I tend only to post if I have something to say or add to the discussion - unlike either of you.

Keith A seems to be doing perfectly well on his own, he has stated what he says is representative of the First World War with regard to the British Government, her population and its Army. Unlike either of you he has backed up his opinions by direct quotes and links to historians who voice similar conclusions as a result of their extensive research into the subject. Interesting to note there is not one single detail you have successfully challenged. Instead in response you resort to childish name calling, attempts at distraction, deflection and distortion. Any time you do attempt to introduce what you perceive to be fact you get shot down faster than grouse on the 12th of August. As far as I can see in terms of this discussion - he's wiping the floor with the pair of you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:52 AM

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's Historians!"


"Now don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

Who decides if it is just or necessary then Teribus? You? Keith? 'The historians'? There is simply no justification for the mass termination of lives. End of story.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:46 AM

"GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

I am off now. Thanks for the fun and games. Before I go I would like to make one thing clear. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD WAR. Those who are trying to justify it should be ashamed of themselves."

Quite agree that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD WAR." I do not think that anyone in this thread has ever stated, or tried to justify that it was a GOOD WAR ( Whatever that might mean)

There is however such a thing as a "JUST WAR".

There is such a thing as a "NECESSARY WAR"

If you cannot differentiate between one and the other then perhaps it is better if you did depart.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:42 AM

Keith, so you name and "correct" Gillymor and then go on to "correct" Jim without actually naming him in the thread that you started by naming Gillymor. Interesting use of language, not to mention logic.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:01 AM

That'd confuse him even more.

Confused or just asleep, he still jumps in on any thread to give us the benefit of his "knowledge" when all anybody asks for is "opinion."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:58 AM

"You are either the most stupid person on this site or a hypocrite of the worse kind"
Give him a break - why can't he be both?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:23 AM

He doesn't know when to shut up Steve. He just knows when not to be proud if his words.

Once more. If they were well led, the strategy of sending waves of men into the German machine guns, followed by more men in order to wear them down was planned.

I doubt a single credible narrator of the war justifies that under the "well led" banner.

By the way, interesting article on BBC News website this morning about how commercial interests cashed in on the jingoism and propaganda.

To reconcile that with Keith's analysis of his precious historians needs a rather vivid imagination and to be fair, I'd never put him down as being so creative.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:08 AM

This gem has just surfaced in this thread


Subject: RE: WW 1 christmas song
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 07:35 AM

I sometimes sing John McCuthcheon song, without the intro and plenary, and end it with Silent Night.
Could it be?

Did you really Keith? You mean to tell us you sang the words

"That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we're the same."

And did not understand the sentiment that those leading the soldiers would not be killed and that killing fellow men was wrong?

You are either the most stupid person on this site or a hypocrite of the worse kind.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, unbowed
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:06 PM

Any man who lets Keith ruffle his feathers is a lesser man than I am!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:02 PM

Raggytash, it looks like Keith didn't properly direct his 2nd comment to Jim in that post. Didn't ruffle my feathers. :)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:18 PM

Read it again.
I was talking to Jim about Kineally.
It was him who brought her name up.
Jim, I quoted her statement that most historians do not hold Britain culpable for the famine.
Deny that/
Want the quote again?

Musket, "Keith's irrational stance"
You mean me saying that historians know more about history than chumps like you?
They do.
They have devoted their lives to the study, and you know nothing about any of it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:05 PM

Keith,

Jim may well have mentioned Kineally, but Gillymor didn't.

Your totally illogical pop at gillymor obviously caused upset. By the standards you propose to uphold you were well out of order.

I could go on ..............

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:19 PM

Don't goad Teribus too much, Musket. At least he knows when to shut up. You can't knock that. A bit like David Brent going quiet when he suspected that Gareth was on his side...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM

Has anyone noticed that Terribulus stops posting when everyone is laughing at Keith but every time Keith digs something up that they think is interesting, Terribulus stops "guesting" and wants to be named again?

I give it 24 hours till enough people have dismissed Keith's irrational stance again and we will be seeing a few more "guest" jibes.

I'd use him as a barometer if I were you Keith.

😋

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:39 PM

" Kineally who I quoted to Jim in a famine thread."
There as here, you claimed her as a historian who supported your case - as here, she was saying the opposite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:25 PM

Raggytash, Jim mentioned the historian Kineally who I quoted to Jim in a famine thread.

Jim,
Hasting was condemned for his contept for the military

Only in one single review of his latest book.
Read a few more, like the one I showed you from his own old paper, The Telegraph.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

Hold on a mo Keith, When did Gillymor mention the Famine, and if so which famine, there were more than one.

Did I miss something?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:00 PM

"Hastings says the same as I do."
Hasting was condemned for his contept for the military - can you assume you share that contempt (you've had the review)?
Your clip has nothing to do with what is being discussed here - given the fact that the war was an Imperial squabble over the division of spoils, Britain had no alternative to do what they did in sending a generation to their deaths - are we to assume that is your position.
You claim Paxman supported you.
Programme on dealt with the unpreparedness of the British establishment in sending too few untrained troops to the Mons fiasco in the belief that the outcome - a victory - was a foregone conclusion and would be a short affair - is that your view?
Programme two dealt with the recruitment campaign, the coercion of men to join witha promise of adventure and glamour -0 is that your view?
It condemned the Kitchener armaments fiasco - is that your view
It exposed Horaio Bottomly as a profiteer in recruitment, becoming a millionaire on sending young man to their deaths - is that your view?
Lat's see how you get on with them - lots more to come
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:45 PM

The faith you have in your short list of historians Keith..

There are others, but not a single one who believes the old myths that you people do.

Or have you finally found one? (guffaw!)

You look so stupid Musket, preening yourself and imagining your views based on nothing are even worth mentioning.

I just say what the historians say.
When you ridicule the historians, you make yourself ridiculous.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:23 PM

The faith you have in your short list of historians Keith..

Watch out, Jesus will be jealous.

No, you didn't bring Hislop into this. A Musket did. In order to bait you it seems, and you grabbed it, hook, line and sinker.

You brought another newspaper hack into it though, Hastings.

Just to be serious for once. The last part of your last cut and paste. Hastings stated an opinion that ancestors did not fight for nothing.

Great! Nobody disagrees with that and nobody on this thread supports the position of either The Kaiser or The Austro Hungarian stance.

But what has any of that to do in any way with the blundering, callous disregard for life or disgusting treatment of the men who delivered the result?

None.

Yet you state continuously that to not laud the Ruperts and incompetents is shameful.

Fuck you blue eyes.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:04 PM

BBC on Hastings.





The Necessary War








Our perceptions of the First World War today are dominated by the idea it was a futile conflict, a colossal waste of life, and an immense tragedy for Britain and all of Europe. It is a view that has been fostered by the war poets who wrote vividly about the experience of trench warfare, and by countless novels, films and television programmes in the years since. Many even go as far as suggesting that the First World War led directly to the rise of Hitler and the outbreak of the Second World War.

In a single documentary to mark the 100-year anniversary of the outbreak of war, Sir Max Hastings presents the argument that although it was a great tragedy, far from being futile, the First World War was completely unavoidable.

Max presents the case that the rulers of Germany in 1914 were intent on dominating Europe and, after Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in June 1914, actively encouraged the Austrians to invade Serbia. They were responsible for igniting the spark that turned a local controversy into a full-blown European war.

He also argues that once the Germans decided to invade France through neutral Belgium, it was impossible for Britain, mindful of its own position within Europe and a guarantor of the small state's neutrality, to simply stand by. Not only that, when the conflict was only weeks old, the Germans were already compiling a shopping list of key territories they would seize after victory to secure their complete domination of Europe.

Through conversations with the world's most eminent World War I scholars and military historians, including Sir Michael Howard, Sir Hew Strachan, Professor John Rohl and Professor Margaret MacMillan, Max explores the key questions surrounding the outbreak of the war and the necessity for Britain to step in.

He also explores how and why, once the war was over, the common perception of the conflict as a bungled, unnecessary bloodbath emerged. He examines the misconceptions that surround the Versailles peace agreement, which many unfairly blame for the outbreak of the Second World War, and the sense of disappointment and frustration created by economic and political turmoil of the 20s and 30s.

In conclusion Max argues that, while the centenary of the war is not a cause of jubilation, we should tell our children and grandchildren that their ancestors did not fight for nothing; if Germany had won, Europe would have paid a far more terrible price.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wtmz6

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:57 PM

gillymor, I found it all to be out of date.
Actual historians dismiss such views.
This is just some anonymous entity who knows nothing of the last 50 years of historical research.

Hastings says the same as I do.
Kineally is on one side of a debate that I have no opinions about, but she did say that your views of the famine have been rejected by most historians.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:35 PM

That was awfully rude, Keith. What did you find to be untrue in that article?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:14 PM

"Paxman did many interviews and articles on WW1 before the series, showing much more knowledge than any of you people and expressing the same views as me."
Exactly what you said about Hastings and Kinealy - and look what line they both took
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:12 PM

"I did not bring Hislop's name into all this Jim"
Don't care who did - you are latching onto him in desperation as someone who comes near to your arguments - the nearest so far
I told you - I don't scramble round the net looking for validation for a history I am fully aware of from my general interest in history and was brought up with - I don't need to.
Ours is the accepted and taught version of events, the ones you have scooped from have admitted that they are out of step and need to change the accepted view - their own description.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:10 PM

gillymor, Jim put that up ages ago.
He had no idea who the writer is/was.
Have you?
Most likely some random blogger.
Historians always acknowledge their work.
That is shit.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:05 PM

I did not bring Hislop's name into all this Jim.
Musket and his clones did.
But he is someone who is hated by the establishment, and someone who knows a lot more about WW1 than you people do.

Musket,
Unfortunately, it was Keith who said television personalities who just present have no idea as they aren't historians.

Completely made up.
Paxman did many interviews and articles on WW1 before the series, showing much more knowledge than any of you people and expressing the same views as me.

All this is just a diversion however.
My point is still that my views are those of historians, and if you ridicule them you make yourselves ridiculous.
Also that none can be found who still believe those hoary old discredited myths that you do.

Or have you finally found one?(chuckle)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 11:58 AM

Interesting essay on Haig, click here. , from a 2007 edition of Military History magazine.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 10:22 AM

"He is just talking personally, not presenting a documentary!"
e're all talking personally - so he's just another voice - what's your point
You've dismissed the soldiers who were there as "attention-seeking liars" in favour of a popular entertainer - do I have that right?
I was once an avid Private Eye reader when it was a sharp satirical magazine making acerbic comments on Britain's establishment - sadly today it is part of that establishment, giving the impression of genuine opposition to to the wrongs of society while just making them amusing
Hislop is little more than an entertainer with a public-school education - have you made him an honourary member of your ghost army of historians
Wonder what little Ernie Wise would have made of all this - he's have probably "wrote a play about it" - that would really have sent us all running for cover!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:52 AM

Oh wonderful...

I thought of any BBC presenter who has voiced over documentaries with balanced views on the war, and Hislop came to mind. (Actually he was in my mind also because he was sat in the same cafe as me.)

He was ideal. If Keith picked up on any of the mitigating comments I knew he would leap on it in order to look clever.

Unfortunately, it was Keith who said television personalities who just present have no idea as they aren't historians.

😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹

Never mind Keith. Nigel Farage said "liberal minded idealists" denigrate how grateful Europe should be to our military leaders in both wars. You can start quoting him if you like.






Again

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, another corset gone
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:33 AM

Do be serious, Keith.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:31 AM

Why don't you try the link?
He is just talking personally, not presenting a documentary!
He is not an historian but has been reading the history of it since a boy.
So have I. That is why we have similar views.
He also defends Haig against the "butcher" jibe.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw concurring
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:21 AM

Great minds think alike, Jim! ;-)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Paul Merton fan
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:19 AM

Ian Hislop is a chap who makes a living out of being generally contrary. So he was chosen to make a documentary. Well, Keith, I wonder whether that was more to do with his presentational skills than his historian credentials, of which he is, er, apparently somewhat bereft. Any chance you could link us to a podcast of, say, Morrissey's take on WW1?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:15 AM

Ian Hislop - is he a historian - damn, thought he was the editor of a satirical magazine?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

I am off now. Thanks for the fun and games. Before I go I would like to make one thing clear. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD WAR. Those who are trying to justify it should be ashamed of themselves.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:50 AM

woops!
http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/ian-hislop-interview

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:49 AM

Here Ian Hislop talks about WW1.
Around 17 minutes he talks of the men being determined to "stick it out and win."
Later he says that poets like Owne and sassoon were unrepresentative, and that that view of the war did not arise until the thirties.
He says that Oh What A lovely War was inaccurate and just political.

In short, he has the same views that I have expressed and you lot ridicule.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:21 AM

Interestingly I am in London today. Flew down and sat waiting for the shuttle.

I would keep an eye out for Hislop or anybody else who has really read a bit on WW1 but sadly, some of us have to earn a crust.

Next stop, Skipton House.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:30 PM

I'm in Doncaster. In a pub. Waiting for Mrs Musket to pick me up.

Where are you? (It's alright. I'm asking out of courtesy rather than giving a monkey's cunt.)

Another Musket is on holiday and a third one seems to have broken ranks.

I'm devastated to say Ian Hislop wasn't in the cafe today. These historians are elusive little buggers.

Still, the beer is wet and My lift awaits. Train was running 13 mins late by the way.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:11 PM

Ah, but which guest, Musket? Me, the one pretending to be me or the one who Keith thinks I am? And are you in Scotland, in a cafe with Ian Hislop or mysteriously doing both and playing bingo as your omnipresent alter ego?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:06 PM

Don't flatter yourself guest. Your identity is about as interesting as your gormless posts.

Hey Keith. We are all alive. Does that make our views valid?
💩

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:58 PM

I am a real person. I was a fully signed up member for many years, when it was a good place to visit, but I gave up signing in a long time back because I no longer wish to have my name associated with the type of nonsense that goes on here. As Max is happy to let me post as a guest I will continue to do so but I will only ever post as Guest. I only started to post on this thread a few days ago as it got like an itch that I had to scratch. If you wish to believe that I am posting as multiple people or as a member as well please feel free to continue thinking so. It says a lot more about how your mind works that anything else. Please feel free to confirm whatever you want by contacting the moderation team.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:28 PM

That "guest" can't be Keith, Raggytash- Keith can't string 2 phrases together to make a complete sentance. Much more likely Terribilus.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:50 PM

Scottish bloke,
Who has revised that?

Revised is the wrong word.
It never gained general acceptance among historians, and less and less as time went by.
Now no historian believes it, so neither do I.

Raggytash I am not Guest posting, but I do not believe Guests like Scottish Bloke and others are real people.

Doesn't matter much.
Funny really.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:53 PM

Keith, Posting as a guest does nothing to alter your stance. The Mods will be able to verify which computer the threads come from. At least have the grace to append your name to them.


We all like a laugh!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:52 AM

and what has any of that to do with what AJP Taylor said about the calibre of officers and leaders from Haig downwards and how WW2 officers learned from their experiences under bad senior leaders?

Nothing.

Who has revised that?

No one.

Back to Terribulus scribbling guest. (Oh, and leave the political voting pattern and friendships of real historians out of it. Keith has tried that trick and got caught with his trousers down, and everybody laughed at his arse.)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:42 AM

"The general voting pattern of the parents of about the most learned historian mentioned on this thread is something to do with dereliction of duty to the men whose well being was entrusted to incompetent and callous generals?"

What on earth have the voting patterns of the parents got to do with it? Both parents associated with the communist party - son gets recruited into the communist party - WOW shock and horror how unusual would that be? - Then when he resigns from the Party the most learned historian mentioned on this thread votes Labour for the rest of his life - And this eminent historian's opinions, interpretations and conclusions somehow must be treated as being totally objective? Of course they can't be A.J.P.Taylor imparted his natural political bias as did Hugh Trevor-Roper (equally eminent - who strongly attacked Taylor's work) or Correlli Barnett (equally eminent)

But looking at what A.J.P.Taylor actually said instead of the rubbish you are inferring he said:

1: Germany was responsible for starting the First World War, largely because of her mobilization plans and what they automatically triggered.

2: That Haig was right the war could only be won on the western front.

"The debate between Westerners and Easterners wan on, one way and another, throughout the war. The critics said to the generals with truth: 'You will not win the war in France with these methods.' The generals answered with equal truth: 'You will not win the war anywhere else.'.... All the projected 'side shows' of the First World War had this character. They were 'dodges' in a double sense. They were ingenious; and they were designed to evade the basic problem--that the German army could be beaten only by an antagonist of its own size." - A.J.P.Taylor

Kitchener laid the foundations of creating that army and supplying them, Haig commanded and led that Army that ultimately won the war a full one to two years ahead of any expectation held by Great Britain's political leadership at the time.

"Lloyd George's War Memoirs was a monster of a work, designed to establish Lloyd George's reputation as a war leader… and to destroy Haig's."

The Lloyd George who was so mesmerized by Nivelle that he put Haig abd all British Forces in france under the direct command of a French General. Lloyd George who never tired, at Churchill's prompting, to prattle on about the strategy or tactic being wrong, yet not have a single solution to propose to remedy the situation, in short the Lloyd George who was quite willing to allow German Armies to have the advantage of ground that allowed to observe and shell British troops at leisure.

"Lloyd George's War Memoirs are easy to read and – even though far from the truth on many issues – convincing."

But during the Second World War the reputations of Lloyd George and his military adviser Basil Liddell Hart both fell, but that of Haig had already been damaged to a marked degree by much lesser men pursuing their own agendas that were in no way served by truth.

The fiftieth anniversary of the start of the First World War coincided with Britain's swinging sixties, anti-establishment sentiment and A.J.P.Taylor dedicated his book "The First World War, an Illustrated History" to Joan Littlewood, a communist actress, who abandoned a First World War play she was working on and wrote "Oh What A Lovely War" instead - As a work it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with history, it did nothing bar perpetuate myth and falsehood and in the process if Haig had been the object of criticism before, he was now transformed into an object of ridicule and class-anger.

Yet if he is to be damned for his supposed blunders then he must be praised for his successes. A.J.P Taylor in the book he dedicated to Joan Littlewood said this of Haig in 1915 when he took over command of the BEF from Sir John French:

"Though he had no more idea than French how to win the War, he was sure that he could win it"

And in 1915 as the year drew to a close that is exactly what was needed - Churchill himself found himself in exactly the predicament when he took over as Prime Minister from Neville Chamberlain in 1940 as France fell.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:51 AM

Good gracious. I was reminded of Lewis Carroll for some reason.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

But while I was looking up the quote I came across another. Equally apt in the circumstances.

Ah, well! They may write such things in a book,' Humpty Dumpty said in a calmer tone. 'That's what you call a History of England, that is. Now, take a good look at me! I'm one that has spoken to a King, I am: mayhap you'll never see such another: and, to show you I'm not proud, you may shake hands with me!' And he grinned almost from ear to ear, as he leant forwards (and as nearly as possible fell off the wall in doing so) and offered Alice his hand. She watched him a little anxiously as she took it. 'If he smiled much more the ends of his mouth might meet behind,' she thought: 'And then I don't know what would happen to his head! I'm afraid it would come off!'

I would have gone away by now but I am beginning to enjoy the nonsense after all.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:42 AM

Gove has been promoted to Historian has he? Can't recall anything he has published ................ which I seem to remember was a criticism by someone of Greg Jenner

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:29 AM

Steve, we all did reject those historians who were members of the Tory party, such as Gove and Ferguson.
If they are political activists, their objectivity can be questioned.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:26 AM

Guest I did not say Childrens' BBC did not have historians involved in Horrible Histories.
I did say that Jenner has published precisely nothing on WW1.

I also said that BBC KS3(under 15s) Bitesize , a learning site, uses teachers not historians, scientists, etc.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw mini-history
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:40 AM

Well I live in a LibDem/Tory marginal, and I held my nose and voted LibDem six times to keep the Tory out. It worked every time. The LibDem leaflet that came through the door last time said "don't let the Tories in to ruin the country," sort of thing. Jesus wept. I'll probably have to do it again, but I not-so-secretly wish the LibDems a permanent and ignominious oblivion.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:19 AM

I vote Labour. But once in council elections, I voted for my neighbour who stood as an independent. He went on to join The Conservative Party. Should I resign from my university and pulp my publications?

If so, on account of voting Labour or my neighbour? I'm confused.



Could be worse. I could say on Mudcat that my politics are right of centre and then dismiss historical accounts that aren't at my point on the pendulum. I could refer to a racist, loony, right wing political party as "we" and expect people to believe otherwise.

By their fruits indeed..

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:04 AM

OK if we also dismiss historians who have been known to vote Tory, suspected of having voted Tory, or who have come from a Tory family, especially a wealthy Tory family?

By their fruits, Keith, by their fruits.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 06:18 AM

Greg Jenner was historical consultant on "Horrible Histories" so your statement that there are no historians involved is not true. He is employed by the programme to ensure that the historical facts are correct and honest so while he may not have published anything on WW1 he has done extensive research. I am not sure what you mean by "teachers who have fled the classroom" but on track record I assume that it is a disparaging remark about either the BBC or those who work on their young persons programmes. Yes, it is made for under 14s which, in my opinion, makes it a more honest and less bias view of history. It is far more difficult to fool children than you may think.

The term 'living historian' now seems to mean living, with no left wing leanings, that does not publish views about the origins of the war that are different to yours and does not get involved in teaching history to the most important people on the planet, the young. Sorry, but I do not understand the rules of this game but I am beginning to see that they are infinitely variable as required.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:57 AM

Taylor was himself a member of the communist party, and he was quite clear that Britain was not to blame for the war.
His views on the army were contested at the time, and are now rejected by every single historian.
Or have you finally found one?

"Cherry pick" !
Pick from what??
You have been given the views of the historians and you still imagine you are so much cleverer that you know more than all of them put together.
Oh dear.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:49 AM

Dominic Alexander.
All we know about him is that he is a member of that Revolutionary Socialist group, so everything he writes will have that political agenda.
Do you know anything else about him?

Douglas Newton's only WW1 work Darkest Days was just about Britain's culpability for the start of the war.
Even AJP Taylor understood that Germany was to blame.
See my link to BBC's "ten leading (international) historians" on that subject.

Greg Jenner has published nothing at all about WW1 !

Was your "BBC link" the one to their history for under 14s?
No historians are involved in that, just teachers who have fled the classroom.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:41 AM

Good gracious. I didn't know that Taylor was both dead and left wing. Obviously a cad who knows nothing. This Sir John French who was so good. Is it the same one that could not stand being in the same room as that other magnificent leader, Kitchener? They seem to have had very different leadership styles and ideas so which is the one who should be admired?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:36 AM

It gets better.

No wonder you posted that anonymously. I'd be ashamed too.

The general voting pattern of the parents of about the most learned historian mentioned on this thread is something to do with dereliction of duty to the men whose well being was entrusted to incompetent and callous generals?

Even Keith might distance himself from that awful crap.

😹😹😹🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:34 AM

Well, that just goes to show the danger of cherrypicking your historian, innit. One other thing. Whilst historians are fully entitled to their "views", for myself I would rather know about their interpretations, which one would hope were predicated on thorough and dispassionate scholarship. That is surely more important than whether they're lefties or middle-class or whatever. And understanding what they say requires a degree of education on our part. I didn't get where I am today by " believing" what authority figures tell me!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:06 AM

"I keep pointing out that AJP Taylor, in his fairly definitive account of WW2 points out repeatedly that senior officers had learned the lessons the hard way when as junior officers in WW1 they witnessed and to their shame were involved with the awful decisions and methods. They had no intention of repeating them."

A.J.P.Taylor - that the one born to wealthy left-wing parents, whose mother in the 1920 was a member of the Comintern and who had an Uncle who was one of the founding members of the Communist Party of Great Britain? Member of the Communist Party himself, the ardent Labour supporter the whole of his life from the age of twenty onwards - can't see any reason at all why his view on things might be slightly biased, can you?

Leaving the Second World War aside for a minute here is what A.J.P.Taylor said about the First World War:

"The Second World War, however, changed historians views of the First World War.   Faced by the phenomenon of an Adolf Hitler, the 'Anti-revisionists' tended to return to the idea of German responsibility.   In Britain, the historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote a book called The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, in which he claimed that German ambitions caused the conflict:

[The German] bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War ...
A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (1954)

About the same time, a book by the Italian journalist Luigi Albertini - The origins of the War of 1914 - became available in English.   Albertini's ideas supported AJP Taylor's in as much as he believed that the primary responsibility for the war lay with Germany's plan of mobilisation.   Unlike other countries' mobilisation plans, the Schlieffen Plan was OFFENSIVE, and meant that, when Germany mobilised, Germany went to war.

Most of all, Taylor was supported by the German historian Fritz Fischer, who in his books Griff nach der Weltmacht ('Grasp for World Power', 1961) and War of Illusions (1969) argued that:
1.   there was a 'will to war' amongst the leaders of Germany,
2.   the German government wanted events to slide into war in 1914,
3.   the German government had a plan of expansion very similar to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s,
4.   this was as a result of social and economic factors inside Germany - the ATTITUDE of Germans - as much as it was the result of any fears about foreign policy or the international scene."

Now this next bit is a statement of the obvious if ever there was one and can be applied to every war and every subsequent war that followed it within a generation:

"senior officers had learned the lessons the hard way when as junior officers in XXXXXXX they witnessed and to their shame were involved with the awful decisions and methods."

Well History and recorded fact showed the opposite with the BEF in France in 1939 and 1940 and with the TA Expeditionary Force sent to Narvik in Norway in 1940 - British Senior Officers the ones A.J.P.Taylor and Musket are referring to showed that they had not learned anything at all. Sir John French with his 80,000 men in France in 1914 and 1915 at least managed to keep his army as a force in being and successfully engaged and delayed the German advance. All these senior British officers in the Second World War, all the ones who had learned all those lessons succeeded in overseeing the total destruction of their Army and that army would have been captured lock, stock and barrel had Admiral Ramsay and the Royal Navy not organised and protected their evacuation from Dunkirk.

Now had they been junior officers in WWI then they cannot have had anything to do with "decisions" or with "methods", so what was there for them to be ashamed about?

There is of course one other reason that A.J.P.Taylor might have mentioned while heaping praise on all those former WWI British Junior Officers who through shame, etc, learned their lessons and went on to became Senior British Officers in WWII, as to why WWII was not allowed to get bogged down into the same stalemate as WWI - a chap who had lived through it all very much at the sharp end - one Adolf Hitler who expressly forbid the use by German troops of chemical weapons - Churchill had no such qualms, but then Churchill had never been gassed, Hitler on the other hand had. Hitler also appreciated the use of tactical air power and the application of integrated all arms forces as pioneered by the British in WWI. By reading and following through on Fuller's ideas the German Army developed their Blitzkrieg, which demonstrated that even if outnumbered and with inferior weapons, if your command and control is superior you will win.

I would also venture to guess that the junior officers serving with the British Army from 1917 on were pretty proud of their efforts, the efforts of their men and the success of the tactics that had been developed.

As far as WWII goes the former WWI Junior officers who really learned from the mistakes of their commanders in WWI and who applied that knowledge in WWII were all GERMAN and it took OUR senior officers in WWII almost FOUR YEARS to catch up (In WWI it only took them TWO and that included building an army from scratch to do it - just as well they did because they left behind the template for those Senior WWII Officers to follow when after Dunkirk they found themselves having to the same thing all over again).

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 03:17 PM

Oh, and have you looked at mt BBC link yet?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 03:15 PM

Dominic Alexander in a live and published historian
Douglas Newton is a live and published historian
Greg Jenner is a live and published historian

Surely you can do better than just discounting them on the basis that they have been mentioned on a left wing site. Surely on that basis we can discount the views of any historian that has been published in right wing rags?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 02:48 PM

It is not a history site.
It is a far left revolutionary Marxist site.
They are politically motivated, and extreme Marxists are not famous for the truthfulness or accuracy of their propaganda.
If they are really on to something, someone a bit more trustworthy will pick it up and we can discuss it.

Really, if this is all you can put up, how seriously can you be taken?
Meanwhile have a read through all my BBC links and quotes, and weep.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:48 AM

says one of society's problems.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:38 AM

People like B***d are part of the problem, not the solution.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:36 AM

Any organisation which lends support to Russell B***d does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:13 AM

Keith A of Hertford has dismissed reali as a left leaning plot where military history is concerned.

What do you expect?

He judges everything by its source.

Presumably, today he will be sat hearing someone mumble from the bible, putting their slant on the gospels. He sticks to 2,000 year old superstition but has a pop at anybody reading anything written over forty years ago.

The only amazing bit about all this is how he keeps coming back for more.

Still, keeps me chuckling.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:46 AM

That is simply the hypertext. Did you get no further than the description in Google? It is worthwhile reading the actual page about us. As has already been pointed out though, why should the politics matter? You have said that you will believe historians and Dominic Alexander is a historian. You have still not told us what is wrong with the work of other historians mentioned.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:38 AM

What if this is the case - are extremist rightists like yourself the only ones with a valid point of view Brave New World
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:20 AM

Counterfire Home Page - Counterfire
www.counterfire.org/
Counterfire version 3.0 'Counterfire is a revolutionary socialist news and theory website, from the movements, for the movements.'

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:24 PM

...and what about Douglas Newton who does not appear on the same 'left wing site', has been reviewed in the 'popular press' and is a historian? We have not yet seen how you will discount his views.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:05 PM

he only appears on the site of a revolutionary socialist site.

I could be wrong but this seems to allude to 'Counterfire'. In the sites own words: On International Women's Day 2010 we launched a new political organisation called Counterfire. Its first publication was A Feminist Manifesto for the 21st Century, written by Lindsey German, the convenor of Stop the War Coalition, in collaboration with activist and author Nina Power.

Do you really believe this is a 'revolutionary socialist site', Keith? I think you need to get a grip on reality.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:49 PM

Sorry, premature ejaculation of the point I was making! What about Douglas Newton. What is wrong with his work? Apart form it does not fit your theory?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:46 PM

"We know nothing else about him." We do know that he is an historian and he disagrees with your views. You have already admitted that historians know more than you do. Does that not suffice?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:42 PM

Cue Freddie Mercury...............

and another one's gone, another one's gone, another one bites the dust

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:38 PM

One for the road:


So tell me, Keith, about this perversion of yours that only the writings of living historians have any validity and that the primary sources and documentation they reference in their studies are vitiated once historians die.

How exactly does that operate? Is some sort of disclaimer published once the death certificate is filed? Or does everyone inherently know to disregard them once they pass over to the spirit world?

Are the works of Tacitus and Herodotus rubbish?

When your hero Max Hastings dies, will HIS writings become invalid?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:31 PM

Your man is not just Left Wing, he only appears on the site of a revolutionary socialist site.
We know nothing else about him.

Jim, they are all mainstream leading historians.
Which ones have I left out.
If none, then they all reject your views.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:27 PM

"Jim, I have quoted a number of actual historians in their own words"
You threw in a couple of unlinked and unqualified quote, none of which in any way covered the arguments here.
Not only have you totally failed to establish a consensus among histoorians, you have not even shown there is a significant minority.
Two of your 'historians' have said that "the popular view of history needs to be changed" which is tantamount to admitting that their own arguments are those of the minority.
But there again, you'll never know that until you actually read a book.
So far, you have not given one piece of information that you haven't desperately searched out from the net - not one.
Nothing has come from your own knowledge, nothjing scanned from a book you might own.... all trawled from the net
Neither of you disgusting pair have the bottle to even address the insult of holding arms fairs and mis-spending £20m on glass poppies, and both of you have described soldiers who fought in the war as "liarsd"
What kind of people are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:23 PM

Apologies if something similar is seen earlier or appears later but my last post seems to have fell down a hole. So the views of Dominic Alexander can be discounted because he is a member of a left wing organisation and his books have not been reviewed. Is that it? OK, how about Douglas Newton, who has been reviewed by Dominic Alexander and by the Guardian. He writes articles, as does Mr Alexander, and, as far as I know, he does not belong to any left wing organisation. He is, however, anti-war and Australian. Does that mean he is not to be believed either? The view that all historians are in agreement with you is wearing somewhat thin, Keith. You are trying to exclude those who are dead, those who are left wing and those who have not yet been reviewed now. Have you any idea how many historians there actually are? Of those, how many are left wing, right wing or completely apolitical? I suspect not but, just reading things that agree with your views is not the way to 'win'. Which is what you seem to want.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:17 PM

I suppose it's like saying, "Martin Carthy can't be a singer / guitarist, I haven't seen him on X Factor."

😹

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

NOTE: for "kevin" please read "Keith".

ALSO, Keith, reviewers of books in the "mainstream media" often aren't historians and/or also don't know diddly about the subject of the book they're reviewing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:56 PM

radical far Left organisation

Sigh. Same old crap.

I can't find any reviews of his book.

It may come as a shock to you, Kevin, but there IS a world outside the Internet. Try a library. You might ask for periodicals that review books.

These are historians whose books are reviewed in the mainstream media

There are indeed! But "popular historians" are often not the all-knowing paragons you seem to think they are, and their works are sometimes more entertainment than they are sound history. Try the academic historians, who have the training to research and present their findings properly.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:29 PM

How would we know Musket?
Apart from that radical far Left organisation Counterfire, there is no record of him.
I can't find any reviews of his book.

Jim, I have quoted a number of actual historians in their own words saying that the war was necessary, the people agreed and the army was competently led.

These are historians whose books are reviewed in the mainstream media, who publish articles and are interviewed in the mainstream media, and are published and broadcast by BBC.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:52 AM

Have you checked to see if he has kicked the bucket yet?

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:45 AM

Another good article by Mr Alexander here:10 lies told about WW1.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:17 AM

Here is another Historian who disagrees with Keith's list. Dominic Alexander. Wonder how he will be discounted?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:13 AM

My apologies, Em Gee Emm Lyin'- make that two years old.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:12 AM

I think the moderator found an excellent rhyme, leading them to delete my post.

I look at it this way. If that particular rhyme didn't drift into their head, they wouldn't have deleted it. 😹😹😹

Sadly, I am going to have to make up what happened when Keith refereed the 1914 footie match. There was a contemporaneous record, by Private AJP Taylor, but apparently that is dubious now..

🐴🐴🚬🚬⚽️⚽️🍻🍻

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:10 AM

No answer, then to my perfectly reasonable question, as to the basis of accusations made against me by the forum's universally held-in-contempt #1 shit-stirring pain·in·the·arse. Just more typical true-to-form unsubstantiated abuse.

So time for a repeat:-

☝☝☝☝-up: who thinks GregF is a waste of space and a mannerless yobbo? To which might be added a budget full of wind'n'piss and assertive hole·in·the·air idiocies.

≈M & Cleo≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:51 AM

Good argument here that seems to say it far better than I can: Debunkers debunked One other thing I would ask is how many of the documents released many years after the event can be wholly relied on? Is a junior officer of other ranker going to write a true and accurate depiction of his views of the war leadership? I think not.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:46 AM

Have fun acting six years old, EmGee. You're quite good at it.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:40 AM

Well, The historian I mentioned earlier, the one who was consulted on the children's TV series, Horrible Histories. The one dismissed by Keith as not being employed by the BBC but is credited in their TV programs, seems to be quite happy to have the war leadership, particularly early on, portrayed as idiots. Has anyone watched the program yet? The iPlayer link is further up the page. It really is quite good, less than 30 minutes long and shows us that at least one living historian is happy to perpetuate these so called myths that have existed since the middle of the 20th century. Whether it was good leadership or a 'just' war I am not qualified to say. What I do feel qualified to say is that the loss of life on all sides was appalling and to not only attempt to justify it, but also try to tell people it was a good thing, is insulting to the memory of those who were sacrificed and to the intelligence of people who care.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:37 AM

"The findings of a whole new generation of historians are quite different."
You haven't read them so how would you know
You certainly haven't quoted anything they might have said regarding the present discussion
You seem to have cornered the market on parody
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:36 AM

'really can't STAND to be shown to be wrong'
,..,.,

Eh? Wotwotwot. Mewmewmew. Just demonstrate, in terms which a pussikat of 10x your feeble intelligence can understand, where you imagine yourself to have 'shown' my master 'to be wrong', GregoryFatuous, you miaouwing stupid little purr.

≈Cleo·GM≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:33 AM

While remaining polite I hasten to add!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:29 AM

Take a punt might fit

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:18 AM

keith, would "you lose" be appropriate at this point?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:15 AM

Steve stated in his post that he was NOT dismissing then. Clear, precise, unambiguous English.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 09:56 AM

I do not dismiss any historian Steve.
Not being a historian myself, I would be a self obsessed fool if I imagined myself qualified to do that.

The current generation of historians say their findings refute what some of the previous generation said.
Do you dismiss them.
In what way are you qualified to do that?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw member of We People
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 09:39 AM

We people are not the ones doing the dismissing, Keith. We people are laughing at you because of YOUR outrageous dismissal of a whole body of historians because they happen to be dead. We people hold that anyone, living or dead, there or not there, were or are entitled to their interpretations. Their validity is not predicated on whether they're dead or not. Genuine scholarship, which I do not claim for myself in this field but which you do claim, would dictate that you take on board as many takes on history as possible and critically assess them on the way evidence has been handled. Good scholarship dictates that you do not start out as Colonel Blimp, dismiss left-wingers or critics of the military automatically as non-historians, then arbitrarily rule out, apparently without exception, the views of a huge body of historians on the basis of their having ceased to draw breath. It's a joke, Keith.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM

who thinks GregF is a waste of space and a mannerless yobbo?

So now its playground insults, is it Em Gee? You really can't STAND to be shown to be wrong, can ya?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:56 AM

Taylor has been gone for a long time.
The findings of a whole new generation of historians are quite different.

The historians alive and working now all say what I say, because I got it from them.

I find it simply funny that you people can dismiss the findings of them all.
From your knowledge you just know they have all got it wrong.
And all of you are convinced you know more about history than all the historians put together.

And you laugh at someone who actual quotes what the actual historians say, and think you have won the debate.
You are beyond parody.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:43 AM

can I join in?

We played in the mud, all mixed up with blood
And the ref said "play on, Oy! Offside!"
But we thought on reflection we'd get an infection
But the ref said the docs had all lied.

"Your health's up to scratch, now get on with the match!"
As I looked at the lump on my side.
"Sod your logistics, the ref has statistics
To show how we lied when we died."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 07:24 AM

And now for the teaser.

The last line of the last verse.



"You lose."

😋

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 07:14 AM

I was thinking of learning "Geordie Nativity" for our local folk club Xmas do, as it is written down on a thread.

Bugger that, Keith has given enough material for me to write an original one, possibly portray him and his logic as the referee in the Xmas 1914 footie match.

I'll let you know how I get on. A couple of ideas



Fritz just scored, how the German crowd roared
But Keith blew and shouted "offside!"
He asked a defender of indeterminate gender
And decided the Germans all lied.

"But how can zat be? Just your goalie and me?
But your defenders were all goal side?"
Keith just said "Our lads are well led."
And decided the Germans all lied.

"But that's not fair play!" Said our corporal, "ok,
Our fairness is known far and wide!"
For Keith, that's a sin, he only wanted to win
And decided other ranks had all lied.

Writing itself...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 07:01 AM

By my friend Rodney Dale, eh Jim? He wrote a whole lot of those Books Of ... Book Of Who, Book Of When, &c.

Glad you liked it.

Poppy -- Cleo sez she is staying right away from the thread. She doesn't care for the 'Cat -- despite its nickname; sez she wouldn't wish it on a miauowing dog ...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw shopping for new corset
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:46 AM

From being a sombre thread about a massive waste of life, this has turned into high comedy. I think I'm going to die. Thank you Keith, thank you so very much! :-)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:44 AM

Ah, but in what we hope is many years in the future, the book will have to be pulped because the sage words suddenly become bollocks.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:40 AM

Enough to make a cat laugh
BTW
Just found a rather entertaining book with acknowledgement to you in the credits M - ' The Book of What' - Very dippable into
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:32 AM

What does Cleo think about Keith's claim that A J P Taylor isn't relevant and what he wrote was lies on account of him being dead?

Surely your cat isn't selective in whom she smirks at?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:22 AM

Have just shown this from Gregory Fatuous to my cat Cleo --

"Cleo apparently has all the brains and tact in the family, eh?"

She rejoins, "Don't appeal to me, because you do not appeal to me.

So just, please, miaouw off and miaouw yourself, you miauowing purr."


=Cleo·GM=

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 05:35 AM

"That is amazing, really amazing. "
Tsk, tsk Muskie
Haven't you grasped the fact that anybody who doesn't agree with Keith and the Establishment is irrelevant and cqan never be counted as a "real historian"
And so it is written!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 04:45 AM

"A J P Taylor is no longer relevant."

Well done Keith. It isn't every day I read something that stops me in my tracks.

That is amazing, really amazing.

How long have the novelists who wrote the bible been dead? Oh, that isn't relevant. You are right!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:50 AM

"Jim, you can find no historian who still believes what you do."
Neither can you Keith
I haven't trawled the net as you have - I will stick with what I have been brought up to believe from the historians I am totally familiar with from me interest in general and social history.
If anything significant enough turns up, I will happily take that into consideration - so far, everything I have seen this years makes not one iota of difference to the obscenity of W.W.1. - the way this centenary has been handled with its mis-spent millions (£20m) on glass poppies and it arms fairs shows little has changed in the intervening period - still profiteering on the lives of the rest of us.
Your historians are a myth - you have created a phantom army of "experts" who, you claim back your jingoistic case - on examination your "vast majority" turn out to be no more than half a dozen out-of-context quotes hastily scooped from the net because they look good
Virtually none deal with the arguents here, your star witness (once again, as with the famine) has blown up in your face, the rest appear to be nit-picking about something else entirely.
You have put no argument of your own, instead you have hidden behind a barrier of invented opinions supposedly held by historians you have not even had the interest to read.
The only accurate statement you have managed to make here is "I am no historian" - you certainly are not; you are not even interested enough in the subject to read a book by one
Rule Britannia eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:35 AM

Geg, Trouadour, Musket and Jim have all claimed historians are complicit in a conspiracy to create a false history
Musket, Taylor is one of the long dead historians of a previous generation who are no longer relevant.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:29 AM

☝☝☝☝-up: who thinks GregF is a waste of space and a mannerless yobbo?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:13 AM

On the thread Keith started in order to make everybody else look stupid, oh and failed spectacularly, someone asked why Keith doesn't include AJP Taylor in his little list of prophets err historians.

That thread has come to a satisfactory conclusion so not much point in revisiting it.

The reason is that I keep pointing out that AJP Taylor, in his fairly definitive account of WW2 points out repeatedly that senior officers had learned the lessons the hard way when as junior officers in WW1 they witnessed and to their shame were involved with the awful decisions and methods. They had no intention of repeating them.

Perhaps that's why Keith glossed over the one historian named on these threads who puts the e in eminent.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 06:35 PM

on an international list of "ten leading historians."

They certainly seem to be leading YOU by the nose, Keith. Question is, where and what have they leading you TO??

You claim they are all involved in a conspiracy of lies to help the arms industry.

No-one has made this claim EXCEPT YOU!

You people are beyond parody.

Can you try that again & in English this time?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:24 PM

Jim, you can find no historian who still believes what you do.
You claim they are all involved in a conspiracy of lies to help the arms industry.
Is the BBC complicit too.
It has published or broadcast most of them, and put some on an international list of "ten leading historians."

You people are beyond parody.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:11 PM

Why, then, Gregory Fatuous, who was the 'MG' you addressed so impudently, then?

Why Em-Gee, it was your own illustrious, arrogant, jumped-up, fatuous self! Cleo apparently has all the brains and tact in the family, eh?- she can probably tell a fact when she sees one and likely admits when she's in error.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:02 PM

Why, then, Gregory Fatuous, who was the 'MG' you addressed so impudently, then?

I have not the least intention of buggering off on your say-so, you arrogant jumped-up little nobody.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 03:37 PM

"No historian has been found who challenges that."
You've linked six historians - only one line from oe historian disputes that and he's in the armament industry
You have invented all your historians - none of them claim anything like what you say they do
You've been telling porkies
You are a joke - roll over and die for the Queen
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:12 PM

I have already mentioned Greg Jenner, consultant on Horrible Histories. Has anyone seen the link I posted?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:24 PM

The army performed well under competent leadership.
No historian has been found who challenges that.
The people overwhelmingly believed the war necessary.
No historian has been found who challenges that.
The war was necessary.
All agree on that too, apart from one far right Tory.

No cherry picking because there is nothing else to pick.
(unless you or anyone has now found something. Have You?)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:10 PM

funny, I didn't know the historians was a single view?

What do you mean when you say " the historians"? At a glance, there are hundreds and hundreds of accounts, and Keith A of Hertford mentions a handful, and then cherry picks his quotes.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:45 AM

...what other posters were sure to do, for which he had no warrant or evidence whatever...

Well, now Em Gee Em, lets try the facts for a change.

Comment was about a single poster, it was based on extensive evidence of his history of behaviour, and you know what? My "prediction" came true several times over. So I guess it wasn't so absurd after all, eh?

So un-knot your nickers & bugger off.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:40 AM

Thought you were leaving again, Keith - or is this just more W.S. Gilbert?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 09:54 AM

Do not be silly.
The historians have been saying this for decades.
Many of the links we provided were to decades old pieces.

Or perhaps we are part of the conspiracy too, as well as all the universities, BBC, etc.
Is that what you are suggesting?
Is that rational?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 09:45 AM

I find it rather interesting that the following applies.

The previous secretary of state for education, Michael Gove made a statement in 2011 saying that schools were not taking enough regard to publications that put the role of military planners, leaders and government in a good light. He stated that with the upcoming centenary of the war, we need to celebrate success, not question by the standards of today.

The Prime Minister qualified this and stated there was need to note but not celebrate.

The secretary of state for defence said that the military were not being held in high regard and this was affecting recruitment.

Michael Gove goes on the attack, calling BBC 'lefty' and saying Blackadder is socialist propaganda. One of the actors, Tony Robinson defends the historical background their comedy was set in.

Right wing newspapers, columnists and others start a concerted effort to sanitise, highlight the elements of published history that infer good leadership at the expense of writings that question decisions, tactics and results.



In chronology terms, this has even reached Mudcat with Keith A of Hertford and Teribus claiming anybody who disagrees with what they call truth is a left wing fundamentalist.

It is good to see so many people not prepared to let them get away with it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 09:10 AM

Jim, you keep saying I have not read history.
On WW1 I have.

Otherwise it means I made up those passages I transcribed from books.
It means it is just coincidence that my views are the same as theirs.
It means I quoted those historians at random and it was pure luck they all contradicted the old myths.

It does not matter anyway because it is a fact that they all contradict you, and a fact that none of you in over a year have found a single one that does not.

Musket,
Whilst accounts of WW1 are tossed around and different slants are put on,

On the points I have argued, all the ones any of us have managed to find in over a year of debate are in agreement.
And they agree with me because I got my views from them.

You have still not found one single living historian who believes the old myths you cling to.

Musket again, you mention "political slants."
Like a religious fundamentalist, you ignore the evidence amassed by the historians because your political creed tells you what it must have been like.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 08:29 AM

Returning to this thread for first time in a couple of days, I find

"From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 12:13 PM

'smatter, MG? Cat got yer tongue?"

Not sure if this addressed to me. If so, I just point out that I took issue with GF a few days back regarding his absurd predictions as to what other posters were sure to do, for which he had no warrant or evidence whatever; but with no intention of starting a conversational exchange with one whose views I generally find absurd, and his manners execrable.

My cat Cleo joins me in declining to engage further just at present, with the assurance that she is perfectly satisfied with her diet of catbix and cat-jellies from Tesco, and has no designs on my tongue or any other of my organs.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

Well I wouldn't argue with any of that. Want we seem to be arguing about is interpretation of evidence. Good scholarship dictates that anyone wishing to form an opinion about historical realities had better do more than simply read and trust accounts by historians who are, after all, distilling evidence in their own sweet way. Some are right-wing, some left, some royalist, some republican, some sexist, some militaristic, none saints. Careful who you trust, that's all I'm saying, as a non-scholar of history though a scholar in one or two other spheres. Don't ask.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:48 AM

On this "historians" thing, from the British perspective.

Past & Present:

Well real past would be those who lived through it. They, depending upon who they were and what they did got to see varying sizes and bits of the picture and they rushed to print in the immediate aftermath. Their view would be almost entirely British and there would be vast chunks of it that they just simply could not have known because of security and sensitivity of the information. They would not have access to any of the material say from the French, Belgian or German point of view. As such it is terribly subjective and lop-sided, and as previously stated everyone had an axe to grind with two notables seeking to hide their own failures by exaggerating the mistakes made by others who could not defend themselves.

This basically holds good for anyone writing between 1914 and 1964.

Since things like release of information under various rules makes more and more information available then once studied the history of any event can only be improved in direct proportion to the information you have on that event. The other aspect that improves with age is objectivity and that itself is improved on with access to material from foreign sources and since the 1970s more and more of this information has been brought into the public domain and translated.

Yes the study and understanding of history does improve with age - because you get to see more as there are far more sources that open up. Best example of this relates to a Fort on Hadrian's Wall - everybody knows about Hadrian's Wall, we learned from the study of history and archaeology how it was built and manned - that the Forts located along its length provided shelter for the men on watch where they lived, ate, drank and slept - we know this part from common sense, part from written records and part from bone and pottery fragments. That was what was all basically known up until the nineteenth century - by the time the twentieth was about three-quarters through our study of history and knowledge could actually tell us who these men were and where in the Roman Empire they came from - Hell we could even identify where the vineyards were and the type of wine they mulled to keep warm coming in from their watches on a winter's night purely by forensic examination of the broken pottery shards they left behind.

Another example relating to the First World War and one of the RFC's pilots, Major E.C. Mannock. He was shot down over enemy lines on the 26th July 1918. The crashsite and the wreckage of his plane was noted and observed by his wingman. With all this information, provided by "people who were there" the body of one of Great Britain's greatest fighter pilots was never found - missing believed dead, killed in action - Unknown except to God - UNTIL - 21st March 2009 - using translated information from German sources (Trench maps, logs and reports) it is now strongly suspected that the "Unknown British Airman" buried in Plot III, Row F, Grave 12 of the Laventie Commonwealth War Graves Commission war cemetery is Major "Micky" Mannock VC.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 06:17 AM

Whenever Keith fails to make his point he scurries behind 'historians' he has not read
The thread inevitably becomes about historians nd their supposed views, niftily diverting the subject away from his ignorance |(asnd his disinterest - if he was interested he would at least come with a little knowledge gathered beforehand).
This thread is now about an invisible army of ghost historians - now there's a surprise!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw lied about
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:54 AM

I did not say that I disbelieved a whole generation of historians. I am trying to tell you, though you are not listening, that I don't come to conclusions based on belief. I don't believe or not believe geologists, cosmologists or palaeontologists. I hear what they say and ensure to the best of my ability that what they are saying is based on plausible evidence. I don't even not believe religious fundamentalists - I just want their evidence, that's all. Of course, I like to hear people's opinions, on the understanding that they are opinions, not edicts. What you are doing in these threads is telling us whose opinions you have chosen to believe, choices apparently based on your prejudices rather than scholarship. And if you've chosen not to believe particular people, you tell us they're not historians in order to cling on to some bogus unanimity that you see among the others. That isn't a good way forward.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:49 AM

Elric had stormbringer to settle scores though guest.. (Years since I read any Moorcock. Must get around to his escapism again.)

History tends to be written by the victors. Whilst accounts of WW1 are tossed around and different slants are put on, mainly (taking Keith and Terribulus's admission into account) political slants, there remain a few elephants in the room. Fields full of them actually.

Join the army and get to buy a farm.

Who could resist?
💀🔫

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:37 AM

Historical documents are written or recorded by people. They are then viewed, summarised and interpreted by other people, all of whom have their own views, prejudices and foibles. Historians are people just like that, not omniscient beings, and history is not an exact science. Which is why I chose to link the most simple and least prejudiced account I could find. The views of current historians are no more or less valid than the views of those who came before them or those who will come after and probably give us yet another slant on historic events. There is a book by Michael Moorcock that I read many years ago. Set in the distant future it refers to the ancient gods of Granbretan - Jhone, Jhorg, Phowl and Rhunga as well as Chirshil and Aral Vilsn. Obviously a fantasy but it made me wonder whether the slight changes each generation of historians make will eventually result in similar nonsense!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 04:42 AM

Guest, history moves on as more information becomes available.
In history as in science and every knowledge base, the views of those involved are refined and evolve with ever greater knowledge.

Musket, it is blatantly not true that I have been "selective"
I have produced actual, in context quotes from a large number of historians, and none of us have been able to find one that disagrees.
We have all found nothing else I could select from!

Steve, Keith. I don't believe or not believe either modern or dead historians,

Why ever not? Why would a non historian refuse to believe an historian.
You are like a religious fundamentalist refusing to believe geologists paleontologists and cosmologists.

though I do recognise that the modern chappies, though undoubtedly wiser than those of old (he said ironically :-) ), are one more step removed from their sources.

So you believe that every day we know less about history?!
You do not believe that historians' researches add to our knowledge at all?!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 03:40 AM

We are all on the sidelines.

It's just that prodding the zealous clowns can be entertaining. The more they try to justify an absurd notion, the more funny it gets. When they snap and resort to childish "you lose" or posts that could fill a library, the more you want to go

😎😎😎😎😎😎




Yeah, that's childish too. But fun.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 03:28 AM

Well, I sat on the sidelines for ages but in the end decided I needed to point out that not all historians agree. Amongst the list of those who believe that the great war was not, well, great are many who are dismissed simply because they are dead. What a shame. On that basis we should never believe anything that a dead person has said. I wonder what Christians and Muslims make of that? I suppose, on that basis, that David Cameron must be a better politician than Clement Atlee. I am really glad that most people do not think the same way and I think I will go back to the sidelines.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:49 AM

The snag is, there is a lot to "believe" in what most historians conclude, but you are being selective to substantiate your belief and in doing so misrepresent most of those you put up as objective.

You said it yourself, left wing vs right wing. Nothing to do with discussing the reality some of us are actually interested in. You are merely dancing to the tune Michael Gove is calling.

With two right feet.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:05 AM

More evidence does become available with time Steve.
The IWM archive of tens of thousands of original documents became available in the late 60s, as did secret government and military documents under the 50 year rule, but why do you disbeliev a whole generation of historians anyway?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw historically non-judgemental
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 06:12 PM

I don't believe or not believe stuff that's supposed to be based on evidence, Keith. I don't believe or not believe either modern or dead historians, though I do recognise that the modern chappies, though undoubtedly wiser than those of old (he said ironically :-) ), are one more step removed from their sources. You talk as though, somehow, historical knowledge increases with time. That is a very doubtful proposition, old chap. In sum, I care not a jot about what modern historians "believe". I'd be far more interested in what they've gleaned from evidence.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:54 PM

I am happy to leave it there.

Promises, promises. Don't hold yer collective breaths, folks.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:53 PM

What gives you the right to ask loaded questions and judge the answers?

You aren't teaching PE now, prat.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:47 PM

I am just telling you that modern historians don't believe that anymore.
Are you saying you don't believe them?

If so, I am happy to leave it there.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:24 PM

John Terraine was just as biased in the other direction as Liddell Hart was in his, if not more so. He was nothing less than a pro-Haig evangelist. This kind of talk, the cherrypicking variety, is just the booby trap I warned you about but you didn't appear to listen. Your historian is shite compared to my historian blah blah. You have your conviction from which you cannot be budged. I' m still learning. Cheers for the lesson. You're teaching me loud and clear who not to believe, and you're absolutely first in line. And now we've got Keith, who you heartily and routinely defend, telling us that all dead historians are shite and we should only listen to the modern chaps. Distance lending enchantment to the view? :-)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:03 PM

Not alive anyway.

Greg ,If it is "wrong" that you lot have failed to find a single living historian who still believes the old myths, WHO IS HE/SHE???

You will never tell us because you really have not found one!
Will you prove me wrong?
Confident prediction, NO!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 01:34 PM

Would that be the same AJP Taylor who wrote that the senior officers in WW2 had learned from the institutional and systemic mistakes and blunders they witnessed as junior officers in WW1?

Just wondering like.

I notice "dead historans" has been updated to "long dead" historians. Looks like Keith has found something he needs to be prepared for if anyone else sees it...

Do your "historians" have to be on a right wing approved list perchance? Its just that you keep naming some who have given a more balanced view than you have both portrayed and at least one is by his own admission, left leaning as it were.

why does left v right mean so much to you if you are trying to put forward what you want to be seen as objective cold truth?

😂😂😂🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 01:09 PM

none of you found one in over a year of searching.

Wrong.

I have been able to produce quotes with links of a lot of historians

Yes, sound-bites you cut and pasted from websites and bogs. You still haven't read any historian's works.

If the sum total of the information contained in historians' works could be expressed in a 20-word sentance, they'd be rather foolish to have produced an extraneous several hundred pages in their books.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:52 PM

Liddell Hart's writings were terribly biased as were Alan Clark's. The latter's being absolutely hammered by his contemporaries and his superiors:

"John Terraine and A. J. P. Taylor wrote damning reviews and historian Michael Howard wrote "As history, it is worthless", criticising its "slovenly scholarship".

"Professor Richard Holmes made a similar complaint, writing that "Alan Clark's The Donkeys, for all its verve and amusing narrative, added a streak of pure deception to the writings of the First World War.   Its title is based on 'Lions led by Donkeys'. Sadly for historical accuracy, there is no evidence whatever for this; none. Not a jot or scintilla. The real problem is that such histories have sold well and continue to do so. They reinforce historical myth by delivering to the reader exactly what they expect to read"."

"Graham Stewart, Clark's researcher for The Tories noted "Alan wasn't against quoting people selectively to make them look bad"

Alan Clark as a historian was not shy of just making things up when it suited his purpose - so not a very good historian. Even his tutor at Oxford Hugh Trevor Roper thought that.

Clark's book deals with a very specific part of the Great War namely the BEF campaign under Sir John French in 1915 - OWALW used it as being representative of the British Army and British Command throughout the entire war, which it most certainly was not.

Liddell Hart's "knowledge" was more than slightly suspect as they reflected the work of others General Sir Ivor Maxse (Infantry) and Major-General John Fuller (Tanks) which makes your opening sentence rather strange:

"Liddell Hart believed that the frontal assault was a strategy that was bound to fail at great cost in lives"

I say strange because the inescapable reality of the situation on the western front was uninterrupted lines of trench works running for ~400 miles from the Belgian coast to the Swiss Alps. If they were to be attacked it could only be by frontal assault and starting from 1916 onward the British and Commonwealth troops and their Commanders got better and better at it - Fuller and Maxse being two of them. The 100 Days Offensive fought under the direction and command of Haig in 1918 remains to this day to as the best offensive operation ever undertaken by a British Army. Haig was perfectly correct in his assessment in 1916 that Germany could only be militarily defeated by the Allies on the Western Front - nowhere else.

Liddell Hart advised Chamberlain and advocated appeasement - had Liddell Hart's view been adopted by Lloyd George in the First World War then Germany would have overrun France and won the War as there would have been no BEF in France at all. Mons and Cateau would not have happened the Germans would not have been delayed and the Marne would never have been fought.

A good illustration of this "military theorists" judgement was given early in 1944 when Basil Liddell Hart prepared and distributed a treatise titled "Some Reflections on the Problems of Invading the Continent" Which caused a gasp in the security services at the time.

Liddell Hart was WRONG in 1917; He was WRONG in the 1920s and 30s; He was wrong in the 1940s.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:44 PM

Well Greg, if there are any who still believe those old myths, why have none of you found one in over a year of searching.
On the evidence, I am fully justified in my statement.

You are welcome to believe that I am not well read but I have been able to produce quotes with links of a lot of historians, and you lot none.
(Except long dead ones.)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:38 PM

The research findings of the current generation of historians have discredited the work of the previous generation.

Only in your distorted mind, Keith. Once again, since you haven't READ any books by any historians, and most certainly have not read the work of ALL historians, living and dead, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Prince of Bullshit. And I'm thinking about upgrading you to King.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:27 PM

The research findings of the current generation of historians have discredited the work of the previous generation.

You people think they are all wrong just because the old view chimes better with your politics.

And that is an em passé and we should leave it there.

You think all the historians have now got it wrong and you know better.
I choose to inform myself of the most up to date findings.
Are we done?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:26 PM

What I like is how Terribulus has sat and counted the number of posts from Steve.

Just think how much wiser he could be if he used that time constructively. Like finding out about the "great" war for instance.

Tell you what me old love, Steve may be a harmonica player and Liverpool fan, neither of which makes him easy to pair against at dinner parties, but a liar? Not sure I or anyone else on Mudcat can point to evidence to support that claim.

There again, drawing assessments from evidence doesn't appear to be your strong point.
🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw amused bemused unconfused
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:26 PM

[Just in case the end of my soubriquet gets snipped, it says "unconfused" :-) ]

Well I certainly gave you a name, Liddell Hart, who I see you pre-dissed. Valid to me, not to you. Valid to others too. If you don't like him because he changed his mind about Haig et al., er....tuff titty! Nothing quite shoots a big hole through evangelism like a demurrer....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 11:50 AM

Liddell Hart believed that the frontal assault was a strategy that was bound to fail at great cost in lives (Wikipedia - Sure it can be substantiated elsewhere). And did not Liddell Hart vet Alan Clark's writings? Sorry, I know I am in this debate late but does that not refute some of the things that has been said and have these names not been mentioned earlier? By multiple people. I know that their work is currently out of fashion but wait another 10 years and it will be back. Again, not all historians agree.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 11:32 AM

"I gave you a name and you immediately shot it down. Nothing to do with the fact that the guy didn't think much of Haig, I s'pose...?" - Steve Shaw

Did you really now. Steve if you are going to lie then perhaps you should try and be a bit cleverer about doing it. You have posted 37 times to this thread, mostly inaccurate, misrepresentative crap and guess what? - you haven't mentioned the name of a single historian dead or alive that refutes anything the current crop believe - not one.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw name-dropper
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:50 AM

I gave you a name and you immediately shot it down. Nothing to do with the fact that the guy didn't think much of Haig, I s'pose...?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:29 AM

Never had to try, you daft twat. You are the one spouting off bollocks. I'm just asking you to justify it and to date, you aren't doing very well.

Let's all join hands, close our eyes and invoke the presence of the historians!

😂😂😂🐴🐴🐴🙉🙈🙊

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:22 AM

Well come on down Steve Shaw untwaddled give us a name, or better still names - it is some thing that neither Musket or Jim Carroll have been able to do for over a year now.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:20 AM

As I said in my opening post. I am trying to keep it simple. Sites aimed at schools appeal to the lowest common denominator without any of the political leanings of more cynical presentations. I see no need at all to question their veracity. It was pretty easy to find that Greg Jenner, freelance writer and historian (qualifications unknown) is credited on a lot of programmes produced by the BBC, including "Horrible Histories", aimed specifically at children. In fact, the WW1 episode of that series is very good and here if you want to take a look. I would never say 'you lose' but the statement that BBC schools do not employ historians is somewhat misleading. However, even that is beside the point. I still stand by the statement that not all historians are in agreement. I think this point is indisputable.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw untwaddled
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:19 AM

The only twaddle around here is the twaddle involved in cherrypicking the historians who suit your preconceived notions, dissing the rest as non-historians then claiming that all historians agree with you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:03 AM

Not just alive Greg. They have to be sane too, don't forget

😂

Judging by the other WW1 thread, Terribulus seems to have lost the plot. Sad to see really.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:00 AM

More irrelevant twaddle from Musket and Steve - how reassuring - if they actually had brains they'd be dangerous.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:00 AM

So tell me, Keith, about this perversion of yours that only the writings of living historians have any validity and that the primary sources and documentation they reference in their studies are vitiated once historians die.

How exactly does that operate? Is some sort of disclaimer published once the death certificate is filed? Or does everyone inherently know to disregard them once they pass over to the spirit world?

Are the works of Tacitus and Herodotus rubbish?

When your hero Max Hastings dies, will HIS writings become invalid?

P.S. RE: those passages I transcribed from books

I believe you meant to say "those passages I copied and pasted from internet sites and blogs".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:59 AM

My error, I misunderstood the core of the matter. The British Legion did pay royalties to Bogle.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, seeing some squirming
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:56 AM

Heheh. So the thread devolves into what makes a proper historian now. Lessee: you can't be a historian if you (a) demur even slightly apropos of Haig's exceptionally fine leadership; (b) disagree in absolutely any other way whatsoever in any regard whatsoever with K and T's take on events. Am I warm? Any more strictures to add?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:55 AM

You have HAD to study?

Poor bugger.

And what did you find?

Did you find all was well, well led and as planned with informed consent and belief of all concerned?

In which case, the heavy casualties were planned.

Which is most damning, incompetence or planned carnage? Callous indifference hits in either scenario.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:51 AM

Others may also find it interesting to note, that (unlike the British Legion) this Scottish school did bother to ask for permission from Bogle to record this (unredacted) version of the same song on behalf of the charity War Child. They were granted permission and Bogle says of this rendering that it is "truly truthful and evocative":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV3huPJOC7U&feature=youtu.be

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:45 AM

"Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:39 AM
          Fascinating. All these people so concerned about and exercised about the lawfulness of the (unlawful, I tell you) British Legion song ....
The problem is that Bogle (or his music publisher) is too scared to sue."



For anyone similarly surprised that a massive organisation like the British Legion with all their paid staff, infrastructure, financial resources and thus recourse to sound legal advice, would just up and decide to record a copyrighted song without bothering to seek permission of the artist, here's Bogel's response to those who have been angered on his behalf:

http://johnhilley.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-appeal-and-royal-british-legions.html?showComment=1415722255642#c4814046416461824

I can't help but feel that the British Legion in failing to seek permission to effectively make themselves money by selling someone else's work, have demonstrated huge arrogance.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:45 AM

You can say that Greg.
It means I made up those passages I transcribed from books.
It means it is just coincidence that my views are the same as theirs.
It means I quoted those historians at random and it was pure luck they all contradicted the old myths.

It does not matter anyway because it is a fact that they all contradict you, and a fact that none of you in over a year have found a single one that does not.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:23 AM

the BBC History site for grown ups

Still haven't actually read any books by any historians, I see.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:21 AM

Sorry Musket but it is you and your cohorts who are all hung up on who is a historian and who isn't, personally I couldn't care less. Perhaps that is because I have read and I have had to study the period.

What Keith has stated with regard to the First World War on a number of threads over the last twelve months still holds good:

1: As far as Great Britain was concerned it was vital to our national interests that Belgian neutrality be defended and that Germany's ambitions in Europe and overseas be checked before Germany became too powerful

2: That the British people fully realised why the country was going to war and that they fully supported that decision by the British Government and continued to do so throughout the war.

3: That in general throughout the course of the First World War British and Commonwealth Armies were well led in comparison to those of any other combatant force, ally or enemy. (That tiny professional army of ~440,000 in 1914 grew to and became Great Britain's first citizen Army of over 5,300,000 by 1918 when in just 100 days it smashed what was considered to be the greatest army on earth at that time).

Both Keith and myself have quoted the opinions of a number of historians who support those views by way of backing up our own opinions. You have even been challenged to name one who vehemently disagrees with those views and to-date you have come up with none - instead you bicker about who is and who is not a "historian".

Now c'mon then Musket tell us all about those patrolling Red Tops in the trenches forcing "our lads" over the top again - but give us a laugh and roll us yer cap first.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM

Hang on, we appear to have added "sane" to "living" now.

Makes bugger all difference like, but let's all keep up

😂😂😂

🐴🐴🐴

🔫💀👻

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM

Guest, BBC Schools, does not employ any historians.

Have you read any of my links to actual named historians contributing to the BBC History site for grown ups?
They all contradict the old discredited myths.

"Terribulus and Keith, making up the definition of "historian", altering it to exclude every time a sane person points out the idiocy of their stance."

No definitions, except they be alive!
Name any sane, living historian who supports those old myths you still believe.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM

As this thread mentions No-Man's Land:

Tomorrow a letter written home by General Sir Walter Congreve VC is being put on public display at Stafford Record Office.

The letter mentions the Christmas Truce that the General witnessed and reported on. Congreve himself did not walk out into "No-Man's Land" as he thought the presence of a General would prove too tempting an opportunity for the Germans and that shots might be fired.

He did send someone to report back to him and the exchange is recorded by Congreve as follows:

"'My informant, one of the men, said he had had a fine day of it & had smoked a cigar with the best shot in the German army, then not more than 18.

'They say he's killed more of our men than any other 12 together but I know now where he shoots from & I hope we down him tomorrow."

'I hope devoutly they will.' (Congreve's comment)

So much for poor "Tommy Atkins" being duped, conned, betrayed eh?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:56 AM

Not even sure which point Keith is addressing, twice, but I do know that I know less about history than an historian. I am pretty sure the BBC do know more than Keith when they use the terms "Historians disagree" and "This is the view that most serious historians take". Nowhere is the article does it say that all historians agree on anything.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:54 AM

Tell me Greg F, as someone who has obviously never been in either position

You know this how, exactly, T-Bird? As your crony Keith would say, "you lose".

As for lying, what term would you prefer for misrepresenting the facts?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:26 AM

It's like watching a cartoon character running on the spot, trying to gain purchase..

Terribulus and Keith, making up the definition of "historian", altering it to exclude every time a sane person points out the idiocy of their stance.

As Terribulus has started using 'discredited' to differentiate, let's all sit quietly for a few years and see how many of their heros are pulled up for non substantiated conclusions, cherry picking or favourable slant shall we? Although if you read what most of them put, they wouldn't be comfortable with the lionising of just part of their work by our armchair Field Marshalls.

According to The Guardian recently, it's already started with Hastings. Although hacks hacking each other is neither here nor there. Hastings, let us not forget wrote to defend the execution of soldiers.

This just in. The well led soldiers are still dead.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

Not "the BBC" or any historian.
Most likely a failed history teacher.

I quoted actual historians.

You people think you know more about this than any historian.
No point trying to address such arrogance and ignorance.

Did I say, "you lose?"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

Not "the BBC" or any historian.
Most likely a failed history teacher.

I quoted actual historians.

You people think you know more about this than any historian.
No point trying to address such arrogance and ignorance.

Did I say, "you lose?"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:07 AM

Thought that we had just established that Liddell Hart was not a historian in order to establish that Max Hastings wasn't a historian (Albeit a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society) and that some chap called Irvine was a historian ("although like Alan Clark an extremely discredited one due to the lunacy of their scholastically lamentable historical writings) - I think that just about covers it?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw laughing
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:59 AM

Well now, here you go. The inevitable upshot of inarticulate Keith's and more articulate Teribus's ardent and quasi-religious appeals to historical authority is that individual historians will be resorted to, thereby leading to the inevitable defeat of their argument.. Let's take this premise that most/all/the consensus of historians state that the British army was well-led. Well Teribus wants us to not be shy about one that he likes. So we set about finding ones that aren't so friendly to the cause. Let's start with Liddell Hart...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:43 AM

No point in quoting it all. I provided the link for anyone to look up. I could as well ask why you have not quoted the full article instead of just the bit you wanted to point out. There is no sense in providing links and then repeating the words verbatim. The key word I wanted to highlight in the last line is MOST - not ALL as others imply. My other points still stand. The BBC say historians differ in opinion. Others say they do not. I know who I believe.

OK Raggytash. For anyone who could not figure it out for themselves please substitute present tense with past tense for anything I said about Gove. The meaning remains the same.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 06:46 AM

Guest: Michael Gove was replaced as Minister for Education in July 2014 by Nicky Morgan. There is no point in giving pedants ammunition.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 06:44 AM

Aw c'mon GUEST - 04 Dec 14 - 03:54 AM

Don't be so coy why not quote the whole penultimate paragraph - not just the last sentence of it:

" in 1963, the historian John Terraine set about correcting what he thought were the myths of the war. He argued that Haig was not an idiot, but a good commander who cared about his soldiers. Haig was faced with the problem that there did not exist at that time any weapon which could win the war without the loss of many lives. THIS IS THE VIEW THAT MOST SERIOUS HISTORIANS TAKE OF THE WAR NOWADAYS."

Thank you very much.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:54 AM

Just as an aside I have a couple of questions for Keith and Teribus. Do either of you play an instrument or sing and do either of you visit folk clubs or folk festivals. Just idle curiosity.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:39 AM

You say that in strictest terms that none of the people mentioned by Raggytash are historians. By the token you use, neither is Hastings.

You say all the people mentioned had different axes to grind. But so have all historians, qualified or not.

It is true that Gove had not previously been quoted in this debate but as minister of state for education he is instrumental in ensuring our children receive a fair and balanced view of history. He ultimately decides who's interpretation of the events they are fed. Therefore he is relevant to a lot of issues being discussed. The point is that history is interpreted by different people at different times with differently ground axes.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:14 AM

Add to my list Brian Bond and Gerard deGroot.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:02 AM

Replying to Raggytash GUEST - he mentioned Churchill, Fuller and Liddell Hart.

Hastings did attend University College Oxford for a year so went beyond secondary education level but did not complete his degree course, yet has been recognised by fellow historians and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society which "exists to promote historical research nationally, and to represent the profession broadly conceived as including those engaged professionally in researching and presenting public history, whether in archives, libraries, museums, or the heritage industry.

I have no idea whoever even remotely suggested that Michael Gove was ever a historian.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

No one on this debate has quoted Gove.
All the living historians quoted contradict your old discredited myths.
You have failed to find a single one who still believes that shit.

Until you do, you are challenging expert views based on research findings, with nothing more than assertions that you can not substantiate.

Unless you do, you have lost this debate.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:40 AM

My mate has a Desmond in history from an ex poly, and he is, if he doesn't mind me saying, which he won't as he doesn't do Mudcat... A bit of a fruitcake..

What does either side of that point tell us? Most "go to university because it is a family expectation" people in the past studied history, the classics or some forms of arts. Is someone saying here that a degree in history gives you credibility as a historian? I'm an engineer but if I had studied ancient Greek, I would know my rho from my pheta better, but I still know how to use them as variables because of the sciences, not the arts.

Ha!

An education at all would possibly help Keith A of Hertford stop seeing historians as one corporate lump I suppose...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:25 AM

none formally studied history as a subject beyond secondary education level and none held a formal degree in history.

Whereas others mentioned hold formal degrees in History? Michael Gove? Max Hastings? Hmmmm.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:10 AM

"There were lots of poets, song-writers and letter writers who supported the war and the war effort. Particularly the writers of the "letters home" - I have been in the position of actually writing letters home while on active service and in the position of receiving letters from one of my children who was on active service - Okay then Steve, what would write and tell your mother or father? - What would you wish to hear as a mother or father? Any selfish totally egotistical bastard who wrote home increasing the naturally heavy load and burden of worries felt by any parent for their child under such circumstances really does deserve shooting." - Teribus

Tell me Greg F, as someone who has obviously never been in either position, why you automatically assume that if someone posted on active service in writing home to his/her loved ones focuses the subject matter of his letter on the mundane, the social and the positive aspects of his situation - He or she must be lying?

Raggytash - 03 Dec 14 - 10:50 AM

So do Churchill, Fuller, Liddell Hart etc not count as Historians.

In the strictest definition of the term no they weren't as none formally studied history as a subject beyond secondary education level and none held a formal degree in history.

All three had varying interests in history but their works were academically viewed as being more commentaries/memoires rather than histories. All three had different axes to grind:

Churchill - A strong supporter of the "indirect approach" to break the stalemate of the "western front", which led to the Gallipoli Campaigns (Sea & Land) - Although, unknown at the time, they came close to success and would have knocked Turkey out of the war, the losses as it ultimately transpired were huge for zero gain and the ensuing scandal was so great Churchill had to resign, the lives of those lost in Gallipoli haunted Churchill for the rest of his life. He deflected criticism of Gallipoli by painting the "western front" and its commanders as black as he could. But in doing so he ignored the signal truth that Haig had realised early in 1915 - That to win the war you had to defeat Germany in Europe on the western front.

Major-General J.F.C. Fuller - Planned the tank attack at Cambrai in November 1917 and also the tank operations linked to the 100 Days offensive in 1918 that ended the war. He was also the author of what was called Plan 1919 which if it had ever had to have been implemented in 1919 then the world would have seen "Blitzkrieg" demonstrated twenty years earlier in the history of modern warfare - Last time the concept of Fuller's Plan 1919 was demonstrated to the world was in Iraq in 2003. Fuller was critical of the direction the British Army took after the end of the First World War, and his criticism centred around arguments that promoted his own ideas that was his agenda.

Basil Liddell Hart - Wrote an infantry training manual mostly at second hand from the actual experiences of his mentor Maxse. He co-authored training manuals with Fuller and his agenda linked to painting the First World War as black as he possibly could was similar in nature to Fuller's

Worst of all as pointed out by Professor Brian Bond were the memoires of Lloyd George - the man who all too readily signed over command of British Armies to French Generals whose own troops from the 1917 Nivelle offensive onwards refused to attack the enemy. This little "slant" most certainly contributed greatly to British & Commonwealth losses as it tied the hands of British Commanders in the field with French Generals demands and insistences taking precedence over common sense.   Lloyd George waited until after Haig's death then unscrupulously used Haig as an extremely convenient scapegoat.

All wrote late 1920s - none of them wrote objectively.

Ahh Christmas trust you to grab hold of the wrong end of the stick as usual:

"Nobody has yet commented on the morality of the commissioning of 800,000 ceramic poppies (estimated at £25 per poppy) to be spread around The Tower of London.
I calculate that to have cost £20m (correct my lousy maths)."

You complete and utter PRAT the ceramic poppies are ON SALE FOR £25 EACH so if all 888,246 are sold they will RAISE £22,206,150 which will be split between six service charities.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:54 AM

Let's make it simple

BBC Bitesize

First words in the introduction "Historians disagree about what 'caused' the First World War"

Penultimate line of the conclusion "This is the view that most serious historians take of the war nowadays."

No absolutes. No mention of all. No complete agreement. Take from that what you will.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:12 AM

I inadvertently misquoted some poetry earlier so in the interest of accuracy, could I point out there should have been a "boom" between the eighth and ninth "boom."?

Thank you for your patience.

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴💩💩💩💩💩💩

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 08:09 PM

No living historian believes those old discredited myths.

How could you possibly know, Keith, since you haven't read ANY historian's works, never mind those of "all living historians".

You really are The Prince Of Bullshit.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:57 PM

Everyone of those historians has been cited or quoted in these debates.
Raggytash, they were Historians.
Since their day much new information has become available.
No living historian believes those old discredited myths.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 01:12 PM

No, but there are votes in seeing the Prime Minister and London Mayor stood there looking sombre...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 12:49 PM

"Historians."
Your list of historians is a fake - you haven't read them - none comment of the subjects under discussion - one has embarked on a series on the Imperialist nature of the War - Max Hastings (still on your list) has been castigated by the Conservative Spectator for his contempt for the British military (and you still count him as a supporter).... none comment on recruitment, morale, the incompetence of clowns like Kitchener, one blames French, but says Hague was OK.... a mishmash on hastily scooped and unread names - no more than that.
And still you support the continuing sales of arms to despotic regimes throughout the commemoration period.
Nobody has yet commented on the morality of the commissioning of 800,000 ceramic poppies (estimated at £25 per poppy) to be spread around The Tower of London.
I calculate that to have cost £20m (correct my lousy maths).
Is that a fitting way to remember the dead?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 12:13 PM

'smatter, MG? Cat got yer tongue?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 11:36 AM

Particularly the writers of the "letters home" .....- what would [you] write and tell your mother or father? ... Any selfish totally egotistical bastard who wrote home increasing the naturally heavy load and burden of worries felt by any parent for their child under such circumstances really does deserve shooting.

So,T-Bird, you're saying the writers lied to the folks back home to make them feel better. Rather the antithesis of the point you're unsuccessfully trying to make, innit?

here were as many, if not more poets "promoting" the message of that same "right-wing by-jingo brigade"

Name 'em. And let us know the total numbers in each camp.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 11:23 AM

Historian (Noun) Newspaper hack writing books in a style designed to sell well amongst people who see war as something to be proud of.

No, they can't be historians if Keith deems them not on his little list. Try naming Alan Clark, the right wing politician who was also an (here's that word again) eminent historian, just like his Dad, and watch Keith and Terribulus claim he can't be a historian because neither of them liked what he wrote.

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 11:01 AM

Make that FOUR times, MGM.

Now, about that "looking stupid" and "a vain, brash, cocky fool" bit........

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 10:50 AM

So do Churchill, Fuller, Liddell Hart etc not count as Historians.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 10:04 AM

Not pro military anything.
Historians.
In a whole year of this debate, none have been found who disagrees with the others on these issues.

But that does not convince you so I give up on you porkers.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 10:04 AM

Not pro military anything.
Historians.
In a whole year of this debate, none have been found who disagrees with the others on these issues.

But that does not convince you so I give up on you porkers.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:46 AM

Where can one buy this book, "The historians?"

The ones quoted; are we discussing their account of what went right or what went wrong? When any of them, and this is just about all of them, give two sides to a premise, do you wish us to believe the sections where Haig was lauded or the sections where his "butcher of The Somme" was discussed and justified?

Does anybody have anything to offer on this subject that isn't to be shouted down by pro military apologists who should be ashamed of themselves?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:27 AM

I hope Keith doesn't fulfil your prophecy here either...

He already has, MG - twice. First one only took him 9 minutes.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:22 AM

No voices Musket, and I have given you the historians' view.
You really believe you know better and are determined, like pork, not to be educated.
Greg is right.
No point continuing, unless you people start supporting your assertions.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:13 AM

You make these confident assertions, Greg F, as to what other posters are going to do when they have stated they won't -- you said I would return to a thread I had forsworn ["you always do" you asserted confidently]. But I didn't, so you were left just looking stupid. I hope Keith doesn't fulfil your prophecy here either, so that you will yet again look what you so often are -- a vain, brash, cocky fool.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 08:40 AM

No point in continuing.

But you will, and you do. ad infinitum.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 08:31 AM

What else do the voic.. Er historians tell you Keith?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:06 AM

The people at the time overwhelmingly supported the war.
Historians say the war had to be fought.
What is your point?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:01 AM

Supporting war is another issue entirely.

Though it helps show your mindset, thank you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:57 AM

If you heed the war poets who wrote at the front and published at the time, they overwhelmingly believed the war had to be fought.

The few now well known anti war poets were unknown until the 30s.

If you heed the historians, they support the war, the people and the army.
That is where T and I got our knowledge and our views.

Against that we have you people with your unsupported and unsupportable assertions demanding to be taken seriously when you contradict historical knowledge.

No point in continuing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:47 AM

This reliance on the infallibility of historians, I find it fascinating.

Tell me, is David Irvine a historian?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:04 AM

Greg F. - 02 Dec 14 - 08:26 PM

Sorry, Steve- that was supposed to be a sarcastic comment

But it was true all the same - even when applied to Wilfred Owen who wrote something like 103 poems during the Great War of which less one-third could be stated as being "anti-war". There were lots of poets, song-writers and letter writers who supported the war and the war effort. Particularly the writers of the "letters home" - I have been in the position of actually writing letters home while on active service and in the position of receiving letters from one of my children who was on active service - Okay then Steve, what would write and tell your mother or father? - What would you wish to hear as a mother or father? Any selfish totally egotistical bastard who wrote home increasing the naturally heavy load and burden of worries felt by any parent for their child under such circumstances really does deserve shooting.

GUEST,Steve Shaw, wearying of all this - 02 Dec 14 - 07:23 PM

Well, Greg and Keith, some war poets were at the front, some made it up afterwards (I wasn't really meaning them), some worked their arses off in munitions factories, and so on. People like those, and people who kept diaries or who described their experiences after the war (like my grandad), or who recorded their experiences in letters, are primary sources."

No to any historian looking at any event objectively they are not primary sources, they serve to give insight and they provide extremely limited snapshots relating to minute parts of the picture.

As a non-historian, I look at those and try to glean any truth contained therein."

Upon what criteria do you assess whether or not you have gleaned any truth? Truth in relation to what and to whom?

Asked the question before I will ask it again:

There was more written about the 96 hours of Napoleon's little jaunt into what is now Belgium in June 1815 than any other battle of campaign. The authors varied greatly in scholastic ability and literacy, but I will take three all fighting for the Allied side in the British Army - Wellington, Captain Kincaid and Rifleman Costello. All were present, all wrote about it, which one wrote the most informed and informative account? Why should it be considered as the the most informed and informative account by any reader or student of history?

The following makes no sense whatsoever and is totally untrue (It actually supports my belief that you have read very little and what you have read is highly suspect):

"If I read a scholarly tome on the war, I have to acknowledge that the author is distilling a somewhat imperfect assemblage of information from disparate sources and is putting his own slant on things."

So what are these disparate sources? - People who "were there"? People like your grandad? Why is the "historians" assemblage imperfect yet yours from similar sources is perfect? rather arrogant of you Steve old boy, particularly when you go on to lay claim to being the only person in the world who can look at things and then relate them in a way that is totally objective without you putting YOUR slant on things.

"By saying that I am not in any way trying to demean his scholarship."

Hell as like - That is precisely what you are doing

"I find it rather amusing that people like Keith can immediately get so defensive about the potential value of the contribution of those on the front line who chose to express their experiences in poetry."

Did Keith get defensive about that? Or did he try, inadvertently and unintentionally like Greg F, to introduce some perspective? Now you on the other hand do get very defensive vehemently claiming that only the "Trench Poets" whose views align with yours are telling the truth - and the reason for that is because the only truth you put any store by was what your Grandfather told you, and although "he was there and he lived through it" the only real truth about his account of things is that he only saw a microscopic part of a microscopic part of what was going on at any one time.

Now to get back to your scholarly tome written by a historian he will read and study and if possible interview people who were present at a whole variety of stages connected with the event and he will do that from the differing perspectives of all the parties involved. He will then bring all that together and in his "scholarly tome" he will faithfully and objectively lay all of that out for his reader to take in. He will then reach HIS conclusion and provide a supporting argument to back up and support that conclusion which leaves his reader or his student to either agree with it or challenge it as he or she wishes.

You might have listened to history Steve Shaw but you have obviously never studied it.

"We learned quite a lot about life in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from Shakespeare, also a poet, and we tend not to get quite so defensive when his name is raised."

Really?? What did we learn "about life in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from Shakespeare"? - I mean apart from learning that if you were a popular playwright who had attracted the attention and patronage of the richest and most powerful in the land you had to be bloody careful about what you committed to paper, who you wrote about and what you wrote about them. If all you relied upon to draw a picture of life in 16th and 17th century England was Shakespeare then your historical view would be as slanted and imperfect as if you had say got your view on the Great War from the perspective of any other poet.

"the war poets, with their understated protest, make the right-wing by-jingo brigade feel somewhat buttock-shufflingly uncomfortable."

I doubt it, as there were as many, if not more poets "promoting" the message of that same "right-wing by-jingo brigade" than those making their understated protest. But your remark just illustrates your left-wing chippiness.

As I said before I had two Grandfathers (One mainly on the Western Front - The other at Gallipoli and in Palestine) go through it - both said at times it was terrifying and terrible - at other times literally the best and most exciting time of their lives - They both agreed that it was an event that changed and shaped their views and their lives and both agreed even in retrospect that if they had to do it all over again then they would. You have no reason to doubt for one second what your Grandfather told you - I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what both of mine told me.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 03:12 AM

My favourite war poem.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 08:26 PM

Sorry, Steve- that was supposed to be a sarcastic comment- a la Keith's continuing drivel- on my part RE: the war poets. Guess it didn't play well.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, wearying of all this
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 07:23 PM

Well, Greg and Keith, some war poets were at the front, some made it up afterwards (I wasn't really meaning them), some worked their arses off in munitions factories, and so on. People like those, and people who kept diaries or who described their experiences after the war (like my grandad), or who recorded their experiences in letters, are primary sources. As a non-historian, I look at those and try to glean any truth contained therein. If I read a scholarly tome on the war, I have to acknowledge that the author is distilling a somewhat imperfect assemblage of information from disparate sources and is putting his own slant on things. By saying that I am not in any way trying to demean his scholarship. Similarly, though, I find it rather amusing that people like Keith can immediately get so defensive about the potential value of the contribution of those on the front line who chose to express their experiences in poetry. We learned quite a lot about life in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from Shakespeare, also a poet, and we tend not to get quite so defensive when his name is raised. Perhaps the difference is that the war poets, with their understated protest, make the right-wing by-jingo brigade feel somewhat buttock-shufflingly uncomfortable.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:57 PM

Greg, historians know about historians.

Oh, right you are! Still more pathetic. You're on a roll, dear boy.

Consider also the fact that sentient beings know about idiots.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:57 PM

So the whole premise of believing that we would be satisfied with the conduct of senior military leaders is based on looking at one student looking at the historical value of Blackadder?

Fascinating.

Under todays climate certain leaders would be facing criminal charges.

How many PhD publications do you think there are showing how Life of Brian told us more about the politico social aspects of Judea than the bible ever did?

Blackadder may have been black humour, but it touched upon the class divide, the social levels, the cynicism of middle ranks with intelligence to question tactics and finally, the fact that death was not glory.

Ben Elton researched deeply and afterwards managed to write an excellent novel that summed up the war on a dispassionate level, using fictitous characters to portray elements of real people.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:50 PM

Greg, historians know about historians.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:48 PM

From T's link.
(Why did no one read it?)

Most significantly, of the millions who fought, only a handful would subsequently write that the war had been futile and not worth pursuing to victory.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:46 PM

Greg, he is a military historian writing about other military historians and military history.

Indeed he is (or was). So what? Does he comprise "all historians" in and of himself?

Now try answering the questions for a refreshig change.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:43 PM

Read this Steve,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z38rq6f

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:35 PM

You are right Steve.
The anti war poets were a tiny minority of the WWI poets and unknown before 1930.

Greg, he is a military historian writing about other military historians and military history.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:32 PM

Yes, Steve, but is it ALL war poets?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:27 PM

Few military historians would dispute these facts

WHICH "facts", Keith? Also, Bond offers no evidence other than his opinion.

Now it would certainly be no military historians would dispute....


"would certainly be?" Even more pathetic nonsense than usual.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 03:28 PM

Well, I hold no particular brief for the war poets, but, inconvenient though their message might be to the more jingoistic in our midst, they did have the slight advantage over " the Historians" of actually having been there. Just thought I'd mention it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 02:47 PM

"As I have suggested today, within the ranks of military historians that time has already come, but on the popular front we still struggle against the appeal of the ubiquitous 'war poets' on the one flank and their television ally Blackadder, on the other. I place on record with no satisfaction, that Blackadder has been cited as a historical source in an undergraduate essay."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 02:38 PM

"Few military historians would dispute these facts or the inference that the defeat of the German armies on the Western Front was crucial in accounting for the collapse of the Central Powers. In the past decade or so new approaches and original research have moved on to more specific issues related to 'the learning curve' which, it is widely accepted, rose steadily and impressively from mid 1916. Thus attention focuses on such topics as Technical and Tactical innovation and the levels at which they were implemented; the performance of individual commander and units, especially the divisions. Even staff officers, the butt of so......."

As you say, that was decades ago.
Now it would certainly be no military historians would dispute....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 12:24 PM

Nowhere in that decades-old article, Keith does Bond say, or even imply, that "all [or even most] historians agree with him" as you insist on repeatedly claiming.

Apparently one of your many major difficulties is reading comprehension.

By the way, have ya those books yet?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 11:09 AM

Musket, I could easily be wrong if like you I was just pontificating without knowledge.
The views I have posted are those of the Historians.
Read T'S link. That Historian says they all agree on these issues.

You might sincerely believe that you are right and the Historians all wrong, but only people with the same prejudice and preconceptions will accept such nonsense.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: olddude
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 10:59 AM

It was a good thing wwi ended all wars so we never had to fight another one

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 10:54 AM

Oh? Sorry - missed that!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 10:50 AM

Ask Keith what it means. He invented the character.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 10:42 AM

"Dumb down" suggests that you think your present way of going on is clever.

It isn't.

Giving the proper name instead of a stupid extended version like "Mr Two Dimension" would reduce the length of the post, not increase it, wouldn't it?

Not at our very brightest just now, are we, Poppykins?!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 09:56 AM

If I have to dumb down for your benefit my posts would be longer than those of Terribulus.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 09:51 AM

Not helpful, Poppy, this habit of yours of referring to people by your own nicknames for them without clarifying who the hell you mean.

≈M≈

So, to clarify: Poppy is my name for Musket -- short for Popgun. Geddit?!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM

A pity the revisionists did then...

Just because you are wrong does not mean the truth is prejudice.

Grow up man. You are a bit like a porsche with no petrol in the tank. All that ability to convey a point but just splutter and disappointment. If you weren't so blinded by bullshit, you would be worth discussing things with, unlike Mr Two Dimension.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:24 AM

Personal attack and no other contribution.
Just prejudice and preconception based on 60s class war politics and total ignorance of History.

Lose the debate?
You never even joined it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:14 AM

You can see which ministry these two would be working in if the second war had gone the other way....

💀💩

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:17 AM

Brian Bond - A Victory worse than a Defeat?

Well worth the read.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 04:32 AM

2: "you will see for yourself that it wasn't as men had been led to believe it was at the front?"

Who led them to believe anything untrue Musket?
No one.
Every day thousands passed from the front line back home.
All sworn to secrecy?
Journalists reported from the front lines.
There was a best selling book about trench war by a serving soldier.
A very realistic film was made of the Somme battle that virtually everyone went to see.

Recruiting was actually highest when things were at their worst, during the long and terrible fighting retreat from Mons.
During that, The Times published a special afternoon edition reporting that the British Army was defeated, and men flocked to join and help.

Your assertion can not be supported because it is wrong and born of your total ignorance of any of this.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 04:05 AM

Fair play. "Crocodile rears" may well be Freudian, as he seems to be up the arse of those with no feelings for those in their charge and whose reading out of the fallen at drill was indeed called "crocodile tears" by Wildred Owen.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 04:02 AM

Musket - Whichever one?? - 01 Dec 14 - 11:59 AM

1: On the reading books thing - from input so far into this discussion, putting aside all the attempted deflections feverishly introduced by the Muskets to distract - I believe that Keith A of Hertford is a damned sight better read up on the subject than any of the Muskets, Jim Carroll, Steve Shaw or Greg F.

2: "you will see for yourself that it wasn't as men had been led to believe it was at the front?"

Really??? WOW !!!! I never would have ever guessed that !!!!! Now I really would be interested to hear of all those occasions where when armies were all marched off to war in which it was explained with such astounding clairvoyance that everyone KNEW beforehand what it would be like "at the front". In fact Muskets I'd like you to tell me any previous war in the history of mankind prior to 1914 where you come across the concept of Fronts for men to be at? Please show me any story, article or paper where anyone was told of any Front in July or early August of 1914.

3: "the military tactics being drawn up late 1914 could never have delivered peace by Xmas anyway,"

Good heavens you do surprise me Musket - by the way Musket dear, I know that you have been asked to provide evidence to back this up before but where on earth did you get this "over-by Christmas CRAP from?? Certainly not from Sir Edward Grey the man who took Great Britain to war, and certainly not from Lord Kitchener the Secretary of State for War - I mean Muskets, you don't go to war at the end of the summer in 1914 with your army of 80,000 against an enemy numbering over 1 million and expect it to be over by Christmas do you? You don't put into operation a plan to raise a citizens army of millions at the beginning of August and expect them to be trained and equipped in time to defeat what was considered to be the best army in Europe by Christmas do you? I mean Muskets it just simply does not make sense - "Over-by-Christmas" under such circumstances totally ridiculous, isn't it?

4: Reasons for fighting the Germans had not been adequately explained?? Anyone with half a brain (I know that would automatically exclude the Muskets; Jim Carroll; Steve Shaw & Greg F even if their collective brain cells were counted) in either Great Britain or Germany could have predicted with ease that the two nations were on a collision course from any time from 1899 onwards. The whys and wherefores were constantly in the newspapers of the day, which oddly enough Muskets all those huddled masses read and ate their chips out of. The fact that at the end of the twentieth century's first decade Germany posed an ever growing threat to Great Britain and her Empire would come as no surprise to anyone.

5: "Kitchener inspired propaganda"

What Kitchener inspired propaganda?? You mean him advising the British Government that the war would last a minimum of three to four years and involve raising armies numbering in the millions? (So much for "Over-by-Christmas" Eh?? - Oh of course he didn't say which Christmas - Silly me.

6: "the early influence of The Kaiser, there were diplomatic opportunities to avoid Western powers being dragged into the demise of the Austro Hungarian Empire. Opportunities that were not taken as the government had been assured that a military campaign would deliver total success."

Would that be the early influence where the Kaiser stated that even if Serbia and Russia conceded on every single point then the war should still go ahead?

Yes there was a brief period of four days late in July 1914 between the 28th and 31st in which war could have been averted but the actors in that drama did not include Great Britain as the focus at that point was solely for Serbia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Germany and Russia - The Kaiser deliberately let that opportunity slip. And I do so hope that in referring to - "the government being assured that a military campaign would deliver total success." - that you are referring to the German Government and NOT the British Government because if you are referring to the latter you had best come up with something to substantiate that preposterous claim.

7: "Then we count the bodies, examine the "waves of men over the top" tactic and assess that against "well led."

Yes we did count the bodies, the facts speak for themselves in a war where at the beginning reconnaissance was carried out by cavalrymen and at the end it was carried out by aircraft, the aeroplane having only just taken to the sky in 1903, and only crossed the channel in 1909 that by 1918 could bomb targets hundreds of miles distant. I would give you the count of bodies once again, but the fact that "our" body count was markedly less than either those of our closest allies or those of our enemies does not seem to register with you. But if fighting over a fixed period of time, on the same battleground, under similar conditions when A's body count is X, B your ally's body count is X + 57% & C your enemy's body count is X + 230% - Then I would venture the guess that out of combatants A, B & C - all the indicators are that A was the best led of the three.   

8: What draconian methods were used to maintain order? We now know that your myth of "Red Tops" (FFS) steadying the ladders and lining up in the trenches forcing men "Over-The_Top" (A Red Top by any chance gay Englishman Musket?) at gun point has been well and truly exploded - you were offered the opportunity to come up with just one instance of this ever happening throughout over four years of war and you singularly and spectacularly failed to do so - so be a good chap and put that one to rest - it never happened.

9: What "constant reminders of court martial and what that could entail and forcing men to watch executions of their own mean't."?

From an Army of ~440,000 men in July 1914 the British Army expanded out of all recognition into a citizens Army - the first that ever existed in Great Britain - of ~5,300,000 and out of those 5,300,000 what was it 17 shot for Cowardice? 306 shot for desertion? So I ask you again what constant reminders. Oh and please do tell of the instances where men were lined up and forced to watch executions - I mean apart from those detailed as the Firing Squad that is - but there again they would have to be there wouldn't they?

10: "Of course, you can always just say they were well led and the white feathers, coercion and carnage were trivial irrelevances."

On the balance and judged on the times yes in general they were well led, their commanders were more imaginative and did learn lessons learned far better than either their French Allies and their German enemies. "White Feathers" were a trivial irrelevance, ever regarded as such by many at the time - lots of first hand accounts of those instances.

What coercion? Compulsory conscription only introduced in 1916 and even then initially it was only for single men and only in Scotland, Wales and England. In Ireland, the Colonies, the Dominions and in India there was no conscription - All volunteers.

As for the carnage? Well you would have to address that point to the enemy - it is the sort of thing that they are fully expected to do - but as the figures showed "our boys" weren't to shy at inflicting it either - the sort of thing you learn in a kill or be killed environment Muskets?

11: "You can have a book burning and include all the first hand accounts written down."

Feeling the cold?? IIRC it was the Germans advancing through Limoges in 1914 who took great delight in burning the University Library and a later generation of Germans did the same in 1933. After both Great Britain had a major role in defeating both regimes who sought to enslave Europe.

Have you read extensively?? I somehow greatly doubt that - you simply have not at any time displayed the depth of knowledge of either the events or the period to indicate that you have "read extensively". You appear to have no grasp of detail that you automatically would have had you in fact read extensively and studied the subject under discussion, hence the rattling out of all the clichéd sound bites, long disproven myths and gross misrepresentations. When they fail to impress and are substantively dismissed you resort to introduction of distractions and crude name calling.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 03:40 AM

"Jim! Clock up another "you lose" on your list will you?"
Already taken my shoes off - not enough digits
An interesting post from t'other thread - Keith was too busy with his crocodile rears to comment
This is what the boys were sent to die for - profit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Broken Poppies - PM
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:43 AM

I don't think folks here mentioned the astonishing display of 800,000+ red ceramic poppies that were in the moat of the Tower of London until recently.

These were purchased in their thousands by members of the public for £25 of which only a small amount went to Forces charities.

However apart from the small proceeds of each one to charities, there were two other scandals.

1/ At the time of the display the Tower of London hosted an International Arms Dealers event -

"Guests, who included senior officials from the Ministry of Defence and foreign security companies, paid up to £3,000 for tables at the LCCI's Defence and Security Dinner but were told they would be advised on its location after registering.

"The Tower of London was accused of 'crass insensitivity' for hosting the £240-a-head black tie dinner for weapons manufacturers at the Tower of London, where poppies from the Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red memorial are still being removed.

"Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against the Arms Trade, told the Independent: 'On Remembrance Day, the Tower of London was a focus for remembering the horrendous loss of life in the First World War."

"'It is disturbing that just weeks later it can play host to the very arms companies which profit from perpetuating war and conflict today.

"'It is crassly insensitive and in extremely bad taste that this historic monument would do this so soon after providing such a high-profile focal point for Remembrance Day.'"

Arms Dealers at Tower of London

and

2/ Yodel the courier company have been delivering numerous broken poppies due to the appalling handling by their staff - one of which (at least) was been filmed throwing said package over a garden fence.

"Dozens of ceramic poppies which were planted at the Tower of London to commemorate those who died during the First World War have arrived at customers' homes broken into pieces.

"Disappointed customers who bought one of the £25 red blooms - designed to represent an individual British or Colonial death - have been faced with missing parts, smashed petals and shattered edges as the ceramic flowers arrived on their doorsteps.

"In one shocking incident, a courier was caught hurling a poppy package 25ft over a garden fence when he was unable to reach the customer's front door."

Broken Poppies Delivered By Yodel

CJB

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 02:56 AM

Jim! Clock up another "you lose" on your list will you?

Thanks.
🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 06:01 PM

What did you do.

I pointed out your bullshit. As have several others.

Now, be a good lad, get off the internet for a while & go read the books.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 05:58 PM

I read the books.
I quoted the historians.
What did you do.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 05:38 PM

I substantiated everything I claim.

No, you just footnoted the bullshit.

And you still haven't read any of the books.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM

Just your assertions with nothing to support them.
You can not win a debate that way, so obviously you lose.

I substantiated everything I claim.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 11:59 AM

Perhaps, as Greg said, once you read some of the books you refer to, you will see for yourself that it wasn't as men had been led to believe it was at the front, that the military tactics being drawn up late 1914 could never have delivered peace by Xmas anyway, that the reasons for fighting had not been adequately explained further than the Kitchener inspired propaganda and during the early influence of The Kaiser, there were diplomatic opportunities to avoid Western powers being dragged into the demise of the Austro Hungarian Empire. Opportunities that were not taken as the government had been assured that a military campaign would deliver total success.

That's for starters.

Then we count the bodies, examine the "waves of men over the top" tactic and assess that against "well led."

If you still have the stomach, we can ask why the Draconian methods used to maintain order, including the red tops behind the lines, constant reminders of court martial and what that could entail and forcing men to watch executions of their own mean't.

Of course, you can always just say they were well led and the white feathers, coercion and carnage were trivial irrelevances. You can have a book burning and include all the first hand accounts written down.

Up to you really, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you turn what you believe into some kind of truth stance and shout "liar" or "you lose" at those who have read extensively and formed conclusions. Including, incidentally, some of your named historians you seem so keen to throw around the debates.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 10:16 AM

Musket, what "awareness " did the people lack?
Why the desperate determination to evade the question and change the subject?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 10:14 AM

Greg, I provided actual quotes of actual historians with links so they could be seen in the context of the original article.


Keith, When you've actually READ some of the BOOKS these authors of yours have written - not newspaper articles and internet blogs ABOUT the books they've written- and can speak to what their theses are, get back to me.

Or, just continue to spout crap. You do it quite well.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 09:53 AM

"Aim small, miss small," -Something to do with Muskets in "The Patriot"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 09:42 AM

He who laughs last still doesn't understand the punchline - Musket's butler.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 08:18 AM

"Don't tell us Khans what we can't do!" Genghis Khan's father

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 08:10 AM

Those who deflect us from the subject don't like the way it was heading. - Musket's dog.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

"When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other."  Eric Hoffer

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:51 AM

You can't educate pork. - Musket

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:48 AM

""Insanity: doing and posting the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. " -My dog

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:34 AM

"He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors."
-- Kipling

Touche Ed.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:33 AM

What's more foolish than posting 300?
:)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:30 AM

""Those who wish to appear wise among fools, among the wise seem foolish.""
Quintilian, De Institutione Oratoria

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 07:20 AM

As ever, we give our thanks to a fellow Mudcatter who PM'd us this snippet from Akenaton, to give us a laugh. it is rather appropriate given his dig yesterday on this thread about the quality of those who support the warmongers.

it is from a thread called "are facts shite"

Just survived, (by the skin of my teeth),a small altercation with Teribus over debating styles,see (Blair on Channel 4).It has got me thinkin.
Teribus carries about his person,a large book of facts, which he uses to batter people into submission. Im sure most of you have suffered this unpleasant experience at some time or other.
Teribus believes that this book can cause him to win any argument, on any subject large or small. I on the other hand believe that these "facts" or statistics (grain quotas, unemployment figures,infant mortality rates ,(it goes on ad nauseum)have almost always been engineered by politicians of all persuasions, to shine as good a light as possible on their devious shenanigans.so when I write here I like to think for myself and let my own opinions come through, no matter how stupid they may seem to others.
I have always admired the effort and time which Teribus expends on creating his diatribes, even if they may be a bit pedantic at times.
Teribus of course thinks me a wooly minded wanker,butis not completely correct in that assumption,as I only become "Wooly minded" in the Scottish Blackface sheep shagging season....Any facts/opinions on debating styles would be very welcome....Ake
PS..funnily enough,Teribus is one of the strongest supporters of a war that was based on no facts at all,and entirely on the opinions of cretins...Ake

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 06:27 AM

Not one to cut and paste as a rule, I leave that to shallow people with nothing original to offer, but for the sake of Akenaton, I thought I'd offer this recent press release from SNP, The Scottish National Party, of which he claims to be part of;

SNP MSP welcomes Pride Glasgow
Sat, 19/07/2014 - 08:48
Speaking ahead of the Gay Pride Parade and Main Event in Glasgow today, James Dornan, SNP MSP for Glasgow Cathcart said:

"This is a great day for Scotland; this is the first annual Gay Pride Parade and Main Event in Glasgow since the Scottish Parliament voted for the equal marriage bill earlier this year - it is a celebration of the success the LGBT Community in Scotland and the journey we have all made as a country.

"Scotland has set out a clear intention to be seen as a world leader in equality, and that is a message that will be even more visible with a Yes vote and independence."

ENDS


Mind you, note that he said this before we voted, and made it quite clear that it would still be the case had we been stupid enough to vote for independence.

They say that bigotry is a sign of confusion. In this wannabe Egyptian specimen, we have an excellent case study. As ever, a link to this page has been sent to the membership email for SNP together with his name etc. I doubt he is a member all the same, but SNP deserve not to be associated with people they rightly shun.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 05:57 AM

Err.. According to The SNP it has. They introduced it.

Mind you, you aren't really a member are you? You haven't really met Alex Salmond have you? He never told you his equality speke was a ruse to get power, did he?

By the way, we voted against independence. Lovely to think my vote helped settle that small matter.

OK everybody who keeps defending Akenaton. I assume you defend that disgusting comment jus there too eh?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 05:22 AM

Greg, I provided actual quotes of actual historians with links so they could be seen in the context of the original article.

No one has found a single living historian who disagrees in over a year of this debate.
Nor will they.
In particular Greg, YOU have produced no contribution at all.

Musket, you said awareness was an issue, so tell us what they were unaware of.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 03:46 AM

One thing at a time gang, Independence first, then we can tackle the problem of REAL inequality.....(hint) It has nothing to do with the "marriage rights" of homosexuals.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 03:26 AM

Still, BTW, can't make out what has happened to the beginning of this thread, which starts in medias res with an answer of mine to a now non-existent question which I find oddly disorienting.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 03:22 AM

Don't know, honestly, why you all go on with this sterile activity of arguing with Musket [or 'the Muskets']. He knows what he knows, dash-it-all, and does not want to be confused with facts. I have pretty well given up trying to contradict or engage with him; not thru anger as once before, but simply from the most acutely ballsaching boredom with his endless animadversions and interminable jeremiads. Why don't you all do the same, and leave him to his favourite posture of being, as Kingsley Amis so well put it, part of the massed choir of half a million voices crying in the wilderness.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 02:37 AM

Happy to oblige, worm.

I look forward to seeing you as a SNP member rallying round your new leader. In her first speech outside parliament she reinforced her two priorities.

1. Tackling inequality.
2. Attracting inward investment and business friendly.

Still, being a socialist, you can accommodate all that eh?

Keith. Anything else to confidently predict?
😂

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 02:19 AM

Musket - 28 Nov 14 - 11:37 AM

1: "How many men sent over the top, knowing they would be running into gun positions?

In the situation all armies fighting on the "western front" found themselves in from late 1914 onward I would say that the answer to that idiotic question was blatantly obvious - ALL OF THEM - The only point of difference was the belief in the effectiveness of the planning and preparation done prior to any attack, the tactics employed and the ability to assemble and mount your attack without giving forewarning to your enemy. Demonstration of how lessons were learned - strong points in the German lines that had held out for two weeks in 1916, in 1917 and 1918 were overrun in under two hours. The British Army and its commanders DID learn, they did adapt, tactics were evolved - more so in the British and Commonwealth Armies than in any other army fighting at that time - something that can be easily proved and demonstrated - to say in general that the British Army was poorly or badly led throughout the course of the First World War is a travesty that flies in the face of fact.

2: Have you ever read how governments allowed themselves to get Europe into this situation?

Yes, at great length. The more import question however would have been - HAVE YOU? On indications obvious from your input to any thread on the subject of the First World War the answer would appear to be that you are totally clueless on the subject.

3: Any idea how many assurances idiotic military leaders gave politicians on all sides over their solution to diplomatic problems?

This should prove interesting. Tell us Musket what assurances did Britain's military leaders give the British Government that led to war? When did any military leader in Great Britain ever usurp the sovereignty of Parliament and impose solutions on the elected leadership of Great Britain over any political process or diplomatic effort?

4: Any idea how much this was about empires in the interest of those who then led their men to slaughter?

Certainly for Great Britain the war was fought out of self-interest for the preservation of the nation and her empire and that is why men and women from all over Great Britain and throughout her empire fought and supported the war effort. They fought for a common cause with a single will and a single purpose - and that Musket despite all those easily exploded myths that you cling so dearly to you will find no mutinies in any British or Commonwealth army in the field from 1914 to 1918, you will find no anti-war or anti-government strikes or riots among the civilian population that were evident in practically every other combatant nation.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 07:09 PM

The evidence mounts:


Shaws "Little Sheba" 

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 07:05 PM

Only a 3* Shaw hotel in Rasta-land?

Well, maybe not seen as such, to the Queen of Shaw(eba)?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 06:38 PM

""Deference

When Haile Selassie I was crowned Emperor, the King of England, who at that time was regarded by many as the most powerful man in the world because of the size of the British Empire, was unable to attend. However, he sent the Duke of Gloucester to represent him.

The Duke of Gloucester bowed to Haile Selassie on meeting him. Many Rastafarians believe that this revealed that the new Ethiopian Emperor was more important than the most important man in the world.""

Shaw lineage to Queen of Sheba via Haile Selassie (part of the puzzle that Steve Shaw is Queen of Sheba, reincarnated):

""Many Rastafarians trace Haile Selassie's lineage back to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. They believe that the Queen of Sheba's visit to King Solomon found in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 10:1-13) provides further proof of the divinity of Haile Selassie I.

Rastafarians believe that King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba had sex during the visit, which led to the conception of a child who was in the same line of descendents as Haile Selassie I.""

Rasta-Shaw hotel in Jamaica, coincidence? Unlikely.

Shaw Resort Rasta Resort Hotel in of Sheba. They believe that the Queen of Sheba's visit to King Solomon found in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 10:1-13) provides further proof of the divinity of Haile Selassie I.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw three-for-ten-quid-merlot sociali
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 06:06 PM

Akenaton, you are a crazy, mixed-up man. You are no more a socialist than I am the bloody Queen of Sheba.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 05:15 PM

[Hastings]is just one of the many historians whose findings I have quoted.

Not quite. You've quoted internet soundbites purportting to be his "findings".

You see, you've simply not read any of his works or, for that mantter, any works of the totality of other historians you constantly refer to.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 04:58 PM

Greg, all the main UK parties are now concurring with UKIP policy,
especially regarding unregulated immigration.

Mr Cameron promised to cut immigration figures to "the tens of thousands, from the hundreds of thousands", but has failed miserably, as EU rules determine that our borders should be open to allow "free movement of labour".
As UKIP say, the only way of controlling entry through our borders, is by removing ourselves from the EU; a large number of the electorate realised this some time ago and now all the main parties are running to catch up with public opinion.

"Free movement of labour", is code for "making our country competitive in the global economy", which was the Blairite mantra. Both are code for cheap labour, and a generation of UK citizens parked on ever diminishing and soul destroying benefits.

We unfortunately are afflicted by a capitalist economic system and
UKIP are like all the rest, tools of the system, but appear to reject the worst excesses of "globalism".

I am a socialist, a socialist who is a member of the Scottish National Party.......Time for another of your excruciatingly witty jokes "Musket 1" ?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 04:56 PM

all the other historians

Oh, Jesus, not THIS ridiculous crap yet one more time!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 04:11 PM

Daily Mirror on day 1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror01_01.shtml

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 04:06 PM

Musket, what are you claiming that the people and soldiers were not "aware" of?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 03:39 PM

Hastings is no hero of mine.
He is just one of the many historians whose findings I have quoted.

"What is the historical message one should take from the revision of historical events, particularly the increasingly discredited account written recently by Max Hastings?"

I think you have made that up Guest.
His views on the issues we have discussed are very similar to all the other historians and are not at all discredited.

I confidently predict that you can produce nothing in support of that strange claim.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 02:15 PM

I don't know, but three posts in, you were agreeing with me. Then Keith called me, so presumably you, a liar and a loser.

Funny old world.

😎

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 01:09 PM

Looking again to the top of the thread, I find it now starts with a post of mine, in reply to a previous one which appears to have vanished, along with all the others which preceded mine.

What has happened here, exactly?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 12:40 PM

Keith's hero Max also seems pretty supportive of the Ukip and their agenda.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 11:57 AM

What is the historical message one should take from the revision of historical events, particularly the increasingly discredited account written recently by Max Hastings?

The problem as ever is selective quoting of selective accounts. Those involved were quite comfortable with the true accounts at the time, and the sanitisation of mistakes, political v military arguments and disregard for the welfare of their charges grew in popularity as first hand accounts died out.

The influence of the military and their friends in the armaments industry make one rather sceptical, especially when so forcefully defended even here on Mudcat, using circular arguments and quoting of those whose publications are circumspect in the first place.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 11:48 AM

I think we know what the word means.
Here it is expressed in other words.
epitaph in the Kohima Allied war cemetery.

When you go home, tell them of us and say
For their tomorrow, we gave our today.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 11:10 AM

What the flying fuck has any of that to do with your stance that they were well led and aware? The only conclusion from that is that such huge numbers of casualties were planned in advance and deemed appropriate.

You should hang your head in shame with your fawning over blunders, indifference and callous disregard for their men.

As we both agree. Sacrifice. The difference being I use the word to mean sacrifice.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 10:55 AM

Thanks Ed.
Perhaps Steve will tell us what historical message we should take from that production.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 10:50 AM

Yes gillymore.
The quote was of someone who as a young soldier was terribly burned and disfigured, and saw many friends die.

I think he was trying to express the enormity of it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 09:29 AM

And, then there was the allied help to the WW2 French resistance in the village of Nouvion. The quality of the German leadership was questionable, noted by this clip of General Von Klinkerhoffen.



'Allo, 'Allo 

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 09:04 AM

The loss of your future is the most prominent feature of death to the deceased, the gentleman's statement seems redundant and hyperbolic.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 08:49 AM

No, and they were young men.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 08:43 AM

Is it possible to die and not lose your future?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 08:42 AM

""A man walks into a small local pub on the outskirts of Southampton.
As usual, all the locals stop drinking and stare at him.
He is wearing a long black coat, and a scarf wrapped tight around his neck.
He goes up to the bar, and in a very faint, rasping voice orders a pint of beer.
No one talks to him.
He drinks his pint in silence then leaves.
.
The next night, he comes in at the same time, wearing the same coat and scarf.
He goes up to the bar, and in a very faint, rasping voice orders a pint of beer.
As the barman is pouring the pint he notices behind the scarf is a scar across the man's neck.
No one talks to him, as he drinks his pint in silence, then leaves.
.
On the third night, the same routine takes place, but the barman is intrigued by the scar on his neck, so, just before the man finishes his pint, the barman asks where he got it. In the same faint, rasping voice that he had ordered his pint with, the man replies "Falklands War". He finishes his pint and leaves.
.
As soon as he goes out the door, the barman says to all the locals "We shouldn't treat this man like that. He fought in the Falklands, and yet we're just ignoring him. He has a battle scar on his neck, he can hardly speak, yet we're ignoring him, after all he did for our country. I think to make up for it, we should have a whip-round for him, and if he's in tomorrow night, we'll give him the money as a thank you for fighting, and an apology for being so rude to a war hero."
So, that's what they do, and because they are all feeling so guilty about the way they ignored him, they raised £750, from just 30 of them.
.
The next night he turned up at the bar, and initially no one spoke to him.
They let him get his pint in silence.
As he was getting to the end of the pint, the barman said to him "I told the lads about your story, how you fought in the Falklands War, so we had a collection for you, and we'd like to give you this £750. We're sorry for treating you so badly, and thanks for all you've done for Britain."
.
The man smiled a broad smile, and as he finished his pint, he headed for the door, and as he did so, he turned to them all and said "mucho gracias", and left.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 08:29 AM

Falklands War - now that was a war to remember.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 05:24 AM

Re. Sacrifice, a soldier's view.

"Falklands War veteran Simon Weston has told ITV News people must keep the legacy of the First World War alive and remember those that fought "didn't just sacrifice their life - they sacrificed their future." "

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 05:12 AM

More unsupported assertion and abuse from Musket.
You have to make stuff up because you know nothing about it.
Just 60s class war agitprop.

I quote the historians.
That is the "shit" I "spread."
The facts.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 30 Nov 14 - 03:50 AM

Who were "they"?

Many first hand accounts suggest otherwise.

You know, it is rather funny to see you use the word "sacrifice" without thinking of the irony of your stance.

Still trying to get me thrown off Mudcat so you can spread your shit unchallenged?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:51 PM

Oh, God, not yet ANOTHER appearance of the Keith and Terribus WWI Bullshit Revue - deja vu all over again.

Talk about the "undead".....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 10:16 AM

The inscription was to keep alive their memory and the sacrifice they made.
Not as dupes. They knew what they were doing and why.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 10:16 AM

The inscription was to keep alive their memory and the sacrifice they made.
Not as dupes. They knew what they were doing and why.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 07:46 AM

You know, when the stonemasons chiselled in "Lest we forget'" they didn't mean we shouldn't forget how well everybody did...
🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 07:39 AM

One of the BBC's "ten leading historians"

Haig, however, was no technophobe. He 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: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 07:34 AM

Musket, you have also argued that the men who fought were tricked or too moronic to know what it was all about, and that their sacrifice was futile and pointless anyway.
If you are now distancing yourself from that, good.

On the leadership, you make lots of assertions, but I quote historians.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, no General Melchett
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 06:42 AM

Sure, a sitcom and a bloody funny one at that, but anyone who thinks that the end of the final episode had no message wasn't watching the same programme as I was. I will shut up about Blackadder now for fear of Teribus accusing me that it's where I get all my historical knowledge from. Anyway, don't be silly, Keith.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 06:41 AM

Oh, gosh. So they must have been well led then?

Just out of interest, I haven't read a single post from anyone that says anything different about being proud of or grateful for the sacrifice. Stop trying to malign people using dead soldiers as a weapon. It is rather sick.

it is the insistence by you and other fools that somehow it was noble and executed correctly that means we fail to do the fallen the greatest honour.

Learn from and try not to repeat what whey endured.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:23 AM

"Tony Robinson was at a First World Memorial in Belgium when he met a group of teenage British schoolkids and decided to have some fun with them.

Most of them recognised him from TV's Time Team or Blackadder and he recalls: "I was winding them up and saying, 'It's not nearly as interesting as whether you're going to buy a beer or have a snog on the back of the coach, is it?'

"And they told me, 'No, this is really important. These people are the reason that we have the lives we have now.'

"And I just found that very touching and important because if you can start to get the fact that people sacrificed their lives in order to protect our way of life then that means our way of life is of value." "

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:09 AM

Just a sit com.
No message, just for fun.
We are discussing the tragedy.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 05:46 PM

Is levity appropriate on such an issue?

Of course it is. Did you watch Blackadder?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 04:16 PM

So you have no examples to support your ludicrous claim.
Just assertion and abuse.
I involved myself in this debate to defend the victims from the insult that their sacrifice was futile and that they did not understand the cause anyway.
They did, and I am grateful for what they did.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 03:33 PM

It is when you are in the debate. You have no respect for the countless numbers of people killed, maimed or mentally distressed by experience that could have been far less tragic if it weren't for the gung ho attitude of callous indifferent military leaders.

The only reason you can still spout your shit is that a rather ignorant moderator can't see how sick your comments are and deletes my replies.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 03:27 PM

Is levity appropriate on such an issue?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw comedian manqué
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 02:22 PM

Well, Hawk, at least one of us has tried to inject levity, but it doesn't seem to work with the Colonel Blimps around here, by jingo, old chap. Back to Blackadder for a slightly more accurate depiction, I suppose...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 01:37 PM

Why am I so thick to challenge the premise of this question Musket? ""Any idea how many assurances idiotic military leaders gave politicians on all sides over their solution to diplomatic problems? "

Please give some representative examples of some "diplomatic problems" that any of our military leaders offered politicians solutions to.

From previous experience, your resorting to obscene abuse is indicative that you have been caught making shit up again.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 12:52 PM

I have attempted to read through the bulk of this genial and charming discussion, a perceptive and tolerant meeting of minds between respectful equals to be sure, but eventually I had to take a break, as it was an experience akin to trying to chew up and digest a bowl full of rusty nails rolled in mouse droppings. Is there a protocol in place for keeping score? If so, I think it would help. Anyway, what a treat it has been! Smiles and chuckles all around. I trust that I can tune in 6 months from now and the main participants will still be attempting to verbally throttle and eviscerate one another. Don't disappoint me. It's really very much like trench warfare in some respects. More fun than a barrel of monkeys, as they say, so no point in ending it prematurely.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 12:39 PM

This is a hoot!......"Team Musket" appear to have no comprehension of how their responses look to objective readers.

Denial of facts is par for the course for "TM", but the obscenities, mumbo-jumbo, and their adherence to a baseless ideological position, in the face of a blizzard of information, makes them look moronic.

Such a one sided battle!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:48 AM

Read those ten leading Historians on who was most to blame for the war starting.

You will have to explain what you mean in your first point.
There were always enemy guns facing all attackers.

"Any idea how many assurances idiotic military leaders gave politicians on all sides over their solution to diplomatic problems? "
On our side, none.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:37 AM

How many men sent over the top, knowing they would be running into gun positions?

Have you ever read how governments allowed themselves to get Europe into this situation?

Any idea how many assurances idiotic military leaders gave politicians on all sides over their solution to diplomatic problems?

Any idea how much this was about empires in the interest of those who then led their men to slaughter?

Your "we won so we must have been well led" is as laughable as it is ludicrous. A bit like saying "God is on our side, we therefore won.". A quote by the way from the then Lord Renshaw in 1919.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:31 AM

Ten leading Historians (BBC) on issue of blame.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:27 AM

" Inability and unwillingness to not allow the situation to reach that level"

How should we have stopped the German armies from invading their neighbours, committing atrocities and sweeping towards the English Channel?

Have you read historians on the issue of blame?
You should.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:21 AM

Apart from winning, you have been given many other indicators like successes, morale, and lower casualties.
Did any other army perform better or was the British army the best of the bunch?
If so , why do you keep denigrating it and its leadership?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 10:37 AM

Ah, so long as we "won" eh?

Won what? Inability and unwillingness to not allow the situation to reach that level? War as a distraction for the masses? You see, some of us read history. Also, some of us don't limit criticism to one side, thus negating your general thrust.

If you must feel the need to defend the indefensible, at least find someone with intelligence to articulate it. Both Keith and Terribulus jump to petty irrelevant conclusions then try to hang them on others. Might work down at the Land Rover and Paintballing Club for the military fawning disturbed, but most people on Mudcat are too intelligent to join in.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 10:18 AM

I suspect you survived being pursued by a (mad) woman?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw n-dropper
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 10:12 AM

Tendentiousess is not the female form of tendentious. It's tendentiousness with an n missing. I have a tendency to do that on the iPad. I did not intend to do it, you may depend on that.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw doughty survivor
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 10:06 AM

I'm still ' ere, Ed. So does that mean...?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 09:49 AM

""Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog, fewer when pursued by a mad woman- only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion. - Robertson Davies

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw celebrating
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 09:32 AM

Well done, Teribus, for doing such a short post, refreshingly devoid for once of your batteries of tendentiousess-ridden war "facts". More posts like that, please! I'm not quite sure what I might have said to make you think my childhood and teenage years were so blighted, though. I did quaff a little too much Newkie Broon on occasion, I suppose, and, as for those Senior Service Plain... *cough*

And, Keith, what are you on about?


...No, don't bother telling me...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 08:32 AM

GUEST,Steve Shaw - 28 Nov 14 - 08:05 AM

Your supposedly logical thought process demonstrated by this astounds me. Just how the hell did you survive through childhood and your teenage years?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 08:31 AM

Not "always well led."

So you ARE comparing the best performing army not with other real armies but with a hyperthetical and mythical perfect army that does not exist.

A championship winning team is celebrated, not denigrated for not being always perfect.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 08:05 AM

Keith, best-performing does not necessarily mean always well-led. Tesco were the best- performing supermarket in terms of campylobacter contamination of chickens, but they still managed a 64% contamination rate. I wouldn't call 'em "champions" exactly.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 07:59 AM

Musket, you have been highly critical of the British WWI army.
That is not putting words in your mouth.
You have been given much evidence, none of which you have challenged, that it performed far better than the other armies in that conflict.

In football, which is something you might have knowledge of, a team which out performs all the others in its league is hailed as the champion.

Why do you insist on denigrating the best performing army?
Are you comparing it to some hyperthetical, mythical perfect army that only exists in your almost empty head?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 07:13 AM

And again ...and again and again and...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-crass-insensitivity-of-towers-luxury-dinner-for-arms-dealers-days-after-poppy-display-988850

Will we EVER learn?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 06:45 AM

Musket ecrit: Unfortunately I don't have your advantage of having read posts by someone you call Musket. Does someone post to say it was only our generals? Who said that then?

As ever, when you have no argument to put forward or indeed you have no shame, put words in the mouths of others and invite others to judge them.

Yes, that is exactly what you do all the time, Teribus. You've done it to me a couple times at least. You may well be well-read about the war for all I know, but you're a bit like the Daily Mail: it's impossible to know which your good bits are, buried as they are in that very large crock of shite.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 06:29 AM

Awwwwwww diddums - precious little prat aren't you?

When faced with facts that counter your dearly cherished myths you fold and resort name calling.

Here I'll make it simple for you:

" Musket - Date: 28 Nov 14 - 03:14 AM

Why were they dying at Verdun in the first place?

Your words?

Answer: "All down to a German chap called Falkenhayn - he had this whizzer of an idea to fire millions of artillery shells at the French who were in defensive positions around Verdun - his intention was to kill as many of them as he possibly could - The French had different ideas and in the end - even by judging the occupancy rate of the cemeteries - the French won.

Also your words (paraphrased) from other threads on the First World War:

British Generals were incompetent fools
British soldiers were duped and lied to, conned into volunteering.
British soldiers had no idea what they fighting for
That the war was unnecessary and could have easily been avoided

To date so far across a number of threads you have not produced one shred of an argument that even remotely supports any of those idiotic contentions.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 05:21 AM

Unfortunately I don't have your advantage of having read posts by someone you call Musket. Does someone post to say if was only our generals? Who said that then?

As ever, when you have no argument to put forward or indeed you have no shame, put words in the mouths of others and invite others to judge them.

I really find your awful views abhorrent. Militaristic fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 04:12 AM

To answer yet another of your stupid questions I thought that I had covered that in the last paragraph Musket - all down to a German chap called Falkenhayn - he had this whizzer of an idea to fire millions of artillery shells at the French who were in defensive positions around Verdun - his intention was to kill as many of them as he possibly could - The French had different ideas and in the end - even by judging the occupancy rate of the cemeteries - the French won.

Besides Musket according to you it was only the British Generals who were incompetent fools wasn't it? No British Generals present at Verdun. The French General who ultimately turned things round at Verdun, a guy called Petain, realised that troops cannot be kept constantly at the from and instigated a scheme by which all units were rotated in and out of the line - something those incompetent British Generals had being doing right from the start - fortunately the Germans, who were pushed for manpower, didn't pick up on this and as the war wore on the morale of their troops suffered badly - no rest at all either in the front line trenches or in the rearward areas.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 03:14 AM

I read the first sentence of your first point.

Why were they dying at Verdun in the first place?

In such large numbers?

Good leadership, tactics and execution what old bean?

zzzzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 02:52 AM

"Who'd want that thin irrelevant strip anyway," - asks Musket

I would strongly recommend that you actually read why the Battle of the Somme was fought when and where it was, before asking stupid questions. Here are just a few of the factors:

1: Hundreds of thousands of your allies troops are dying at a place called Verdun - you as an ally have been asked to do something to relieve the pressure on them by attacking your common enemy so that he has to divert resources to defend against your attack.

2: The timing scale and place of the battle designed to relieve the pressure on the French fighting at Verdun were not of Haig's choosing they were imposed upon him by the political leadership of both Great Britain and France.

3: For any attack on the "Western front" to succeed it had to be made against a salient. Attacking any such feature successfully will result in a sizeable retreat and a marked contraction in your enemy's front line.

4: Salients can also be good places to mount attacks from. Had the Germans attacked from the Somme salient and split the British and French Armies then the British would have faced in 1916 exactly what they faced in France in 1940 which resulted in the Dunkirk evacuation.

5: Let's not bother, leave the French to slug it out down at Verdun and we will just sit tight until we are ready? Not a good option as along the Northern part of the Somme salient the Germans held the high ground, where according to their fancy and supply of artillery ammunition they could just sit and blow our troops to bits in target practice.

All extremely good reasons Musket for wanting to take that strip of land away from them. It was French territory, occupied by Germans who had no right being there and the French wanted it back - as their allies we helped them do it, as it was thought at that time that the Germans would not have responded positively to any served eviction notice.

Akenaton is perfectly correct Falkenhayn had started the year 1916 off with "attrition" in mind, his strategy was to bleed the allies white on the western front. By December that year all that strategy had succeeded in achieving was the fatal reduction in the morale and fighting capability of the German Army. The lessons Haig and Rawlinson learned in 1916 ensured victory for the Allies in 1918, and came very close to winning it in 1917.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 12:54 PM

Surely this was not a territorial tactic, but one of attrition?

Probably the only tactic available for that time and place.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 11:48 AM

Who'd want that thin irrelevant strip anyway, considering it was full of dead rotting corpses, sacrificed to gain it in the fucking first place?...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 09:33 AM

What both Keith A and myself have successfully refuted is the claim by such as yourself, Musket, Jim Carroll, etc, that the men of the British and Commonwealth armies in World War One were badly led throughout by incompetent fools.

You haven't refuted it because I've never said it. As ever, don't let the facts get in your way.

The British & Commonwealth Armies in general throughout the entire course of the war were well led in comparison to the armies of any other combatant power and far from that being based on "unqualified assertion" that can be proven by examination of whatever metric you would care to use to judge success.

Comparing with other armies is your game, not mine. It's also Keith's favourite tactic, finding someone worse than us so that we look good (I call it Keith's Israel Method). You're probably right that we were better led (I mean, who won the bloody war anyway?), but better led than someone else does not necessarily mean well-led all the time. Which is my point.

"Haig moving his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin"

The area between the dotted red line and the solid "Hindenburg Line" shows the ground the Germans were forced to concede - bit more than six inches eh Steve?

And what's with "eh Steve" when it's at home? I have mentioned neither Haig and his cabinet nor anything about six inches in this thread. I'm guessing that you'd like me to have done. Sorry to disappoint.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 05:07 AM

OK, moving from "consistently" to "in general."

Keep going, you'll get there. Make sure you keep your mate on board though. He sounds like Tolkien's Wormtongue when he shouts "you lie" and like the snotty kid with the broken glasses in the playground when he hisses "you lose."

Don't join the happy throng of those subjected to his attacks eh? Jim can start an argument in an empty room, Steve uses logic and reason and I just take the piss anyway, so we are all thick hided beasts. You seem to feel the need to justify with lots of quotes, bold, italics and denouncements, put in the context of picking up on something irrelevant and making a deal of it.

Be careful as you begin to realise the absurdity of your previous position eh?



This has been a public service broadcast on behalf of Creeping Reality Enterprises.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 04:42 AM

GUEST,Steve Shaw out of control freakery - 26 Nov 14 - 10:24 AM

I not appealing to historical tracts, just showing that unqualified assertions that the men were expertly led through the whole war are just bilge.

Precisely where and when have, either Keith A, or myself, ever stated that the men were expertly led through the whole war? What both Keith A and myself have successfully refuted is the claim by such as yourself, Musket, Jim Carroll, etc, that the men of the British and Commonwealth armies in World War One were badly led throughout by incompetent fools.

The British & Commonwealth Armies in general throughout the entire course of the war were well led in comparison to the armies of any other combatant power and far from that being based on "unqualified assertion" that can be proven by examination of whatever metric you would care to use to judge success.

And Steve the title of the thread is WWI, was No-Man's Land NOT "1st July 1916 along a 2 mile stretch of Front was No-Man's Land"

On the Somme it was Haig who halted the attacks in the places where they met the fiercest resistance and where they had suffered the worst casualties - He did this despite being ordered to continue the attacks by HIS Commander in Chief French General Joffre, Haig preferred to reinforce the parts of the offensive that were making progress.

"Defensive positions held by the German army on the Somme after November 1916 were in poor condition, the garrisons were exhausted and censors of correspondence from front-line soldiers, reported tiredness and low morale, which left the German command doubtful that the army could withstand a resumption of the battle. The German defences on the Ancre began to collapse under British attacks in January 1917, which on 28 January caused Rupprecht to urge that the retirement to the Siegfriedstellung (Hindenburg Line) begin."

"Haig moving his drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin"

The area between the dotted red line and the solid "Hindenburg Line" shows the ground the Germans were forced to concede - bit more than six inches eh Steve?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:26 AM

My Granddads were both lucky. Haig didn't run the pits so they both carried on living.

Tell me, is the history of the war settled on anecdotal memories of old men recalling lack of comment from old men when they were young or is it counting the graves and seeing photos of carnage and destruction?

Were our soldiers well led on the stupid assertion put forward by Terribulus that other armies were less well led allegedly, or were we well led because the establishment prefers its history that way?

Subjective? You've even managed to allow the worm to weave in some gormless shit about reality being a liberal plot! There again, even merely existing can be a liberal plot to his criminal mindset. I might write a song, call it "Carstairs Calling."

😂

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 10:06 PM

Different subject, the famine Steve.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:37 PM

Keith "is done with this", then posts again six minutes later. That could well be a comeback world record. :-)

My grandad was gassed in the trenches and he died prematurely of a chest condition before I had a chance to get to know him. He passed on much of what he'd seen down to my dad, who became somewhat celebrated locally for his talks on WW1, based on a good deal of scholarship on his part. I'm not telling you this because I want to bathe in reflected glory, unlike Akenaton, who has received such from our Keith. I'm telling you this to point out that it has next to bugger all to do with me. Thank you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:56 PM

Re Kinealy Jim, she is not a revisionist and is very critical of Britain.
Revisionists do not blame Britain.
I quoted a couple for balance, AND QUOTED KINEALY STATING THAT THE REVISIONISTS WERE THE MAJORITY OF HISTORIANS AND HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES.

what is your point?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:49 PM

Well said, and respect to your grandfather.
Unless Musket and mates actually produce something more than assertion and abuse, I am done with this.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:44 PM

"Michael Gove was right when he wrote last week that the history of the era was hijacked in the Sixties by Joan Littlewood and her satirical musical Oh! What A Lovely War, and more recently by Blackadder.
These brilliant productions propagated the vision of a futile struggle, conducted by imbecile generals."

Much as it pains me to say so Keith, you are quite correct; "liberal" ideology demands the rewriting of history as well as the redefinition of our social institutions.
Orwell's 1984 is alive and well in 2014.
The paucity of the views expressed in supposed opposition to Mr T and yourself should be clear to any objective reader.

My grandfather, who was a Liberal, went right through the campaign in France as a soldier of the Black Watch; he enlisted in Falkirk in 1914 and many of his comrades died where they fell on the Somme.
He very rarely spoke of the horrors that he had witnessed in the trenches, but to his dying day(he lived to be 84), he spoke well of General Haig, contributing as much he could afford to the EHF.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 04:23 PM

Hastings' own words ,

"And so back to 1914. There is a Left-wing template for the two World Wars, as for everything else.
World War II is seen as Britain's 'good' struggle against Hitler, especially after 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and Stalin was obliged to abandon his earlier alliance with the Nazis.
But World War I is regarded by Socialists as our 'bad' conflict: morally quite distinct from World War II and the fault of aristocratic elites across Europe rather than of the Germans.
Michael Gove was right when he wrote last week that the history of the era was hijacked in the Sixties by Joan Littlewood and her satirical musical Oh! What A Lovely War, and more recently by Blackadder.
These brilliant productions propagated the vision of a futile struggle, conducted by imbecile generals.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2535004/Baldrick-Lefts-cunning-plan-twist-history-fit-deadly-delusions.html#ixzz3KDCCxbrX

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:55 PM

One reviewer has misled you Jim
The book was only about the outbreak so could only have been critical of French, who was quickly sacked.

Max Hastings does not support your view.
He agrees with all the other historians.
You can not produce a single quote of him or anyone else to support your case.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 01:24 PM

Noting to do with either "the poets view" or "Blackadder" - redhrerring, as has been pointed out - Hastings condemned the military - it's been put up at least three times now - "conservative" Spectator yet you continue to cite him - so we can assume you agree with him
Are we also to assume you are going to refuse to respond to your further Kinealy foot in mouth?
You rally should read all those history books you kep citing
You haven't a clue - have you?
This is total gibberish
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 01:12 PM

No-one is laughing at soldiers here, Keith, as far as I can see. Unless you're a soldier...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 12:50 PM

Max Hastings own words,

"Instead, wrote Mellersh: 'I and my like entered the war expecting an heroic adventure and believing implicitly in the rightness of our cause; we ended greatly disillusioned as to the nature of the adventure, but still believing that our cause was right and we had not fought in vain.'
The fact that Britain sacrificed so many lives to prevent the triumph of Germany's militarists should be a matter of pride to those men's modern descendants, not grounds for ministers to take refuge in empty platitudes

That view was far more widely held by Mellersh's contemporaries than the 'futility' vision of Owen, Sassoon and their kin. "

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:28 AM

Jim, From Telegraph review of same book.

"Hastings's second adversary is more amorphous: what he calls "the poets' view" of the war as a futile struggle for a few blood-drenched yards of mud, which wasted a whole generation, solved nothing and which Britain should have steered clear of, allowing those funny foreign fellows to slaughter each other without compromising its splendid isolation.
This view, propounded by various powerful voices from the great economist John Maynard Keynes in 1919 down to the scriptwriters of the television comedy Blackadder Goes Forth, has been hammered so relentlessly into our heads that it is now the received opinion on the war. So much so that the government seems unsure how to mark next year's centenary of the conflict, both for fear of upsetting the Germans and because British public opinion generally regards it as a senseless, unmitigated tragedy.
Hastings, who received a knighthood in 2002, will have none of that.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:26 AM

"She is not a revisionist so how could I?"
Told you you should look up your local night school - she in fact is a revisionist historian in the correct sense - she and others challenged the 'act of God - don't blame the Brits' line that had been peddled for over a century.
If you haven't time for evening classes, buy a dictionary.
I didn't bother quoting Hastings - I didn't have to, I produced the Spectator (a weekly British conservative magazine") article on his attitude to the war - hardly likely to make things up if he was such a staunch defender of the War, as you claim
Seems like most of the "historians" you have hidden behind to defend the slaughter have either had clay feet or weren't there in the first place
How about justifying your accusation that soldiers were not to be believed - I firmly believe that if you had had any say in the matter you would have had them shot for betraying the flag
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:15 AM

Steve and Musket, laughing at soldiers in this context is cheap.
They did save us in 1914 and 1939.
Does it make me "a fan" to acknowledge that?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:12 AM

Jim,
"You have been given Hastings indictment of the Military - are we to assume that you agree with his criticism (in the highly unlikely chance that you've read it)"

No such thing has been given.
Not one single Hastings quote from you.
All you did was link to one review of a book only about the outbreak of war.

"You consistently used Kinealy to disprove Britain's gullibility in the consquences of the Famine - you actually stated that "she knows more than the rest of us put together" - or some such words"

No I did not.
She is not a revisionist so how could I?
I quoted her statement that revisionist was the majority view of historians, and had been for decades.
All I did was post a couple of revisionist quotes for balance.
I told you I did not have an opinion about it.
Why do you object to another view being put Jim?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw bayonet fixed
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 10:55 AM

Yeah but just remember, Musket, they don't like it up 'em...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 10:37 AM

We appear to be wrong, it seems. This thread is apparently about the few isolated incidents that fans of soldiers want to discuss as if they represent the whole shameful debacle.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw out of control freakery
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 10:24 AM

Well any man who can quibble about five-foot-five being significantly different to "just under two yards" didn't have the same arithmetic education that I did! :-)

Tell you what Steve you've got some brass neck!! Coming out with that crap then fully expect someone else to mildly accept that the First World War could be summed up by what occurred on one tiny part of a front that extended for hundreds of miles from the North Sea to the Swiss border on a single day in July in 1916.

But that is what I have expressly not done. Dunno how many times I have to say that I not appealing to historical tracts, just showing that unqualified assertions that the men were expertly led through the whole war are just bilge. It's perfectly possible to use that single day as an outstanding example of why that just wasn't so.

The Somme Offensive of 1916 did not start and end on the 1st July 1916 - Fact - So if you are going to introduce it you discuss the whole Battle of the Somme - not just the bits you want to chat about.

You chat about what you want and I'll chat about what I want, OK, Mr Control Freak? If you don't want to chat about what I'm chatting about, don't chat about it. Simple!

If you "have no comment on the leadership over the whole four years of the war." then butt out of the discussion because that is indeed what is being debated.

What is being debated is what people say together with what other people respond with. The thread title is "WW1", not "Aspects of WW1 that Teribus would like to pontificate about".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 09:46 AM

"Hastings supports my case"
You have been given Hastings indictment of the Military - are we to assume that you agree with his criticism (in the highly unlikely chance that you've read it)
You consistently used Kinealy to disprove Britain's gullibility in the consquences of the Famine - you actually stated that "she knows more than the rest of us put together" - or some such words
She turned out to be a supported of the@Irish holocaust' school of thought - egg on face or what
You had to have the word revisionist pointed out to you and you still use it incorrectly
Is there a local adult education facility in your area - I suggest you take advantage of it if there is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 09:24 AM

"quit the control freakery malarkey where you try to set the agenda in the thread in a way that does nothing more than shine the best light on your own take on events. "

QUE?????

Tell you what Steve you've got some brass neck!! Coming out with that crap then fully expect someone else to mildly accept that the First World War could be summed up by what occurred on one tiny part of a front that extended for hundreds of miles from the North Sea to the Swiss border on a single day in July in 1916.

The Somme Offensive of 1916 did not start and end on the 1st July 1916 - Fact - So if you are going to introduce it you discuss the whole Battle of the Somme - not just the bits you want to chat about.

If you "have no comment on the leadership over the whole four years of the war." then butt out of the discussion because that is indeed what is being debated.

There might well have been ~60,000 British casualties on the first day on the Somme but you would not have seen anything like 60,000 men lying on the ground, the dead would have been on the ground ~19,000 of those. Average death toll throughout the Battle of the Somme was ~3,600 per day - the German death toll was greater.

"A soldier might have been just under two yards tall"

Where on earth did you pull that statistic from - your backside?

Average height of a recruit in 1914 was 5ft 5inches, he weighed just over 8 stones. Ever heard of the "Bantam Battalions"? They were for men who were only 5ft to 5ft 3inches tall. When conscription kicked in the conscripts were found to be extremely poor physical specimens and once in the Army subject to physical training and three square meals a day within the period of the training they put on on average one stone in weight and 2inches in height.

Unfortunately for all your wittering on about what mistakes and errors were made on the 1st July 1916, it was the same Commanders who on the 8th August 1918 that directed and led the offensive that resulted in the ending of the war. By the 11th November 1918 they were the same Commanders who led the only Army of any of the 1914 combatant powers that had not mutinied.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 07:35 AM

Go on then, give me some Jim Hastings quotes.

This should be fun..

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw 7-up minus five
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 07:26 AM

Up up and away, one of you ups.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw incredulous
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 07:25 AM

What amazing logic, Keith, but, as ever, right up up your alley (as in all those Israel threads....): justify badness by finding something unconnected that you see as even greater badness. Shall we just say that, when you have the fate of thousands of young men in your hands, you need to be a tad more careful then those commanders were on Day One...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:56 AM

Steve the misjudgement of the effect of the barrage was not a leadership issue.
The technical experts provided the leaders with wrong data.
There had never been such a barrage and they were trying to extrapolate existing knowledge for an unprecedented situation.
Also, there was insufficient knowledge
Of the underground defences.
The lessons were quickly learned and tactics changed in future attacks.

When nutritionists told us that hydrogenated vegetable oil, transfats, were healthier than fats like butter, they probably killed more people than died on the Somme.
Also, in recent years a consensus has begun to emerge that the advice you and I gave to our pupils on healthy diet was all wrong.
Not really our fault though.
I hope we were not responsible for many deaths.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:45 AM

Jim Hastings supports my case.
Would you like more quotes of him doing that?
You certainly can not produce one of him contradicting me.

Keneally on the famine was not a revisionist herself, but I quoted her stating that it was the majority view.
I felt that justified at least putting that view into the discussion.
That made you so angry!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw well-read
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:28 AM

Funny thing happened just then as I mistyped "Teribus". My iPad helpfully suggested that I meant "ate robins". That's what Roald Dahl's Mr Twit used to do, having trapped them by painting glue on tree branches.

Teribus...Mr Twit...hmmm...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw unblurred
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:20 AM

Well Teribus, this is the internet, I'm no historian and I get to focus on the bits I know about if I want (actually, my own dad has spent half a lifetime studying WW1 and was a celebrated local speaker on the matter in his heyday, trousering quite a few quid while he was at it. He is also an expert on old London and the Pendle Witches: I'd wager that no-one alive knows more than he does about the latter. Sadly, not a published person). I am talking about the terrible tactical blunders that led to the mass loss of life on Day One. You serially try to expand away from that in order to to dilute the effect. At least you're honest enough to refrain from saying it didn't happen. I have no comment on the leadership over the whole four years of the war. But, on that day, and quite possibly on many another day, our leadership was wanting and the result was catastrophic. As for rounding up, I remind you that I was confining myself to Day One. There were 60000 British casualties that day. The line was 25 miles long. One mile is 1760 yards. A soldier might have been just under two yards tall. Let's say, then, 1000 men end-to-end per mile. That would, then, be 60 miles needed for 60000 men. So, in fact, I was guilty of not doing enough doubling up. In 25 miles some of the men would have to have been lying three abreast. This is all very silly, but it does at least demonstrate that Musket doesn't need to have a word in my shell-like about rounding up.

And quit the control freakery malarkey where you try to set the agenda in the thread in a way that does nothing more than shine the best light on your own take on events. It's an incredibly puerile and transparent tactic that shows up in all your longer posts. I'm still talking about WW1, you know, not about which is the best ear for a folk singer to stick his finger in (though, in m'humble, while I'm here, it's the right ear).

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:42 AM

"How could I quote without reading Jim?"
Same as you quotes Hastings and Kinealy without reading them - both backfired in your face
You're known for it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:30 AM

How could I quote without reading Jim?
The quotes from the Historians specialising in that conflict supported my case.
Steve, I have read extensively about the Somme.
The losses were huge and the whole nation was stricken with grief and loss.
The battle had to be fought and fought there.
The French were about to break at neighbouring Verdun and all would have been lost.
A badly led attack would have resulted in even worse losses and a German counter attack and break through on the whole front.
Did you read my quotes from Brown' s book about it?
Would you like more?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 04:07 AM

"So, quoting historians in a debate about History is gormless and infantile behaviour!"
Quoting historians you haven't read most certainly is.
Attempting to score points is
Ignoring inconvenient fats if.
Reducing these discussions to mindless "winning" and "losing" T.V. games shows most certainly is - "You lose" - 7 so far on this thread, 12 on the other.
You consistently do all.
You debase these discussions with you egoistic obsession to "win" - an obsession based on ignorance of all the subjects you involve yourself in - you have become a figure of fun with your obsessive behaviour.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:57 AM

Pssst Musket have a word with your pal Steve Shaw about the evils of "rounding up".

Oh by the way Steve the discussion here relates to people here stating that the war was unnecessary, that the British Army was badly led, that the men who volunteered were duped and lied to and had no idea what they were fighting for.

The people declaring that on this forum have provided absolutely no evidence that withstands even the most rudimentary examination to support their point of view. Both Keith and myself have introduced information and quotes from many historians, highly respected in their academic specialist fields that counter the arguments put on this forum. The discussion does not centre around one day of one battle that lasted for over four months it covers over four years of a particularly bloody war.

"They all unequivocally say that overall the army was well led and had the support of the people." - Keith A of Hertford

That Steve Shaw IS what historians generally say about the First World War and every metric you wish to use to gauge it supports that.

By the way Steve as you wish to walk those 25 miles along the section of the Somme any idea of what you would have encountered on the subsequent days? You have only concentrated on one part of the battlefield on one particular day haven't you.

Dead British bodies per mile = 144 as the average death toll for the entire battle was ~3,600 per day - the Germans lost even more. At the end of the battle the Germans retreated from the high ground that they had held with commanding views over British positions, ground that the British now found themselves occupying.

By the end of 1916 the Germans, at Verdun and on the Somme, instead of "bleeding the allies white", which was their intention from the outset in February of that year, found themselves no further forward in their prosecution of the war and in counting the cost found that they had lost their best troops in the process.

By the end of 1916 the British on the Somme now knew that their "Citizens Army", of which many had been extremely sceptical, could defeat the Germans, their morale was high and their command now knew, in terms of tactics and equipment, what was required to break the stalemate of trench warfare on the "Western Front". They also knew with the utmost conviction that the tools to defeat the Germans were held in their hands.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 02:55 AM

Don't ask me. I'm just a pathetic fool.

Odd thing is, we pathetic fools know blundering incompetence when we see it. We can recognise callous indifference for that matter.

Not to mention revision to suit an agenda.

Boom you Boom know Boom the Boom rest.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, natural history only
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 07:56 PM

They all unequivocally say that overal the army was well led and had the support of the people.

Was the army well-led in the Battle of the Somme, do they all say? Unequivocally, without the slightest demur, in spite of hundreds of thousands of casualties, huge numbers of which were the upshot of tactical blunders? Not a single historian (sorry: Historian) ever criticised the generals, ever, for their leadership all the way through the war? That is not what you are implying, Keith, that is what you are saying. That is what "all unequivocally" means. And you accuse other people of making things up. Funny man.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 02:43 PM

So, quoting historians in a debate about History is gormless and infantile behaviour!

Compare that with what you do.
Make assertions based on nothing but your ignorance.
Tell lies to try to make yourself less ridiculous.
Try to ridicule and abuse anyone who questions you.

You think that is grown up Musket.
You pathetic fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 12:16 PM

Musket on the other thread.
"All your precious historians give a far more balanced view than your cherry picking. "

Completely untrue Musket.
You are forced to start making shit up again to save face.

They all unequivocally say that overal the army was well led and had the support of the people.

If you were not lying you could put up an example.
You can not.
Despite the lying you still lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 10:00 AM

I was talking to Teribus, not you, Keith. I hope you can read your history books better than you can read my little posts. And Teribus, I have no interest in comparing the relative competences of the generals of various nationalities. My comments are confined to the British because I'm disputing what you say about them. So, Day One, a front 25 miles long. 20000 dead and 40000 wounded. That averages out at not much short of a thousand dead and two thousand wounded per mile. Almost all killed or wounded following an extremely ill-advised push. You say there were good bits and bad bits. All I know is that I can walk a mile in about 15 minutes. So in 15 minutes I walk past nearly 3000 blokes lying in the dirt who were all fit and well that morning with mothers at home. And I keep walking and walking and walking and that scenery doesn't improve for the length of a marathon. You can't fit three thousand men lying end to end in the space of a mile without a lot of doubling up. Just trying to imagine it, that's all. You just shut it out. You'd have made a good general, that's for sure.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:59 AM

Exactly how does that support any of your assertions, or prove the historians have either got it wrong or are concealing the truth known to Musket.

If you can not produce anything, why do you keep posting?
You lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:32 AM

I think I've got our gung ho brethren weighed up now.

It's a bit like rounding 4.51 up to 5.

But by doing so, claiming 4.51 is therefore the wrong answer.

high five!

zzzzzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:28 AM

" In my view they made assumptions about the effectiveness of the shelling and the defences in the German trenches that were completely ...."

You are entitled to your view but what is it worth when it is contradicted by every single historian who has actually made a study of it?

"You've spent quite a bit of time in this thread telling us how well led our boys were, "
No.
How would I know.
I have just shared with you the results of actual historical research as reported by the actual historians.

You three in your delusions think you know better, but everyone else will see you as fools.
You lose the debate because you have nothing to support your assertions, except more assertions.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:24 AM

Yes Steve they made "assumptions about the effectiveness of the shelling and the defences in the German trenches that were completely unjustified"

Universally "unjustified"? Or partially "unjustified" in part Steve? And totally "Justified" in places Steve. Take your pick I can provide where the initial bombardment hardly had any effect because of poor intelligence and lack of knowledge. I can show you places where the bombardment was partially successful and inflicted losses on the Germans and I can show you places where the initial bombardment was so successful that every single objective was taken as though the attack was running down rails - All happened in the same attack over a front that was roughly 25 miles long on exactly the same day.

Tell me Steve what "cunning plan" would you have come up with - or would you have advocated what Lloyd George & Co wanted just sit there in full view of the Germans with them on the high ground blowing your troops to bits as the mood and supplies of ammunition allowed?

Tell us Steve how the commander of any army can be solicitous of the wellbeing of their men when that commander according to his job description has to order those same men to attack the enemy before them? Issue the enemy with blanks perhaps? Pay the enemy to run away? Or perhaps just surrender?

As to the competence of British Generals compared to those of France and Germany the facts speak for themselves in terms of moral of the troops, the expansion in the sizes of the respective armies during the course of the war, the overall casualty rates among British & Commonwealth formations was half those of their French allies and German foes. No British Army mutinied in the field, the French did, the Germans did. Who was it that introduced the tank and pioneered its use in trench warfare. Our tactics constantly changed and were improved upon.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:08 AM

Oh yes. They have been saying "that" but "that" is more than your selective snippets isn't it?

You mentioned your fellow God botherer. It is you who sees the sanitisation of poor leadership as an article of faith here. I for one just can't help noticing the war graves out of the corner of my eye. I can't help wondering why white feathers, red caps and execution via court martial was needed if what you cut and paste weren't fundamentally flawed.

Normal people don't borrow views of others, they form their own from assessing the bigger picture.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:04 AM

Waffle and deflections indeed. My point was to do with the competence of the men-in- charge at the start of the battle. In my view they made assumptions about the effectiveness of the shelling and the defences in the German trenches that were completely unjustified. By any measure that means that they were not very cunning, not very solicitous as to the wellbeing of their men and not very competent. You've spent quite a bit of time in this thread telling us how well led our boys were, and I'm giving you an example of how egregiously badly they were sometimes led, with catastrophic results. Catastrophic results, what's more, that were in no way a necessary factor in our winning the war. At least, I note, you didn't contradict me like Keith does with his leave-it-to-the-Historians guff. All the stuff about how it shortened the war, made the Germans weaker, etc., is hindsight. That clearly did not come into play at the start of the battle, when the only tactical thinking seemed to be, just walk over to their trenches, lads, and if you find anyone alive, well you know, just remember they don't like it up 'em...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 08:59 AM

Musket on the other thread.

"The recent sanitising is recently contrived. The older stuff you refer to also gives the other views and tries to balance. "

No musket.
Absolutely NONE of it is recently contrived.
They have been saying it for decades.

"Others have quoted a few above. Read them. I debate, not enter into a Google contest."

No they have not.
And, you do not debate.
You merely make unsupported assertions and demand to be believed just because you assert it.
Self obsessed, arrogant and deluded.
A posturing buffoon.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 08:51 AM

Steve, I am not a military historian or any other kind.
Normal, intelligent, open minded people go to the historians for History.
You think and believe you have no need of them.
It tells us something about you.
Musket and Jim are similarly deluded.
You are exactly like 7 stars Pete who does not need to read geology and palaeontology because he just knows what happened.


In my earlier post, 4.42am there is a professional military historian who from original sources says that the men believed in what they were trying to do, and another who says it led directly to the total defeat of the invader.
Did you even bother with the link?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 08:08 AM

Or in short, wriggling waffle.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 07:22 AM

What I know (not from Blackadder) is that

1: "the German lines were bombarded by us for a week before that infamous first day. Fritz knew exactly what we were up to, though, didn't he."

Well Steve not wishing to point out the blatantly obvious but ever since Fritz marched into Luxembourg, Belgium and France - He knew what ourselves, the Belgians and the French opposing him were up to. Fritz knew that he was going to be attacked until he was forced to leave. And yes bombardments usually presaged attacks by infantry on positions protected by thick belts of barbed wire and deeply dug prepared defensive positions.

2: "We thought we'd snuffed 'em, didn't we, but they were a damn sight better defended than we thought, weren't they. They were lying low, not lying dead, weren't they. And it didn't help that lots of our shells were duff and never went off, did it.

Oooh loads of indignant froth here Steve the whatever. I would imagine that having fired off the barrage that had been fired off the Generals who ordered the barrage, the gunners who actually fired the barrage and the waiting infantry men who had listened to the barrage would quite rightfully have believed that it had done its job. In some places it did in others it didn't.

By the way on the shell fuse thing - care to tell us all what they could have done about it? Was it the Commander in the Field's fault that the stuff delivered to him and his Army was of poor and dubious quality, or was that down to the designers, manufacturers and workers back in the UK who were as familiar with Quality Control as they were with the dark side of the moon? The problem was solved and solved fairly quickly when we went over to using French fuses.

Now then Steve like most plans some things work and other things don't. The Battle of the Somme as it turned out was fought in a number of phases, but as you seem totally hung up on the first day when the British suffered some 57,000 casualties shall we look at Phase One of the Battle of the Somme?

First Phase 1st - 17th July 1916
(A) Battle of Albert:
Anglo-French Offensive at the southern end of the offensive was largely a total success the French Sixth Army and the right wing of Rawlinson's Fourth British Army inflicted a considerable defeat on the German Second Army - care are to comment Steve?

The bit you wish to draw our attention to was the British attack to the North along the axis of the Albert-Bapaume Road and Gommecourt, here the German defenders had the advantage of high ground and reverse slopes. The British losses and loss rates of the 1st July were never repeated. The result of the attacks caused both British, French and more so German commanders into fighting piecemeal actions. I say more so the Germans Steve because the reserves that the Germans were throwing into the battle were the ones that had been rushed up from Verdun, who didn't know the ground.

Somme Map

Looking at that Map Steve who moved forward and who moved back?

3: "So when the order came to walk towards their trenches we thought it would be be a walkover, didn't we, but it wasn't, was it, and we bagged 60000 casualties in next to no time, didn't we."

In some places it was in others it wasn't - nowhere near as simplistic as you would appear to prefer it.

4: "As for the upshot of the Somme that you so enthusiastically regaled me with, well here's how I see it. We gained five miles in over four months at the cost of a million and a quarter casualties all round, and we still had two more bitter years of war to go."

Tell me Steve what parts of the upshot of the Battle of the Somme do you disagree with? Do you deny any of it?

The German Army that went into the Battle of the Somme was far superior in terms of training and battle experience than the British troops that they faced. But the British Army learned on the Somme and at the end of the Battle the German Army had lost all those battle-hardened experienced troops and the Kitchener's brand new citizen Army, the very first that the British had ever raised knew it was superior to and had the beating of the German troops facing it.

According to Falkenhayn and Ludendorff Germany knew by the end of the Battles of the Somme and Verdun that Germany could not achieve victory over the combined British and French Armies on the Western Front.

The British, particularly Rawlinson learned what worked on the Somme in 1916 so strategically the battle was a success for the Allies, the lessons learned showed for the first time that the Allies were going to win the war (Up until then that premise had always been shadowed with a nagging doubt) and the application and development of those lessons was to shorten the war by at least a year.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve shaw hypercorrected
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 06:28 AM

And I do know we threw shells at them, not shelves. iPad small print again. Mind you, shelves might have done more damage then our duff shells.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 06:25 AM

OK, Mr Appealer-To-Authority. Tell me which bits are factually incorrect in my last post, then tell me why it was necessary to get 20000 killed and 40000 wounded on one day just because the generals made a terribly bad assumption. Then tell me how that shows their cunning and their competence. Tell me how that slaughter gave us an advantage. Stop prattling on about historians for a minute and tell me what YOU think.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 06:10 AM

So you also know more about it than the military historians.

I think they know more.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw biologist
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 05:37 AM

Hidebound? My view of the Somme? My thoughts on the decisive battle? What are you blokes worried about?

All I did is said what happened. Not one word of what I said can you gainsay. All that lovely hindsight that you both indulge in cannot conceal the facts that we shelled (with a high proportion of shelves that didn't work) the German line for a week (thereby alerting the Germans to our next move), we totally underestimated their defences, then the generals gave the orders to walk to the German trenches thinking we'd snuffed 'em out when we hadn't. In my book that was useless, feckless, tactically idiotic and needless. Please don't tell me any more that the loss of life on that first, and on many subsequent, days was necessary to win the battle. I'm no general but I do know that you win battles a lot more easily if you refrain from uselessly sending tens of thousands of soldiers to their deaths in the first days.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:49 AM

Steve recently posted some thoughts on the Somme.
I find I have a book on my shelves on that subject by military historian Malcolm Brown.
The famous historian Richard Holmes said of it in The Times Literary Supplement, "If you can buy only one book on the Somme, it should be Malcolm Brown's powerful and scholarly account."

From the foreword.
"The character of the Somme fighting is seen as so appalling and the losses it entailed so unimaginably huge that decent civilised people find themselves, as it were, angrily demanding that it should be called off, for the sake of the wretched victims duped into fighting it.
The advantage of researching what the alleged victims wrote at the time is that they don't seem to have seen things that way. Even those who clearly deplored the brutal, inhuman aspects of the Somme - and there are not a few of that persuasion in this book - believed that there was no option other than that of carrying on with the fighting. They might not like the practice, but there was little argument with the principle. After all, the Germans were occupying French and Belgian soil and had to be removed."

He quotes Charles Carrington who wrote the "classic" A Subaltern's War in 1929. "The Somme battle raised the morale of the British Army. Although we did not win a decisive victory there was what matters most, a definite and growing sense of superiority over the enemy. man to man....We were quite sure that we had the Germans beat: next spring we would deliver the knock-out blow."

Prof. Dr. Gary Sheffield in the interview I mentioned last week.

How about your view of the most decisive battle?

"I would argue that the single most decisive battle came two years earlier, on the Somme."
http://www.historynet.com/interview-with-military-historian-gary-sheffield.htm

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:42 AM

Steve, we are having a debate about the History of WWI
My views come from reading History so I can quote any number of historians to support them.

Those who argue against me have been unable to find a single historian to support them, so they have lost the debate.
They lose.
OK Steve.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:32 AM

I suppose its like discussing the Hillsborough disaster and what happened there with a South Yorkshire police officer....

Thanks for saying what my mindset is by the way. For fuck's sake, don't let me ask you what the time is, or where the gents are.

The sad fact is, men were led by incompentent top brass, on a wave of jingoism and their methods of engaging in the theatre of war led to unnecessary death and sheer slaughter on a scale they were, up till it became fashionable to be proud of failure, rightly castigated and made to be ashamed of.

Our past is a stain on the memory of a generation we pushed into the machine guns and celebrated another half a yard of mud for another few months.

The more you keep selectively quoting commentators who by their nature look for angles away from the norm, the more stupid you look.   Now, I don'thave a problem with that. I have a mate who gets all upset and thinks we are all thick for believing men went to the moon. Just bcause someone is gormless doesn't make them bad in general.

But calling people dumb for weiging up the evidence and forming accurate conculsions just makes your credibility about zero. Keith I can understand. He plays with his toy soldiers all his life and sees military leaders as heroes, so it must hurt to grow up and see that they are not society heroes after all, but gung ho callous fools. Keith can't handle that. Hence the childish "you lose" comments that perfectly describe his immature approach.

But you seem to be the real thing. Rather intriguing in an irrelevant kind of way.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:11 AM

Most certainly Musket you dumb Ox you are after all being slaughtered - you're only too dumb to appreciate that fact.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:05 AM

Sniff sniff

Here, can you smell bullshit?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 03:14 AM

"I think I may have mentioned how one historian, an eminent one at that, (you prefer that type, don't you) made it quite clear, from contemporary research, interviews and studying memoirs that the senior staff in WW2 felt they were well equipped, having learned from the blunders and callous attitude to their men that they saw when junior officers in WW1."

And the context in which that eminent historian of yours came out with that was what? A study of the Second World War Commanders or a study of the First World War Commanders?

Now this bit of it is ridiculous when you take it in isolation as you have done Musket (You ducked this before when I mentioned it so I will repeat myself):

"senior staff in WW2 felt they were well equipped, having learned from the blunders and callous attitude to their men that they saw when junior officers in WW1."

They learned their tactics and they learned their craft during the First World War, some of them kept pace with and appreciated changes brought about by advances in science and technology. Unfortunately for all these brilliant British Senior Officers of WW2 that AJP Taylor witters on about Musket the ones who had kept pace, etc were all German, and all those brilliant Senior British Generals who had learned so much from the blunders of their leaders in WW1 were not so hot in the period 1939 to 1942. In fact Musket all those brilliant Senior British Generals who learned so much from the blunders of their leaders in WW1 came damned close to losing the entire BEF in 1940 didn't they - that is how good they were - that is how well they had learned their lessons. Remembering all the time that in 1939 and in 1940 the British and French outnumbered the attacking Germans, had more artillery than the attacking Germans, had more aircraft than the attacking Germans and actually had numerical and technological superiority in tanks compared to the Germans - They just didn't have a f**kin clue how to either command them or deploy them - Same could not be said of the likes of Plumer, Rawlinson, Byng, Currie and Monash during the First World War. The Commanders of the BEF during the First Wolrd War were at least skillful enough to keep it intact as a fighting force whilst waiting for the mass mobilisation to bulk it up. The only things that saved the BEF in the Second World War from complete destruction was their ability to run (fast), the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

Rather liked this though:

"I actually read rather than search."

Well when it comes to discussing historical events what the F**K are you reading the Whippet Section of "Sporting Life"?? Whatever it is it obviously doesn't have any connection with the subject under discussion.

I have stated the following on the OWALW Thread but it applies equally here and is relevant - Keith A of Hertford is right there is only one history but that doesn't stop there being many interpretations of it by people with vastly varying skills, knowledge and abilities when it comes to examining the events. In the case of yourself, Christmas and Steve Shaw you are all hidebound in your mindset of today's mores, memes and attitudes, hellbent on your insistence that they somehow could have ever been applicable and adopted by those in charge of events and having to deal with real problems over 100 years ago. You have displayed little or no skill in understanding the events, the problems faced, or the solutions available to those involved. All that coupled with a brilliantly demonstrated woeful lack of knowledge.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 02:37 AM

"We gained five miles in over four months at the cost of a million and a quarter casualties all round, and we still had two more bitter years of war to go. Hardly a cunning tactical plan, was it, and what a waste of life." - The Steve Shaw reprise of the Battle of the Somme

VERSUS what WAS actually won on the Somme in 1916:

The breaking of moral of the German Army
The destruction and loss of the best and most experienced troops in the German Army.
The realisation within the German High Command that it was impossible for them to defeat the combined armies of Great Britain and France on the Western Front.

The politicians in Great Britain in August 1914 knew that the war would be prolonged, Kitchener had predicted three to four years at the least. By 1915 most of Great Britain's political leaders thought that the war wouldn't end until 1919 at the earliest and more probably sometime late in 1920. On the Somme over the four months of the battle Haig and Rawlison found the means that led them to believe that the war would be over much quicker than that, and had the heavy and unseasonal rain not fallen and had British troops not been sent to bolster up the Italians after Caporetto, then using the lessons learned and the tactics pioneered the previous year on the Somme the war would have ended in 1917. Haig could not have predicted or done anything about the weather, but it was Lloyd George at home that robbed him of troops and sent them to Italy.

On Passchendaele, Liddle, P. H. (1997), Passchendaele in Perspective: The Third Battle of Ypres. London: Pen & Sword. ISBN 0-85052-588-8. page 71:

"Paddy Griffith wrote that the bite and hold system kept moving until November because the BEF had developed a workable system of offensive tactics against which the Germans ultimately had no answer.

Study of the Official German Documents and Reports studied by Professor J. E. Edmonds in 1948 showed that in German General Staff publications that, "Germany had been brought near to certain destruction by the Flanders battle of 1917".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, lossless
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 07:12 PM

What's with all this "you lose" business, Keith? You are doing it a worryingly large amount lately. It sounds like you keep having to convince yourself of something, that you're having an insecurity crisis. It's a laughable way to proceed, Keith. I love it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 04:32 PM

Jim,
"Your latest champion bases her thesis on the complex and conflicting reasons why men enlisted - no consensus, even within her own work."

Completely made up shit.
A lie Jim, as is your remark about Hastings.

You are a desperate, sad loser.

(Or will you back up your lies)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:58 PM

I have not selected.
We have all failed to find a single one who thinks different.
You lose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10931918/Historian-Dan-Snow-received-hate-mail-for-debunking-World-War-I-myths.html

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:54 PM

"On the issues I have have raised, the Historians all agree"
Utter nonsense - you have carefully selected from four historians - you have never given the slightest impression of having read more, on the contrary, you refused to even consider the list of those actively studying the war as being too many.
Three of those you have cited have stated that the commonly held view must be challenged - if there is a consensus, what is there to challenge?
Your former champion, the tabloid journalist Max Hastings, has declared his contempt for the conduct of the the military - so there's a historian (of sorts) who doesn't fit your consensus.
Your latest champion bases her thesis on the complex and conflicting reasons why men enlisted - no consensus, even within her own work.
One can only wonder why you are prepared to spend so much time contradicting and denigrating those who actually fought the war in favour of the modern trend of making it antiseptic - well no, that's not entirely true, one can perfectly well understand it in the light of your political views.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:18 PM

On the issues I have have raised, the Historians all agree.
Unless you have found one that does not, you lose.
Have you?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:11 PM

"All this madness, all this rage, all this flaming death of our civilization and our hopes, has been brought about because a set of official gentlemen, living luxurious lives, mostly stupid, and all without imagination or heart, have chosen that it should occur rather than that any one of them should suffer some infinitesimal rebuff to his country`s pride." Bertrand Russell on WW1

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 02:22 PM

Jim, I have pasted in quotes of historians because I can.
My case is that the Historians know about their subject.
You can not paste in any quotes because there are none that support you.
Your case is that they are all wrong.

Unless the historians are all wrong, you lose.
Found one yet?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 12:57 PM

"History better than historians."
You have yet to give one quote you haven't cut-'n-pasted, you you have o fore-knowledge whatever

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 12:16 PM

What planet?

Well.

What I know (not from Blackadder) is that the German lines were bombarded by us for a week before that infamous first day. Fritz knew exactly what we were up to, though, didn't he. We thought we'd snuffed 'em, didn't we, but they were a damn sight better defended than we thought, weren't they. They were lying low, not lying dead, weren't they. And it didn't help that lots of our shells were duff and never went off, did it. So when the order came to walk towards their trenches we thought it would be be a walkover, didn't we, but it wasn't, was it, and we bagged 60000 casualties in next to no time, didn't we. As for the upshot of the Somme that you so enthusiastically regaled me with, well here's how I see it. We gained five miles in over four months at the cost of a million and a quarter casualties all round, and we still had two more bitter years of war to go. Hardly a cunning tactical plan, was it, and what a waste of life. Sorry for not being an historian. Or, as Keith sometimes likes to put it, a Historian.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 11:49 AM

What is hilarious Musket is a buffoon like you thinking he knows History better than historians.
I have just put up what they say.
You can find not one single living historian who still believes all that class war shit.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 11:29 AM

Your perfectly correct?

Tell you what, it isn't just grammatical errors you should be apologising for!
🐴🐴🐴🐴

Keith. Saying you have been reading it and studying it all your life just makes it all the more hilarious!

🙈🙊🙉

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 11:01 AM

" have been reading the History of this all my adult life."
Yeah - sure you have - have reminded you of your Christine Kenealy cut-'n-paste fiasco on 'tother thread
Clown
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 10:20 AM

You're - Your perfectly correct Musket thank you, but I noticed it the second I had pressed "Submit".

You are however, still waffling.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:59 AM

I have been reading the History of this all my adult life.
I am able to quote historians to support my views because I got my views from them.
You clowns can produce nothing because your views are based on nothing but ignorance and prejudice.
Can you produce anything, or shall we leave it here?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:49 AM

And if that reality walked into this pub now with its blood soaked indifference, I'd say Oy! NO!

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:38 AM

"You two believe that you understand History better than The Historians."
And you claim to understand history without ever having read a book on the subject
Terrytoon still appears to be somewhere on the Somme, fighting the good fight - too busy to read
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:37 AM

No, no. It's You're waffling Musket not Your waffling Musket.

If you can't speak of reality, at least address your fantasy in ways that make you appear intelligent if you wish to have any credibility at all.

🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:05 AM

Your waffling Musket

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:01 AM

"anyone reading Teribus's and Keith's valiant defence of the organisation and competence of the British military leadership, who then goes on to read an account of the Battle of the Somme, will come away wondering what bloody planet these two are on." - Steve Shaw

Really Steve?? Have you ever read anything based factually on what occurred on the Western Front in 1916? Or are you too, locked into OWALW and Blackadder Goes Forth?

1916 the year of the big German Offensive:

Falkenhayn the German Commander on the Western Front wanted to mount a major offensive his desire to bleed the allies white.

OK then Steve old son, taking everything you say is true about the British at face value, Falkenhayn has got two candidates to attack:

1: The smaller, weaker, incompetently led British located in a position that if he is successful will knock the British out of France leaving him free to sweep down on Paris and win the war

2: The much larger French Army.

Which does he choose to attack? He chooses to attack the French at a place called Verdun, the battle lasts from 21st February 1916 to 18th December 1916 and results in a French victory.

I would be interested in hearing why you think he made the decision to attack at Verdun instead of attacking the British?

Now the French are being sorely pressed at Verdun and would like their allies the British to attack the Germans somewhere else along the line to relieve the pressure on the French fighting at Verdun. The British and French politicians and the French High Command agree that Haig should attack on the Somme - neither the timing of the attack or the location of the attack are those that would have been selected by Haig, they are forced upon him by his superiors.

The Somme Battle:
It took place between the 1st July and 18th November. The result of the battle was considered to be inconclusive but is notable for it demonstrating the importance of air power and the first use of the tank. At the end of the battle, British and French forces had penetrated 6 miles (9.7 km) into German-occupied territory, taking more ground than any offensive since the Battle of the Marne in 1914.

"General Sir Douglas Haig, the commander of the BEF, and General Henry Rawlinson, commander of the Fourth Army, have been criticised ever since, for the human cost of the battle and for failing to achieve their territorial objectives. On 1 August 1916 Winston Churchill criticised the British Army's conduct of the offensive to the British Cabinet, claiming that though the battle had forced the Germans to end their offensive at Verdun, attrition was damaging the British armies more than the German armies. Though Churchill was unable to suggest an alternative, a critical view of the British on the Somme has been influential in English-language writing ever since.

A rival conclusion by some historians (Terraine, Sheffield, Duffy, Chickering, Herwig and Philpott et al.) is that there was no strategic alternative for the British in 1916 and that an understandable horror at British losses is insular, given the millions of casualties borne by the French and Russian armies since 1914. This school of thought sets the battle in a context of a general Allied offensive in 1916 and notes that German and French writing on the battle puts it in a continental perspective, which is inaccessible to anglophone monoglots because much of the writing has yet to be translated. The Battle of the Somme has been called the beginning of modern all-arms warfare, during which Kitchener's Army learned to fight the mass-industrial war, which the continental armies had been engaged in for two years. This view sees the British contribution to the battle as part of a coalition war and part of a process, which took the strategic initiative from the German Army and caused it irreparable damage, leading to its collapse in late 1918.

By the end of the Battle of the Somme and the Battle of Verdun the German Army had lost the best of its men on the Western Front. In the period January 1917 to march 1917 continued British actions forced the Germans back a further 8 miles

The Germans considered that their selected strategy and attacks were so successful in 1916 Steve old son that they sacked their Commander in August 1916. Here is what Generalleutnant von Fuchs said on the 20th January 1917:

"Enemy superiority is so great that we are not in a position either to fix their forces in position or to prevent them from launching an offensive elsewhere. We just do not have the troops.... We cannot prevail in a second battle of the Somme with our men; they cannot achieve that any more

After 1916 Steve, the German High Command knew that they could not win on the Western Front.

OK chum which planet are you living on?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 07:27 AM

"Either or"

You two believe that you understand History better than The Historians.
That makes you a laughing stock.
You two believe that the historians are collaborating in a conspiracy to hide the truth.
Even more laughable.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 07:22 AM

Getting desperate aren't we. fool?

As you seem to revel in irrelevant but somehow connected facts, try this. The Academy of Royal Colleges accepted podiatry as a surgical speciality as opposed to general surgery as a result of the many variations of trench foot presenting during and immediately after WW1. The huge numbers led to allowing a post graduate qualification for chiropodists rather than make it a GMC specialist register (equivalent) requirement.

I don't know why you hung onto the trench foot, but the only bloated anything at Glastonbury 1998 was my gut after a dodgy kebab. The toilet attendants from Water Aid made a few bob out of me.

That was real shit,not your bullshit.

💩

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 07:10 AM

"I've just been looking at photos of all these modern historians in the trenches, watching their feet rot at the same rate as the bloated horses along the supply lines."

Hey Musket, if you've got a fiddle you could put that to music. Although if you want to discuss the most recent outbreaks of what became known as "Trench Foot" you need go no further back than:

2013 - Leeds Festival
2012 - Download Festival
2009 - Leeds Festival
2007 - Glastonbury Festival
1998 - Glastonbury Festival

Exposure of feet to cold, wet, insanitary conditions for periods of up to three or more days.

What was your myth again Musket related to all those "historians" you were referring to - something to do with them spending "years in the trenches" wasn't it?

Your point once all the bullshit has been cleared away?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:59 AM

Either / or.

it works with ignorant peasants.

💩

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:44 AM

"Words in your mouth"
So you do not accuse the Historians of being "establishment lackeys" seeking to conceal the truth to protect the establishment, or that you think Historians are wrong and should "know better" ?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:22 AM

No and no.

You do keep putting words in the mouths of those who make you look foolish, don't you?

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom BoomBoom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom BoomBoom Boom Boom thick Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom BoomBoom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom cunt Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom BoomBoom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:21 AM

Jim, your claim to have a hundred historians you COULD quote, is an obvious and silly lie.
You have not got a single one.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 04:31 AM

"Unlike you pair of flag-waggers. I don't dig out 'historians" (or tabloid journalists) to make my case for me "

You can't because there are none who believe the shit that you two muppets do.
If you want to understand History you go to Historians.
I do not use them to "make my case for me" I got my case from them.

You two believe that you understand History better than The Historians.
That makes you a laughing stock.
You two believe that the historians are collaborating in a conspiracy to hide the truth.
Even more laughable.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:50 AM

Eehh, I've just been looking at photos of all these modern historians in the trenches, watching their feet rot at the same rate as the bloated horses along the supply lines.

I'm so glad they all seem to agree with each other. After all, they were a) obviously all there, so contemporary accounts are cast aside and b) whoever heard of a historian giving a different perspective to other historians???

Gosh. Perish the thought that tabloid editors would ever stray from factual reporting....

Have you any idea how stupid you both look?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:47 AM

" Give us the name of one single historian who backs your perception as to how, why and what the First World War was about from the British Government of the day's point of view. I won't hold my breath."
When you elucidate on your "lying soldiers" statement I will re-supply the list of over 100 historians all holding varying and often contradictory views on the War, showing that your "consensus" on the war is a myth.
Unlike you pair of flag-waggers. I don't dig out 'historians" (or tabloid journalists) to make my case for me - I prefer a holistic approach to my history by taking the entire prevailing situation into consideration - that which led to the war, and everything that followed - itt was a struggle of Empires, and, as far as I am concerned, one was no better than the other.
That is a fairly popular view among most historians, that ha been what was taught in schools for at least the half century (to an extent) and that is what your historians (and tabloid journalist) have said they are seeking to revisit (read what they have said).
Keith says he (conveniently) doesn't remember the list - he has it and couldn't understand it in the first place (too much information for him) - and he is renowned for not reading beyond what he already agrees with
now about these "liars and misfits"......   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:00 AM

"The coming of the wireless era will make war impossible, because it will make war ridiculous." Guglielmo Marconi, 1912

Well that sort of conclusively demonstrated how much he knew didn't it.

Christmas, come on answer Keith's challenge - Give us the name of one single historian who backs your perception as to how, why and what the First World War was about from the British Government of the day's point of view. I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 02:02 AM

"You so lose."

Been watching CBeebies again have we? Get down and diss!

zzzzz

So reality has been summed up as wanting to believe a conspiracy about the establishment. Clapton wept......

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 05:23 PM

"The coming of the wireless era will make war impossible, because it will make war ridiculous." Guglielmo Marconi, 1912

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 03:29 PM

I do not remember you offering a hundred historians Jim.
I do remember asking over and over for a single one that believes the shit that you do.
Choose the best of your hundred and give us a quote why don't you?
Is it because you are talking bollocks and there is not a single one that believes anything like your shit?
Yes, but please, prove me wrong.
"Establishment lackeys"
So like Musket you want people to believe that the historians are lying preserve an establishment who all died long ago.
You so lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 03:08 PM

"You can not produce or find a single Historian who believes what you do."
I've given you the choice out of 100 - you refused even to look at them
You still have't provided one single statement from one reliable historian - every one you've mentioned (all three) is an establishment lackey - one is directly involved in the arms industry - what else are they going to say except "war is OK as long as our side is winning"?
You claim an "overwhelming majority" for your view - three lackeys and a tabloid journalist who thinks the British military was shit doesn't fit that description
Even your istorians don't claim a "majority" for their veiw - they all say "the popular view of the war must be challenged, making them the misfits.
Outmoded? - Flag-wagging jingoism is what is outmoded - lethally so in the case of W.W.1. - it sent the pride of British youth to their deaths for "God, King and Country".
Good cause - freedom from German tyranny?
I'm sure the Congolese would much rather have been slaughtered in their millions or had their hands removed by Gallant Little Belgium rather than those nasty Germans!
The War was hardly over when the British Army were slaughtering unarmed Indians at Amritsar - wasn't that much more preferable than being seen off by 'The Huns'?
Shortly afterwards British troops were firing into the football crowd at Croke Park during the first of several 'Bloody Sundays' - luck old Dubliners; it could easily have been German troops.
Then came the depression, the appeasement, the rise of fascism, bring with it the Holocaust - "Land fit for heroes" my arseum.
And it didn't stop there.... the Empire still had a few rabbits in its hat, as the castrated Kenyans have just testified.
Don't want a rose garden - you promised me a consensus - where is it?   
Mind you - the overwhelming support you're getting here might be the reason you believe "I've won" - but hang on a minute....!!
Looks like the rest of the world's mad and you and the Chocolate Soldier are the only sane ones - again - unless I've missed something!
Rule Britannia eh, keep the home fires burning till the "liars" come home, and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 02:05 PM

Jim, you can not find a single historian who believes what you do.
The Times Higher Educational Supplement saw fit to publish deGeroot so why should anyone give a shit about what you think of him as a historian?!
Todman and Sheffield are both doctors and professors of History at prestigious universities, are the most published of any Historians on WWI and extensively used by the BBC so again, what is your opinion worth compared to them.
There are many more Historians whose own words I have quoted rubbishing your ignorance, and if you have forgotten I can easily post them and rub your nose in it again.
Have you found one single historian who believes the shit that you do Jim?
No, because there are none.
You lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 08:50 AM

"once the Germans decided to invade France through neutral Belgium, it was impossible for Britain, mindful of its own position within Europe and a guarantor of the small state's neutrality, to simply stand by. Not only that, when the conflict was only weeks old, the Germans were already compiling a shopping list of key territories they would seize after victory to secure their complete domination of Europe."
This quote, from tabloid writer, Max Hastings (just in case anybody should be confused into thinking it was out of your own fertile mind), makes the point perfectly that World War One was a territorial struggle between conflicting Empires - a family squabble over who gets the After Eights.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 06:11 AM

Oh, is that what they died of?

Thanks for that. I always say if you learn something new every day, you'll never be the bluntest chisel in the toolbox.

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 05:06 AM

"I have read extensively on this"
No you haven't - you have consistently dredged the net for you pre-concieved opinions
Throughout all our arguments you have constantly whinged about being given 'too much information', making it n excuse not to respond to it.
Your latest dredge for 'historians' has produced two employees of the War Department and the founder of an organisation financed by the Danish Armament Industry - very trustworthy, I'm sure!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 04:49 AM

They died defending Europe from. The onslaught of a massive and powerful war machine.

"once the Germans decided to invade France through neutral Belgium, it was impossible for Britain, mindful of its own position within Europe and a guarantor of the small state's neutrality, to simply stand by. Not only that, when the conflict was only weeks old, the Germans were already compiling a shopping list of key territories they would seize after victory to secure their complete domination of Europe."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 04:37 AM

So why did they all die then?

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 05:09 PM

The BBC had Max Hastings make a programme, "The Necessary War"
This is what BBC said about it.

Our perceptions of the First World War today are dominated by the idea it was a futile , a colossal waste of life, and an immense tragedy for Britain and all of Europe. It is a view that has been fostered by the war poets who wrote vividly about the experience of trench warfare, and by countless novels, films and television programmes in the years since. Many even go as far as suggesting that the First World War led directly to the rise of Hitler and the outbreak of the Second World War.

In a single documentary to mark the 100-year anniversary of the outbreak of war, Sir Max Hastings presents the argument that although it was a great tragedy, far from being futile, the First World War was completely unavoidable.

Max presents the case that the rulers of Germany in 1914 were intent on dominating Europe and, after Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in June 1914, actively encouraged the Austrians to invade Serbia. They were responsible for igniting the spark that turned a local controversy into a full-blown European war.

He also argues that once the Germans decided to invade France through neutral Belgium, it was impossible for Britain, mindful of its own position within Europe and a guarantor of the small state's neutrality, to simply stand by. Not only that, when the conflict was only weeks old, the Germans were already compiling a shopping list of key territories they would seize after victory to secure their complete domination of Europe.

Through conversations with the world's most eminent World War I scholars and military historians, including Sir Michael Howard, Sir Hew Strachan, Professor John Rohl and Professor Margaret MacMillan, Max explores the key questions surrounding the outbreak of the war and the necessity for Britain to step in.

He also explores how and why, once the war was over, the common perception of the conflict as a bungled, unnecessary bloodbath emerged. He examines the misconceptions that surround the Versailles peace agreement, which many unfairly blame for the outbreak of the Second World War, and the sense of disappointment and frustration created by economic and political turmoil of the 20s and 30s.

In conclusion Max argues that, while the centenary of the war is not a cause of jubilation, we should tell our children and grandchildren that their ancestors did not fight for nothing; if Germany had won, Europe would have paid a far more terrible price.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:30 PM

http://www.warhistorian.org/todman.php

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:24 PM

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/he-had-hatred-thrust-upon-him/99766.article

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:16 PM

Jim, I have read extensively on this, and I have supplied actual quotes from actual historians available on the net.
In recent days I have given you a historian writing in the Times Higher Educational Supplement and an article by another eminent historian, Dan Todman.
On the old threads I gave you actual quotes of Hastings, Brown, Sheffield and many others.
It is easy to find historians who rubbish your views because they ALL do.
You have not found a single one who believes what you do because it is just politically motivated shit.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 05:40 AM

Yeah, err... Rock on Terribulus.

After all, of course he did understand from your perspective. You seem to share a common delusion.

🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:37 AM

" Musket - 21 Nov 14 - 04:33 PM

You have obviously read a lot. No question.

Did you understand any of it?"

Obviously a damned sight more than you ever did.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:11 AM

"I quoted numerous eminent , well known and well qualified historians in their own words"
No you didn't Keith - you 'referred' to historians who you claimed backed your case - you always do.
How can you quote from historians you haven't read.
You select bits from the net which appear to back your case, but taken in context, say exactly the opposite, Christine Kenealy, the writer on the Irish Famine being a typical case - one minute the oracle of British defence, the next, a Republican monster.
Max Hastings the same - twice you've been given a summary of his view of the war, yet you ignore it and cling on to him as a supporter
Max Hastings' hatred for the military
Easily sorted, of course – give us all the names NOW of those you claim back your case along along with what they have to say (remember – you claim that "all modern historians do, so it should be easy), and you may have a point.
You really can't expect to be taken seriously unless you are prepared to put your money where your jingoistic mouth is, otherwise you will remain the flag-wagging rightist you are thought to be.
At least Terrytoon seems to have a little knowledge of his subject, even if it is only from Boys Own and Dan Dare comics
Go read a book
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw economically-minded
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:52 PM

Just saving the keystrokes, Keith? Do consider extending that policy.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:46 PM

Jim, look back at the Armistice and Christmas Truce threads.
I quoted numerous eminent , well known and well qualified historians in their own words.
Steve, by you people I meant you Jim and Musket.
Just saving the keystrokes.
Musket, it is not hard to understand.
I say what they say while you can only quote the long dead and discredited.
You lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:42 PM

"I have quoted numerous historians, all living or recently decd."
Which ones and what did they say?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw sayin' it all
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:35 PM

"You people." Says it all really.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:33 PM

You have obviously read a lot. No question.

Did you understand any of it?

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:27 PM

No opinion on UKIP.
I am very well read on the History of WWI and I have quoted numerous historians, all living or recently decd.
You people have nothing but your own prejudice and preconceptions.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 02:54 PM

"I get my history from the historians"
Who are they and what do they say?
And more to the point - how do you communicate with them - ouija board maybe - you don't read
What a clown - who needs circuses?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw co-tosser (alleged)
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 02:39 PM

Shall we get him going?


Ahem:


God, UKIP. What a bunch of xenophobic, racist, demented pillocks!


Keith...?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:43 PM

He's on about two mugs of Ovaltine I reckon.

Be fair to the poor bugger Steve. He just admitted he isn't very good at researching his claims. He can't find any historians who disagree with his absurdity for starters. This despite his stance being shot down in flames somewhere up the page by someone who quotes the historians he names saying the exact opposite of whatever he is waffling on about.

Tell you what Co Messiah. If you and I start saying how caring and comptetent the top brass were and how grateful families were for being able to sacrifice their fathers, sons and husbands... I guarantee that within hours, Keith will be saying the exact opposite. He even defends homophobia and Israeli terrorism so long as it makes you or I look like tossers.

Snag is, I am a tosser. It's a monthly thing....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:03 PM

And what precisely do you suspect I believe that no historian believes? What details of the Somme do you dispute (not that I've given any details for you to dispute in any case)? In other words, what are you on about?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 12:43 PM

No valiant defence from me.
I get my history from the historians.
Where do you get yours?
Not one historian believes (present tense) what you people believe.

Unless you can claim superior knowledge to the actual historians you have lost the argument.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM

A different planet to dead soldiers, and a different planet to the rest of us. Good job there are enough planets to go round...

Look on the bright side. In his post above, Terribulus is already conceding there were mistakes and they were all 1914 and 1915. I call that progress... Give him a few months and he he might ask himself why he felt it necessary to remove two years from his argument.. Only two more to go then.

Give him even longer and he might get interested in WW2. Then he might read what I mentioned about WW2 officers and the (Keith likes this next word) eminent writing of A J P Taylor.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 10:52 AM

Well now, I'm no historian, am I. But anyone reading Teribus's and Keith's valiant defence of the organisation and competence of the British military leadership, who then goes on to read an account of the Battle of the Somme, will come away wondering what bloody planet these two are on.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:51 AM

""I am more inclined to give credence to the senior officers in WW2 who, as junior officers in WW1, didn't wish to make their senior officer's mistakes and cost unnecessary lives."

Also rather strange Musket that if you actually believe that, that you blithely ignore, or completely deny the fact that there were officers who learned from their mistakes in 1914 and 1915 and applied them in 1916, 1917 and in 1918. How is that? Do you think that they all signed a piece of paper to agree what rules they were going to play this war under and that there could be no changes of rules until the next world war kicked off? For that is how that argument of yours quoted above comes over as - if you do think that then you are a complete and utter idiot.

Oh and the way things changed between Loos in 1915 and Amiens in 1918 was the difference between chalk and cheese, all those changes wrought by those in command of the British Armies in France and those changes Musket old son basically still hold good - they still determine in basic form how conventional land battles are fought to this day.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:23 AM

"I am more inclined to give credence to the senior officers in WW2 who, as junior officers in WW1, didn't wish to make their senior officer's mistakes and cost unnecessary lives."

And instances demonstrating that Musket are?

Instances of those senior officers in WW2 coming up against the situations senior officers in WW1 faced are? (They did occur and I can tell you what happened and how those situations were dealt with)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:10 AM

Gosh.. All these cut and pastes of views of people not even on Mudcat but no debate or opinion based on assessment of the myriad views.

Being a bit selective, aren't we?

A bit, you know, stating that war happened rather than how it was executed?

Like I said, I am more inclined to give credence to the senior officers in WW2 who, as junior officers in WW1, didn't wish to make their senior officer's mistakes and cost unnecessary lives.

Or is AJP Taylor a discredited donkey too?

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 08:36 AM

PFR - As far as Great Britain was concerned the thing that made her entry into the Great War on the side of the Allied Powers of France and Russia against Germany was something that could only have been prevented by Germany not mobilising her troops.

The 1839 Treaty of London guaranteed the neutrality and sovereign integrity of Belgium.

The German war plan for any battle against France required the drawing of French troops into an attack in Alsace-Lorraine while German forces attacked France through Luxembourg and Belgium - This was von Moltke's revision of the former Schleiffen Plan which also involved German troops invading The Netherlands. As road and rail networks in Belgium would be congested the Germans could not carry out a full mobilisation of troops and hold them massed within her own borders. The Germans had to carry-out a simultaneous mobilisation and invasion otherwise bottle-necks would develop and the attack would falter and the plan would fail.

Once Germany violated Belgian neutrality then Great Britain would enter the conflict - nothing whatsoever could have been done by "politicians" or "industrialists" in Great Britain to prevent that from happening it was entirely in the hands of the German Emperor, his Generals and the German Imperial General Staff. They wanted war and they got it.

In defence of the British "Industrialists" it took them two years to shake off the inertia and get the country's industrial might fully behind the war effort. I said before if you are planning to fight a war you prepare for it before hand - As far as her industries went Great Britain was totally unprepared in 1914.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 08:13 AM

Just applying a little tweaking to better qualify a point..

"The ones that aspired to make most personal gain from it not being prevented from happening ???"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolrocker
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 07:51 AM

"Really PFR and what "politicians" and industrialists "conspired" to make the First World War happen?" ***

errr... the ones that made it happen...???

The ones that made most personal gain from it not being prevented from happening ???

It surely was not an 'act of god' or 'natural disaster'...

See.. the beauty of applying a deliberate simplistic 'naive'
[ .. and perhaps a smidgeon tongue in cheek, 'marxist' theoretical] analysis
to great events of mass human destruction and despair,
is that it can effectively cut to the essential core of the most profoundly vile human culpability...



*** of course there are serious and respectable academic sources to explore & research,
which may most probably name & shame individual power players,
if you're keen on expending hours reading up on that sort of thing...

History is not my chosen hobby.. a reasonably well informed minimalist framework
is sufficient for my own personal need for understanding...

..that world war is not a particularly sensible or welcome solution to disagreements between sociopathic wealthy power elites..

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:58 AM

Gerard DeGroot not what I just said.
Same article.

On February 3 1928, the British paid their respects to a departed hero. Crowds lined London streets as the funeral cortege bearing Field Marshal Earl Haig made its way to Westminster Abbey. Rarely in this century has a death been lamented so deeply. Then, not long after the funeral, Haig was transformed from war hero into the "Butcher of the Somme" whose stubborn adherence to outdated tactics caused needless sacrifice. When the British felt the need for a scapegoat, they created one in Haig.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:52 AM

Times Higher Educational Supplement, by historian De Gerood,

But was he (Haig)so bad? He was in some respects singularly appropriate to 20th-century industrial war. A brilliant administrator, he made sure that his men were well fed and clothed, and that wounds were dressed with appropriate speed. We have Haig to thank for the fact that the British army was the only major force which did not suffer a serious collapse of morale.

He has commonly been blamed for causing a war of attrition. But attrition was inevitable. In this war, heavily laden men had to walk unprotected over broken ground enfiladed by machine gun fire, blasted by artillery, obstructed by barbed wire and poisoned by gas. Trenches were not Haig's invention, they were a natural human response to the problem of exposure and the risk of annihilation. Haig's mistake was that he thought he could restore movement to this inevitably static war. Lives were needlessly lost because of this error. But this loss should be measured in thousands of dead, not, as his detractors think, in hundreds of thousands.

Haig has been accused, perhaps justifiably, of being insensitive to suffering. His religious beliefs may have inspired a confident but dangerous fatalism. Certainty in life everlasting could have caused him to be careless with lives temporal. But, given that this war was destined to involve massive losses, would a more sensitive commander have succeeded?

While many soldiers would eventually remember Haig as the Butcher of the Somme, few thought of him in these terms at the time. What is striking are the countless examples of deep respect. Corporal H. Milward, given some food by Haig when the latter passed him in his car, later remarked: "how extraordinary it was that a man with so much responsibility could find time to think of the wants of a humble soldier." Anecdotal though such comments might be, they are nevertheless far more prevalent than derisory references.

The reaction against Haig was a post-1928 and largely middle-class phenomenon. As the years passed, sections of the middle class began to feel shame over what they saw as a betrayal of working-class trust by Haig. This upsurge of remorse was fuelled by disillusioned war poets, by anguished writers like Vera Brittain and Richard Aldington, and by the vitriolic memoirs of David Lloyd George. Every A-level English student today reads Siegfried Sassoon, whose poetical general "speeds glum heroes up the line to death" while he sits "guzzling and gulping in the best hotel". The great mistake is to assume that this outpouring of middle-class guilt was echoed across the social spectrum. The war poetry of Sassoon, Wilfred Owen et al has endured because it is stylistically "good" and because it embodies an accepted vision of the war as futile. We tend to forget (or remain blissfully unaware) that the vast majority of war poetry supported the war effort and idolised Haig right up to November 1918. Every Armistice Day renews the ritual of Haig-bashing in a ceaseless barrage of castigation. Hatred has been made up in retrospect; ordinary soldiers now swear that they always despised the butcher Haig.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:02 AM

"The leadership was poor and focused on impressing political leaders, leading to disaffected front line staff and poor care."

That may well indeed be the case as you found it within the upper echelons of the top-heavy, over bureaucratic management that exists in today's NHS but it most certainly was not the case with the British Army during the course of the First World War if you compare the size, state and capability of that Army between August 1914 and August 1918.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:57 AM

You can have my point again.
Military historians all accept that the army was an effective fighting force and competently led.
Musket and Jim think they know more about it than them, on the basis of nothing but their political ideology.

I am happy to let them think they have won the argument on that while normal people will know better.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:02 AM

You'd have been safer lying in a field and praying. I had the unfortunate task of being part of the original Healthcare Commission investigation that found the problems there, and those at Maidstone too. I also was a technical advisor to the Francis affair, gave evidence to it and helped draft the recommendations. I resigned from being an advisor at The Care Quality Commission when I saw how Mid Staffs had been buried and I had no confidence in the then leadership. For the record, none of those leaders whose incompetence matched the Mid Staffs board are there any more.

You have chosen a brilliant comparison. The leadership was poor and focussed on impressing political leaders, leading to disaffected front line staff and poor care. Sounds like WW1 in many ways.

Mind you, I have never been a manager in either military or NHS, so I can only profess sympathy rather than empathy.

Sorry, what was your point again?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 03:23 AM

"Planning wars...

Oh, so they planned the wholesale slaughter and carnage?"

Yes aggressors generally do if they have any idea what they are about.

Others plan other things as well...

that result in wholesale carnage - like at the Stafford Hospital Musket, where between 2005 and 2008 you would have been safer on foot patrol in Sangin District, Helmand Provence, Afghanistan than you would have been entering the Accident & Emergency Depart of that hospital.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 03:02 AM

Planning wars...

Oh, so they planned the wholesale slaughter and carnage?

Why didn't you say? Might have saved us a lot of time

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:45 AM

Really PFR and what "politicians" and industrialists "conspired" to make the First World War happen?

As for your first point related to "Military Historians" ...... That is ludicrous because to examine in detail how a war was fought you must first examine in detail the period that led up to it happening as wars are not initiated and fought by the aggressor at the drop of a hat or on the spur of the moment - a great deal of time consuming planning and preparation is required.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 02:46 PM

Military historians place the emphasis of their interest on how wars were faught...
not on how politicians & industrialists conspired to profit from making them happen.....???

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 01:35 PM

Military historians say they were, but Musket thinks they are all wrong.
I am happy to leave it there.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 09:45 AM

so lets get this right. They were competent because other armies were less competent?

You ought to go on the fucking stage. I'd come and laugh at you.

😹😹😹







💩💤

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 06:41 AM

"In the meantime, search for photos of "white crosses" and "white rectangular headstones that don't scan so well in a song" and ask yourself how competent leadership leads to this."

Now let me see:

Here in this graveyard it's still No Mans Land
Countless white crosses in mute witness stand"

Compared to:

Here in this graveyard it's still No Mans Land
Countless white headstones in mute witness stand"

Seems to scan well enough for me Musket. The original is accurate if it refers to an American War Cemetery while the latter more accurately describes a British or Commonwealth War Cemetery.

By the way Musket when nations go to war with each other people do tend to die.

"dig out the AJP Taylor bits on WW2 where he writes at length of the senior officers who were better leaders because they were junior officers in the first war and learned from seeing the "awful mistakes and rhetoric" of their old commanding officers."

Ah so you do not deny that lessons were learned then and it is only due to your lack of knowledge, inability to grasp details or understand the written word that you deny that lessons were actually learned during the course of both the First and the Second World Wars.

As far as the First World War goes Britain started out with the smallest Army and then ended up with one of a size comparable to the major European Powers and one that hadn't mutinied in the field and was still capable of undertaking offensive operations.

Now look at those offensive operations - the Germans in Operation Michael in the Spring of 1918 were trying to do the same thing as they tried in 1914 and they were trying to do it almost exactly the same way with hundreds of thousands more men - the result? - They were stopped just as they had been before on the Marne. But look what happened just three weeks after they had been stopped and their offensive ran out of steam - the 100 days offensive undertaken by the British and Commonwealth Armies - the most successful campaign ever fought by a British Army EVER.

Did they use the same tactics as they had used in 1915 - No.
Did they use the same tactics as they had used in 1916 - In part.
Did they use the same tactics as they had used in 1917 - In the main but vastly improved.

When they went over onto what would be the final offensive of the Great War they applied lessons learned from 1914 onwards:

- Optimised time of attack for the attacking force
- Creeping Barrage
- Infantry attacks supported by armour (British Invention)
- Infantry supplied with hot food and ammunition and reinforced using armour
- Close ground support and artillery spotting by aircraft
- Exploitation of local "gaps" by cavalry and by a special type of fast tank

Compared to either the Germans or the French the British were far better better led and that is the judgement of History demonstrated by fact (Almost by every metric could could wish to name).

The fact that you cannot recognise it makes you the ignorant, ill-informed fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 05:16 AM

Why dig out facts Musket?
Because they expose your ignorance.
You are known for making assertions and just insulting anyone who disagrees.
Baseless assertion is not debate.
Debate involves making a case and supporting it with evidence and fact.
You just can't do that so you don't like it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 04:41 AM

Why "dig out" facts? This is a debate, not a race to see who can find the most trivia on the internet, fool.

If you love digging, dig out the AJP Taylor bits on WW2 where he writes at length of the senior officers who were better leaders because they were junior officers in the first war and learned from seeing the "awful mistakes and rhetoric" of their old commanding officers.

In the meantime, search for photos of "white crosses" and "white rectangular headstones that don't scan so well in a song" and ask yourself how competent leadership leads to this.

Fool Take II

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Elmore
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 09:02 PM

Eric Bogle is one of the kindest, most charming people I've met. However, he smokes cigarettes and should be drawn and quartered

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 05:25 AM

Rather liked this bit of nonsense from Musket:

"Any chance of digging out a few facts instead?"

You've got some nerve Musket - Any chance of you ever digging out ANY facts instead of your usual clichéd "made-up-shit"?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 04:39 AM

Ah.. Crosses versus rectangular Slabs.

I don't recall mentioning any soldier in particular and there are many Americans with their cross shaped headstones anyway.

Any chance of digging out a few facts instead?

After all, there are some lefty type chaps reading.

zzzzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 04:16 AM

From Matthew Stewart's review of Brian Bond's: "The Unquiet Western Front: Britain's Role in Literature and History."

1: Bond's overall conception of World War I is straightforward: "It was, for Britain, a necessary and successful war, and an outstanding achievement for a democratic nation in arms"

2: The first chapter contains one reminder that neither historian nor imaginative artist can afford to ignore: to understand the people of a past age requires a suppression of our own attitudes and post-hoc conclusions. All social classes saw the war as "a literal crusade against uncivilized behaviour." and this attitude was not entirely jettisoned in 1916, 1917 or 1918, even after the public's initial ignorance was replaced by knowledge of modern warfare's horrific powers of destruction. That is the historical reality and the prevailing ironic view of the war in 2003 is the product or after-the-fact mythologizing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 03:45 AM

Musket - 18 Nov 14 - 12:46 PM

"The countless White crosses in mute stand"

Ah so Willie McBride was an American then? Any explanation therefore for him dying back there in 1916?

"Meanwhile back at the ranch, we appear to be discussing whether "winning" equates to effectiveness."

Ehmmm no Musket I believe that it was you who started wittering on about wars being conducted effectively ( Musket - 18 Nov 14 - 09:08 AM) and you have simply been asked what metrics if any you use to judge whether a war is conducted "effectively" or not and if "winning" said war would be one of them. Most, if not all questions asked of you remain unanswered, so become rhetorical.

You certainly DO need to start reading something from the non-fiction section as it might increase your general knowledge and might reduce your output of easily dismissed "made-up-shit".

Found any instances of "Red tops" shooting and wounding men found behind the lines yet Musket? - NO - thought not - Example of Musket "Made-up-Shit".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:10 PM

I accept what you say PFR and I think you are an honest poster.

When truth is presented here against fashionable political myth, I think it strengthens the forum.
I too am a "lefty" sort of bloke, but I'm no damned "liberal"   :0)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 02:05 PM

akenaton - I'm a lefty liberal sort of bloke...

Who in their right mind should disagree ???

"its refreshing to see truth upheld in the face of myth and popular political ideology...

.. Time some more of the myths attached to our society were exposed for what they are...."



Key words for my personal mindset have always been - 'objectivity' - 'rationality' - 'integrity' - 'honesty'...

I reiterate.. I am a lefty liberal sort of bloke...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:53 PM

Well I'm no expert on warfare, and Mr T and Keith are obviously well read on the subject, so its refreshing to see truth upheld in the face of myth and popular political ideology.

Time some more of the myths attached to our society were exposed for what they are, "liberal" fairy tales.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:25 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Here historian Dan Snow debunks WWI myths including donkey myth.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:17 PM

☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝-up .....

Who gives a flying one what old Muskibumz reads?

Hmmmm. Thought not······

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:16 PM

Dr Gary Sheffield on BBC History site rubbishes Donkey myth.
His conclusion,
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: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:46 PM

All together now..

The countless White crosses in mute stand
To man's blind indifference to his fellow man
To a whole generation, butchered and damned.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, we appear to be discussing whether "winning" equates to effectiveness.

I might as well start reading The Daily M*il as log onto this shit. Tell me, do you all wear army surplus cammy jackets and go off roading in old Land Rovers, pretending you are soldiers?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:38 PM

Peter Simkins, senior historian at the Imperiall War Museum reported by BBC.
Extracts
What is much less widely known is that 78 British and Dominion officers of the rank of Brigadier General and above died on active service in the First World War while a further 146 were wounded. These figures alone show that, contrary to popular belief, British Generals frequently went close enough to the battle zone to place themselves in considerable danger.


During the period known as the "Hundred Days", the British and Dominion divisions on the Western Front won a dozen major victories - the greatest series of victories in the British Army's whole history, and also the only time in British history that the British Army has engaged and defeated the main body of the main enemy in a continental war.

In the process, Haig's armies took 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns - only 7,800 prisoners and 935 guns less than those taken by the French, Belgian and American armies combined.

These successes were not the result of accident or luck. They were, of course, achieved above all by the courage and endurance of the front-line soldiers.

But the senior commanders too played their part. They did, after all, oversee and encourage the tactical and technological improvements which transformed the abilities and striking-power of Britain's first ever mass citizen army between 1916-1918.


As the historian Ian Malcolm Brown has pointed out in his recent book British Logistics on the Western Font (Praeger 1998), all this was made possible by an excellent administrative and transport system that, in 1918, not only enabled Haig to deliver attacks of tremendous power but also to switch the point of attack to another sector at short notice - so keeping the Germans off balance.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 10:22 AM

Pray tell Musket what you mean by conducting a war "effectively"? Does "winning it" feature anywhere in your metrics to judge whether it was "effective" or not?

Completely fail to see any connection between:

"the men well led by competent, caring top brass and everybody was there because they knew why" and the number of cemeteries.

Men who are perfectly aware of what they are fighting for and who are well led will still die in any conflict particularly if they up against men who are equally aware of what they are fighting for and who are also well led. In such a situation it will be the side with the best strategy and tactics that will win and in all probability the death toll will be high if tactics and strategy are restricted by factors over which the respective commanders have absolutely no control such as weather.

Basically Musket on this subject you "Just know" jack shit.

Absolutely no difference in Churchill's thinking in WWI to WWII when it came to the "Soft Underbelly" in WWI it was Gallipoli (Which came remarkably close to being an outstanding success - according to German and Turkish reports found after the war), while during WWII it was Italy and then the invasion of the South of France in August 1944.

Montgomery was not so very different from Haig and he proved that at El-Alamein, the only occasion in North Africa when both Allied and Axis Armies found themselves in a location where it was impossible for one side to outflank the other because of the Qattara Depression to the South and the Mediterranean Sea to the North. Like Haig on the Somme (1916) and before Messines (1917) Montgomery built up his strength so that he would have massive superiority in terms of men, tanks, armoured cars, artillery, aircraft, fuel and supplies - he then made a series of frontal attacks in a battle that lasted from the 23rd October until the 11th November 1942. Like Haig, Montgomery found that at the end of the battle his Army was in no shape to exploit the break through and could not finish Rommel off and the Panzerarmee Afrika melted away to fight another day - until the 13th May 1943 to be exact.

And just for future reference Musket the man who kept Churchill's wilder flights of fancy in check was the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Sir Alan Francis Brooke NOT Montgomery. And no I didn't just read that, I have known that from studying the relevant material over the years - Fool

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 10:02 AM

Churchill was just another politician then and it was he who was responsible for the invasion of Gallipoli.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 09:08 AM

I don't see the point in cutting & pasting views of others that happen to coincide with my own.

I just know that if the war was conducted effectively, the men well led by competent, caring top brass and everybody was there because they knew why, we would have fewer cemeteries.

I suggest you read up on Churchill's decision making during WW1 that led to the Galipoli landings, and then ask yourself why during WW2 he wanted (and in Monty, eventually got) decent leaders that wouldn't allow people like himself to forget about the human side...

And no, I didn't just read that. Some of us can assimilate knowledge over the years, fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 08:23 AM

Still nothing to add then Musket - you haven't since the get go - honestly can't see why you bother, after all anything you have attempted to come up with has been some clichéd myth, or fictional based misrepresentation that has been blown out of the water within seconds never to be mentioned again.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 07:55 AM

I rest my case

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 07:18 AM

GUEST,Rahere - 17 Nov 14 - 12:00 PM:

You are not really very good at "supposing" things or deducing them.

There was nothing at all in the British Army that faced the dying days of Malaya; Kenya; Cyprus; The Tanganyika Mutiny, Aden; Dhofar or Borneo that "was still very stiff-upper-lip WWII heritage." And those serving then defeated three communist backed insurgencies basically on a shoe-string.

I liked this - "He was probably a Staff (Sergeant)" - Oh No I wasn't, you couldn't be further off target if you tried. Your OR number, that would explain the chip on your shoulder and rather idiotic references to "Ruperts" and your Honourary Rank, that merely decides your parking space, my cousin an economist in the Civil Service had one, which he found hilarious, but he never, ever took it seriously, particularly not in the presence or company of anyone holding substantive rank - and I bet they did catch you pouring the milk in first didn't they?

As for this piece of "Look-how-important-I-am" grandstanding:

"As I type, Julian Brazier, MOD Under-Secretary, has just stated in the House in reply to John Baron (2RRF) "it's about doing defence differently and harnessing the talents of the wider UK Society...to make Defence more flexible in coping with the changing demands made on it". That last phrase came straight out of what I told them they'd have to do, back in 1990."

I can only assume that you are a complete and utter idiot if the current set up is something that you have advocated since the 1990s.

1: The British Army has never been capable of defending the British Isles - Not once has any British Army been able to defeat any aggressor that has landed on our shores in strength. The only one of our services that has ever been capable of defending these islands has been the Royal Navy and that has been the case since the days of Alfred The Great of Wessex.

2: The Strategic Defence Review carried out in 1998 by Tony Blair's Labour Government was sensible - Great pity that it was never acted upon mainly due to his Chancellor Gordon of Cartoon failing to fund it.

3: "it's about doing defence differently"
Ehmm No - Its about attempting to do defence on the cheap. The Royal Navy is now at its weakest since the 1690s and the Army will shortly be smaller than it was in 1793 - it will all fit comfortably into Wembly stadium with sufficient space to stretch out and sunbathe.

4: "It's about ....... harnessing the talents of the wider UK Society...to make Defence more flexible in coping with the changing demands made on it"

Really?? How is the Army Reserve Recruitment Drive that we are paying the private firm "Capita" £15 million a year going? Instead of recruiting the required 250 per month to fill the gaps in the Army Reserve that will harness the talents of the wider UK Society it is only managing to recruit 7 - yes SEVEN - why indeed should Putin tremble!!! What was it that absolute disgrace of a Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010 turn up? An Army of 82,000 plus a Reserve Army (Formerly the TA) of 30,000 - The Reserve Army cannot even maintain itself at its present day levels.

5: This the mob who have just had to increase the upper age limit for those joining the Reserve from 43 to 52?? Now there you have WWII thinking Rahere - ready for the musical bit ... ONE, TWO, THREE:

"Who do you think you are kiddin' Mr Hitler"

But don't worry GUEST,Rahere, you can opt for your European Defence Force - Absolutely useless for defending anything of course - the constituent and contributing nations cannot even agree as to which way is up let alone form any any cohesive military structure, common foreign policy, defence policy or strategy.

The European Defence Force:

France would demand by imperious right to lead it.
Germany would pay for it but contribute no troops, or if they did caveat to death any prospect of their being used for anything other than guarding the HQ Car Park but only during daylight hours.
The UK, the Dutch and the Danes would be expected to do the fighting, and the rest would promise much but deliver absolutely nothing.

"WEU has shown the way on the wider Peacemaking agenda, shifting what the Army is asked to do."

Pssst: Right down at the dirty end of the game - what armed forces are about ain't Peacemaking. They are for defending nations first and foremost - If they are incapable of doing that in a credible manner then there is no point in having them.

"And so, why wear a poppy? To remember the Dead." Why remember them?

I would have thought as a mark of respect for the sacrifice they made would have been reason enough - they did give their today's for all the tomorrows that we have enjoyed.

To honour their deaths, by ensuring that what they did was not done in vain." How do we ensure that? By making certain the Command doesn't repeat its inevitable cock-ups which are the biggest single factor in getting troops killed, and WWI was a wonderful worked example of why all that was necessary."

Ah but you see lessons were learned, lessons were learned from the Boer War, from the battles of 1914, those of 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. Not only were those lessons learned but they were carried forward and improved upon (Compare British military losses in the First World War to those of the Second World War - reduction of over 50% wasn't it? They have fallen significantly ever since haven't they?). Some arguing here that lessons were not learned at all - they were and it is extremely easy to demonstrate that they were.

By the way who were these "incompetents who repeated their mistakes at the price of other peoples' lives"? Answer carefully.

As for your "thinking soldier" being something new - what you go on to describe has always been the case in the training of Royal Marines - most definitely the case in the training of Mountain Leaders, SBS or RN Clearance Divers. It is one of the reasons their training is the longest and hardest for any infantry soldier in the world - but if you think that strategy is decided by soldiers "all the way down the line" then all I can say is that you are indeed an idiot - tactics pertinent to a local situation certainly but strategy in any form no.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 06:11 AM

That's buggered it.

The longer their posts, the more they feel they have to impress....

At least Keith's horseshit is tempered by its brevity.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:31 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 17 Nov 14 - 02:34 PM

A number of points raised by your contribution:

1: "I quoted various historians who suggested that the leadership of the troops was less than competent."

Less than competent compared to who? Certainly not compared to their French, German, Italian, Austro-Hungarian, Serbian, Russian, Turkish, Bulgarian counterparts. You stood a better chance of survival in any Army commanded by British or Commonwealth Officers than you would have done in any of those named above and they commanded armies that carried the fight to their enemies from the outset - unlike most of those named above. Was that "leadership" perfect? No of course it wasn't nothing attached to war ever is, but they most certainly did better than most, lessons were learned every step of the way, tactics were improved and changed counter to the lies and misrepresentations depicted by fiction such as OWALW and Blackadder.

2: David Stephenson has far more quotes in support of the point of view:

"that agreement existed among political and intellectual elites that the war was legitimate and necessary, evidence that it would eventually be won."

Or that:

"the Allies' central cause was neither trivial nor unworthy'. He cites as a prime justification the 'genuine liberation' resulting from the expulsion of German forces from the occupied territories, while arguing that 'the destruction of Wilhelm II's autocracy created an opportunity, albeit fleetingly, for a more firmly rooted peace than had existed before 1914."

In the Shepard quote you provide there is no context:
- Whose "obsure and ignoble ends? - Not stated
- Which inept political leaders?
- Which unimaginative generals? - Could hardly be the British and Commonwealth Generals as they were the youngest and most innovative of the lot.

3: Richard Holmes (himself once a brigadier)with regard to Gallipoli "I wanted to show just how lunatic the whole concept of the campaign was"

"The whole concept of the campaign was", or, "the whole concept of the campaign they way it was fought?". I can see the latter but not the former, and the same would go for anybody that has studied it in any detail. Any idea, Raggytash, how close it came to succeeding? Both the initial naval operation to "force the Dardanelles", or the landings? Both would have been outstandingly successful and Turkey would have been knocked out of the war had the ships literally tried it "just one more time" (The reason? - Because on the day the Allies decided to abandon the naval assault the Turkish Gun Batteries and emplacements had all run out of ammunition with absolutely no hope of resupply). Of the landings - had the troops who made the landings at Suvla been ordered to proceed inland immediately to take the heights then the Turks would have been cut off completely and left with no alternative apart from surrender.

On Richard Holmes:

"Holmes's passion for the history of conflict was fired during his last year at school when he was transfixed by the BBC series The Great War, shown in 26 parts in 1964. "I was hooked from the start," he recalled. "It was the first time I had seen early film slowed down so that men and horses did not walk with a jerky quickstep. And although I was about to go to Cambridge to read History and thought myself no end of a scholar, it was the first time I had seen it suggested that the war's generals might be anything other than mindless and inarticulate butchers."

Remember that date 1964 now this from his Obituary:

"Forty years on, in his book Tommy (2004), Holmes continued to repudiate the view, promoted by the war poets, that the troops of the First World War were poorly led. He also re-examined the enduring legends about the prevalence of shellshock, drunkenness in the trenches, and soldiers shot at dawn for cowardice or desertion, pointing out that 90 per cent of death sentences were commuted."



4: "Peter Hart with regard to the Somme "Haig's Big Push was a human catastrophe" "Passchendaele came to epitomise the futility and pathos of the whole of WW1"

Really is that the same Peter Hart they are reviewing here:

"Hart does not duck some of the wider issues that are raised by the war. He writes from a tradition of British military history that for 30 years has sought to rescue the reputations of generals such as Sir Douglas Haig, the British commander on the western front for most of the conflict, and to show that the entire war cannot be summed up in the ghastly first day of the Battle of the Somme, when the British army suffered its highest-ever number of casualties.

The Somme lasted for four months and, the military historians argue, was part of a learning curve (their term) that continued for the rest of the war. By 1918 the British had mastered a new kind of industrial warfare, the nature of which no one had understood in 1914, and which, with tanks and aircraft, heavy artillery and integrated arms, tipped the balance against defensive trench warfare and played the decisive role in the final victory.

Such a thesis is at loggerheads with the idea of the war as futile butchery (and of Haig as the British butcher) that is summed up by the interwar "literature of disenchantment" (Robert Graves, Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen) and expressed, for most people nowadays, by Owen's haunting poetry. Yet the military historians, to their chagrin, feel that they have lost this battle and that Owen's "pity of war" vision commands popular perceptions of the conflict."

Yes Raggytash by all means "If you are going to argue a corner please, at least, ensure your information is correct." Only thing is there is absolutely nothing at fault with the information that either myself or Keith are relaying to anybody reading this thread and the others on this topic.

5: "There are always belligerent bastards around, like me, who will check your "facts"

Good, very pleased to hear that, now tell us what "facts" have either myself or Keith got wrong. The basic message is:

A: That the British and Commonwealth soldiers knew full well what they were fighting for, they were neither conned or duped into anything.

B: That the British, Commonwealth and Empire Troops were generally well led throughout the period of the Great War. A war that saw the size of the British Army increase out of all proportion to any other Army of any other 1914 combatant nation. A war that in the closing months saw only the British and Commonwealth Armies capable of mounting offensive operations

C: That in terms of tactics it was the British Army that devised the means by which the stalemate on the "western front" could be broken and victory assured.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:23 AM

You may have found it quoted elsewhere, but it is recognisably the same.

Original,
"Like many of his fellow historians, Stevenson challenges much of the accepted wisdom – for example, that the generals had no ideas about how to break the deadlock – yet the prevalent view of the war remains under the influence of the highly critical literature of the late 1920s and early 1930s, with its emphasis on the horrors of the trenches and its portrayal of a futile struggle for obscure or ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals. How many of us saw Oh! What a Lovely War with a slight sense of superiority to the people of the past, so easily duped?"

Your version,
"David Stephenson, with regard to WW1 "a futile struggle for obscure and ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:05 AM

Keith, I have not mentioned Margaret Macmillan and certainly have not read the review you link to.

I have never the time nor the inclination to trawl through numerous books on the same subject merely to indicate that the thinking of some people can be, at least, blinkered.

No matter how clear the information I put to you I know you will not accept the veracity of it.

To use an old quotation "There's none so blind as those who will not see"

I will finally reiterate that all the authors I have quoted from Churchill to Peter Hart cast doubt on the abilities of various Generals involved.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:02 AM

Musket, you did paste Raggytash's post into the Lovely War thread.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:00 AM

Here is the review that you lifted your "human catastrophe" quote from.
Of course it was a human catastrophe, but if you look at Peter Hart's website you will see in his own words that he did not see incompetence or futility.

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Somme.html?id=oI0rQzeMz2UC

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:57 AM

Ha Ha! "Musket put them...."

That figures.

Isn't it strange how shallow fools think that if they shout liar! at others, their own little porkies might not get noticed?

"Emphasis on horror in the trenches." Quite... Presumably it wasn't so bad after all? It must have been easy and comfortable knowing you were well led by generals who cared for their charges eh?

💤

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:49 AM

Here is the review you lifted it from, and the edited to reverse the message.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n23/margaret-macmillan/von-hotzendorffs-desire

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:43 AM

Not true.
Take your first quote.
Here is the whole thing.
What he really says is the EXACT OPPOSITE of of what you dishonestly claim.

"With Cataclysm, David Stevenson draws on much recent work to provide a comprehensives account of the war, with a welcome interest both in the non-European theatres and in the home fronts. His book is also part of a more general attempt to rethink the meaning of the Great War and situate it in the history of the 20th century.

Like many of his fellow historians, Stevenson challenges much of the accepted wisdom – for example, that the generals had no ideas about how to break the deadlock – yet the prevalent view of the war remains under the influence of the highly critical literature of the late 1920s and early 1930s, with its emphasis on the horrors of the trenches and its portrayal of a futile struggle for obscure or ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals. How many of us saw Oh! What a Lovely War with a slight sense of superiority to the people of the past, so easily duped?"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:43 AM

Not true.
Take your first quote.
Here is the whole thing.
What he really says is the EXACT OPPOSITE of of what you dishonestly claim.

"With Cataclysm, David Stevenson draws on much recent work to provide a comprehensives account of the war, with a welcome interest both in the non-European theatres and in the home fronts. His book is also part of a more general attempt to rethink the meaning of the Great War and situate it in the history of the 20th century.

Like many of his fellow historians, Stevenson challenges much of the accepted wisdom – for example, that the generals had no ideas about how to break the deadlock – yet the prevalent view of the war remains under the influence of the highly critical literature of the late 1920s and early 1930s, with its emphasis on the horrors of the trenches and its portrayal of a futile struggle for obscure or ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals. How many of us saw Oh! What a Lovely War with a slight sense of superiority to the people of the past, so easily duped?"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:02 AM

Keith, no they are not I lifted them directly from the books involved, not from reviews of books by the likes of the Guardian. If you read properly the reviews you put on the thread mentioned each of the statements is qualified.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:01 PM

Raggytash, all your quotes are fake.
Musket put them on the Lovely War thread and I dealt with them there.
thread.cfm?threadid=156062&messages=36

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 06:41 PM

"The war could have been ended by negotiation in late 1914....."

this seems an apt enough point to re-ask the 'naive' question I posed right before the other thread was suddenly closed:

[A worthwhile & noble cause and war...???]

... so which individuals, armaments manufacturers, ancillary product suppliers, etc, and Nations
profiteered most from sustaining WW1 for so many long tragic years...???

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:28 PM

With front-line trenches running zigzag from Switzerland to the North Sea, please explain what strategy was open to the Allied generals before the spring of 1918 that they might have used to end the war any sooner? Seems to me I've never heard what that might have been.

Those responsible for continuing the war after its first horrific weeks were the leaders of the combatant nations, not the generals.

Berlin would not end it because they were sitting pretty in Belgium and France and had no motive to negotiate (except of course a humanitarian motive, which paled before the thrill of conquest). The Allies, on the defensive, had no motive to negotiate either (except of course, the humanitarian motive, which paled before the idea of rolling over while a militarist Germany bestrode northwestern Europe).

Had Gallipoli worked, it would now be hailed as genius. The plan was to break the Western stalemate by knocking one of Germany's co-belligerents out of the war. That it didn't happen that way doesn't make the strategy itself absurd.

The movie, by the way, claims that evil Brits glibly sacrificed the gallant but naive Aussies as cannon fodder. There's your revisionism right there. There were plenty of British and French at Gallipoli too, and in 1915 Australians considered themselves as British as anyone.

It's a bad idea to "learn" history from pop entertainment.

The war could have been ended by negotiation in late 1914.

But few wanted to negotiate, then or ever, because neither side wished to look weak, give in, abandon its declared principals, or lose the potential "fruits of victory."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 03:08 PM

You see, that's the problem with using Mudcat to push a point rather than debate. The likes of Keith end up looking like disingenuous arses. Mainly on the basis of wanting to see military leadership as competent, which it never has been. Wars are "won" on the basis of who makes least mistakes rather than tactical finesse.

Hell, he IS a disingenuous arse... Every word I have typed is genuine but because he searches for opinions that assume otherwise, he just shouts liar when his awful mindset is successfully shot down in flames. People who know him say he is a decent bloke. Maybe, but he suffers from the same lack of manners many suffer from on social media.

Any more historians who reckon men actually understood and leaders actually displayed leadership?

Like I said. callous disregard for their men, damnation and futile loss of life that could be largely avoided if military leaders cared for their men and led them appropriately.

Boom Boom etc

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 02:34 PM

Keith,

On the previous thread I quoted various historians who suggested that the leadership of the troops was less than competent.

You then said that "modern" historians had a different view. I did a bit of background work on some of the historians you had referred me to. (you had mentioned these people on a previous thread and pointed me in that direction)

May I be allowed to quote the one or two of the self same historians you referred to:-

David Stephenson, with regard to WW1 "a futile struggle for obscure and ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals"

Richard Holmes (himself once a brigadier)with regard to Gallipoli "I wanted to show just how lunatic the whole concept of the campaign was"

Peter Hart with regard to the Somme "Haig's Big Push was a human catastrophe" "Passchendaele came to epitomise the futility and pathos of the whole of WW1"

If you are going to argue a corner please, at least, ensure your information is correct.

There are always belligerent bastards around, like me, who will check your "facts"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 12:00 PM

What's just happened is that Teribus has dived for his library, discovered we have friends in common, and found a way of letting me know where he fitted in the military, which wasn't a million miles from me. My courtesies and apologies for aligning you too closely with Keith, may your paddles never dry.

The difference remaining between us is that he was in in the early 60s, I was a generation later, post-Nam and Bloody Sunday, and things changed in between. Just to guide him, my OR number was 24318nnn. I've expounded on that elsewhere, that the UK in the early 1960s was still very stiff-upper-lip WWII heritage, and ten years later, my time, we were almost the other way. It's the difference between us here, he's old-school and I'm one of the first of the new. He was probably a Staff (Sergeant), I was Staff (courtesy rank Colonel for protocol purposes). Amazing what a difference one letter makes! The difference in it was that we expected his generation to have the education needed to get the answer right without having to ask a Commander (Platoon, Company, you name it), and the person I named pointed out and proved it was unreasonable and impossible. The result is they tried to get people like me to fill the gap. In fact, in my career I've done what was asked with knobs on, bringing in one coup which should have needed someone of Ambassadorial rank or higher. Musashi was right, the finest battle is one won without a soldier on the field.

As I type, Julian Brazier, MOD Under-Secretary, has just stated in the House in reply to John Baron (2RRF) "it's about doing defence differently and harnessing the talents of the wider UK Society...to make Defence more flexible in coping with the changing demands made on it". That last phrase came straight out of what I told them they'd have to do, back in 1990. Indeed, it was a response to Kitson, and SOP for your force, Teribus, at least in my day. It's now SOP for the entire Armed Forces, and to do that, you don't need soldiers reinforced by people capable of taking the highest strategic decisions correctly, you need soldiers who have the background to do so themselves, because however much you try to centralise the key data, you need people capable of accurately filtering out what's important and what isn't right the way down the line.

In the early days of the SAS, the troopers routinely asked their officers what to do next, in quite fine detail. Not for them to reason why, theirs was just to do or die. Some of that, iirc correctly from a certain Paddy, was still present in your day, Teribus. By the time the ball reached us, that had broken down, ORs were acting with authority, in the SFs. Now it's everywhere, Sergeants as Platooon Commanders are commonplace. Perhaps it's because Ruperts have been seen to be the hollow things they are. It's also because WEU has shown the way on the wider Peacemaking agenda, shifting what the Army is asked to do.

And that is why I disagree with the old line. Duty is personal, not imposed, duty on yourself to be the best you can be, better than what is asked of you, to have the answer for the question your boss is going to ask you in your hand before he asks it. They ask me to remember the dead, I answer by reducing the lethality of war, because I dare ask why. Because I explained to my subordinates why. A simple Why is part of Situation (GSMEACQ, something Teribus understands). Why, one of Kipling's 5 Honest Serving Men. Why, motivation. Why, verifying you've understood, reducing the fog of war.

And so, why wear a poppy? To remember the Dead. Why remember them? To honour their deaths, by ensuring that what they did was not done in vain. How do we ensure that? By making certain the Command doesn't repeat its inevitable cock-ups which are the biggest single factor in getting troops killed, and WWI was a wonderful worked example of why all that was necessary. But if you're never allowed to ask these questions because they're just too embarrassing to the incompetents who repeated their mistakes at the price of other peoples' lives, then you'll repeat them, and repeat them, and repeat them, and soldiers will die, and die, and die.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 11:19 AM

So once again, as ever, you can not produce any scrap of evidence to support your ludicrous claim that every living historian is part of a conspiracy to hide the truth about WW1.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 11:11 AM

"Not long since dead please."

Picky fucker.

Sorry, I'm in the debating class. The cut and paste subjective shit off the internet is down the corridor.

zzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 10:21 AM

It's a great record by Joss Stone & Jeff Beck!!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 10:19 AM


Out of interest, I found over a period of less than 15 mins lots of "facts" that support their absurd notions regarding well led and aware soldiers and just as much saying the exact opposite.
show us Musket. (Some hope!)

Oh, and the many historians who wrote of folly, misadventure and indifference. Some of which are the same ones rewriting. Must be a fashion thing.
Name one Musket. Not long since dead please. (Some hope)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:39 AM

Fascinating. All these people so concerned about and exercised about the lawfulness of the (unlawful, I tell you) British Legion song - and NOBODY bothers to point out that the link I gave above was edited and will not take you to the MCPS's OWN factsheet about what its licences do and do not cover - https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Product%20Licensing/Product_Lic_FAQ.pdf


https://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Product%20Licensing/Product_Lic_FAQ.pdf


The problem is that Bogle (or his music publisher) is too scared to sue.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:37 AM

Ah Musket, you "found" but fail to produce - indicates where you think the mop will flop if those for and against sources are compared.

Personally I cannot be arsed:

1: Lions led by donkeys - a myth concocted by the man who wanted to sell a book

2: Redcaps shooting people for not going over the top - myth, it never happened

3: Summary executions carried out immediately after hurried Courts Martial - myth, it never happened

Every time you trot these idiotic myths out along with all the rest of your "made-up-shit" - I will correct you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:31 AM

Though I am certainly no historian

[ my history exercise books and essays were sent floating down a major west country river
at the end of 3rd year after I chose my O level subjects ],

I wouldn't be that surprised if a history of historians
showed decade by decade shifts of alternating trends of left and right wing ideologial bias....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:24 AM

This is truly the season of the shite charity appeal single..

"No Man's Land" was just another forgettable one of far too many..


Sir Bob, you can shout and swear at world leader politicians as much as you like, if it does any good..

But please stop pretending your latest Band Aid record is any good...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:18 AM

I wonder if Terribulus and TC Keith can sleep at night, or whether they believe their own shit?

Out of interest, I found over a period of less than 15 mins lots of "facts" that support their absurd notions regarding well led and aware soldiers and just as much saying the exact opposite.

I think the first hand accounts will do for me. Oh, and the many historians who wrote of folly, misadventure and indifference. Some of which are the same ones rewriting. Must be a fashion thing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:09 AM

Sainsbury's, following up on their Poppy support, have adopted the Football Truce for its Christmas promotion. I'd like to see what they do with it before commenting, though, although my optimism is likely to be sadly disappointed: if so, then they will be the losers.
Waitrose, by comparison, asked for contributions in late October to a massive multitrack of Dolly Parton's Try, which brings unapologetically sexist thoughts about rugby balls to mind. As a song, though, I think they're trying to build on the self-improvement dynamic of Farrell Williams' Happy...
Mind you, no parent will ever not associate the word with potty training.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 08:59 AM

Were indeed that the case GUEST,Rahere, care to tell us why you jumped in wittering on with all that CRAP ABOUT POPPY-JUNKIES.( AND YES, I AM NOW SHOUTING AT YOU.)

Now throughout that great long screed about Military "Battle" Police where is the bit that clearly states that irrespective of unit when troops serve in this capacity their ultimate authority is that of the APM and that the standing orders and directions of Assistant Provost Marshal take precedence over any order given by officers and NCOs of their own regiment (In that way it avoids any temptation to settle old scores using their Regimental Police role) No member of your "Battle" Police, or of the MMP or the MFP had any authority to summarily shoot anybody (Apart from the enemy) during the First World War (There was one instance of a Commanding Officer requesting that authority which was instantly refused by the Provost Marshal) - so get over it and stop being so bloody precious - Musket was just caught out trying to impart some more of his "made-up-shit" and got called for it.

Now then have I served in an Infantry Unit? Nope different service entirely but did sometime with the Royal Marines in Borneo (Sarawak and Sabah) and in Northern Ireland - good enough for you? - if not too bad, no skin of my nose at all. As to serving in an infantry unit being the sole criteria and essential qualification that would allow one to comment - I would say from the amount of complete and utter bollocks churned out by yourself and Musket that is no qualification at all - anyone who has actually studied the period in question in any detail would run circles round the pair of you, without so much as having served one day's "reckonable service".

Oh God another myth, born from a belief that whatever fiction the Beeb puts on must be the truth - "Does anyone remember Paul McGann in the Monocled Mutineer? I hear the files on what actually happened are closed until 2018..." - GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)

Now what files are closed until 2018?? Those relating to the Camp at Étaples in 1917, or those relating to the case of Percy Toplis? It is either one or the other as Percy Toplis (The Monocled Mutineer) never mutinied and he was nowhere near Étaples at the time of the incident there (Your Percy was with his Regiment and on his way to India at the time) By the way you will experience no problem at all in accessing the reports or the records for either.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:54 AM

The British legion position that the licence of the copyright owner was not needed is a lie. See the MCPS's own information sheet here https://www.prsformusic.com/.../Produ.../Product_Lic_FAQ.pdf

Additionally, the butchering of the song is an infringement of Bogle's moral rights. It is a distortion and mutilation of the work, see Section 80 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

I am frankly even more annoyed about the lies now being told by the British Legion than I am about the butchery of the song.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:52 AM

When a mod feels the need to intervene and impose reasonable authority on a thread,
surely it takes no more thought or time to instead type something along the lines of...

"As this thread no longer appears to be about the song or the recent recording.
There are two options, mods can re-designate this as a BS thread, or most likely close it.
You have been warned.-mod".....?????

Surely a lot less 'draconian' and antagonistic than summarily executing a thread...???

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:39 AM

Last night at the pictures (Interstellar - hardly overdrive, but still a blast) I saw an advert featuring the Xmas football truce. Is this a myth? I've heard suggestions...

Does anyone remember Paul McGann in the Monocled Mutineer? I hear the files on what actually happened are closed until 2018...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:38 AM

Right, Teribus, the Mods made it clear they wanted this left where it is and You have chosen to ignore it. YOU TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES, AND YES, I AM NOW SHOUTING AT YOU.

Firstly, have you ever served in an Infantry Unit? How the fuck do you know what you're talking about if you haven't? I talked about the Military "Battle" Police, not the Royal Military Police. Lets begin from basics. The practice in Army units is for everyone to take a turn on guard duty, whether in camp or in the field. The guard has the duty of protecting the unit, and it extends to dealing with stragglers, whether returning drunk from the pub or AWOL. They often have armbands to identify them, and the Duty Offficer, their Commander, is easily identifiable in the Officers' Mess, because he's the only one with a Sam Brown on. Minor crimes happen all the time, the Guard hauls them in and holds them until preferably their sergeant, failing which the CO, sorts it out. The NCOs are the people doing the work, so the Officers can advise neutrally: it's why the Duty Officer tries to keep clear other than giving the Guard their orders and a very occasional check-up that there's not problems not being reported to him. It was the same in Kipling's day, "Drunk and resisting the Guard", whose job it was to calm him down, sober him up and get him back in line before anyone noticed. The entire thing is designed to deal with it with as little fuss as possible: the CO who has to notify the RMPs of a AWOL becoming a deserter is pretty irritated, believe me: if you want out, there are other ways, nobody needs someone who's not doing their job in the Army of the last forty years, because someone else will have to do it for him. If it's something you'd put up with from one of your mates, fine, everyone turns a blind eye, the job gets done. Family and life problems also. But if you routinely fuck up, then you cease to be a mate and you're on the way out - we try to eliminate these in training, but people change. And there are times when it's not so simple, like in the line.

In WWI, most battalions had the practice of rotating one company out of the immediate front line to do the admin, getting supplies (mostly food, drink, medicines and dressings and ammunition) up to the line and all the rest of it. It also had a hidden objective: if the front-line companies got wiped out, the reserve company could act as a cadre to rebuild the unit.
It's the NCO's jobs to do that in the platoon: the Platoon Commander is usually off getting his next set of orders and planning how to put them into effect as soon as one job is finished. While he's doing that, the sergeant's doing his "mother" bit, ensuring someone's on guard, those who need to sleep sleep, everyone gets hot food, the used ammunition is resupplied, the dead get buried, the wounded sent for treatment, and their replacements assigned, so his boss has a functioning unit when he returns. The NCOs work with the Warrant officers, CSM and CQMS or one of the Staff Sergeants at Company level, RSM and RQMS at Battalion level. Part of their job is therefore making certain those doing the fighting do the fighting, and the RSM, tasked with Battaalion discipline, is the backline when shirking's concerned. Almost every execution for desertion was done against a charge from the RSM in WWI, for example: the Officers stand back to be seen to be neutral, within the linits of the culture, which I agree is a very daunting quibble. The worst would be a complete mutiny, it happened in the French Army in 1917, and could have spread. The model is Sam Small, as immortalised by Stanley Holloway: Sam, Sam, pick up tha' musket. "just for thee I'll oblige".

So, you have an image here of the RSM and his heavies, sometimes from the Reserve Company, keeping order, which means in particular making sure soldiers bloody well fight. They're sometimes called Provosts, but still not RMP Provosts who are the next line up the tree, and that's why your research doesn't find them, Terribus, because you think everything;s neatly pigeonholed - this isn't, it's part of the million-and-one parts of an RSM's job, from yelling at people slouching across the Parade Sqaure to ensuring that Private X's slut of a wife doesn't disrupt his section by screwing the Corporal whose wife is his rifle. The shennanigans of Court Martials are particularly disliked by Officers, who, you will have noticed, and not in the gang being mother-henned by the Sergeant, and who invariably get fuck all sleep. A Court-Martial comes out of their disposable time, which is firstly tasked in the line to being able to sleep so they can still think straight. In addition, the documentary BS is beyind belief. I feel much the same way here, I've got things I'd rather do than explain all this to a bunch of armchair warriors.

Part of the reason the lads from the Reserve Company do it is because if they don't, they'll be the ones sent forwards to replace the Company that's not doing the job. There tends not to be too much love lost outside the Company as a result, even now everyone thinks their Company's the best.

And under those circumstances, nobody's going to be too fussed about what happens in the way of straightener to anyone not doing their job. Straighteners still happen, which is why people like Nasr Al-Khalifa still have bodyguards: one of my chums wanted to declare informal war on him earlier this summer and had to be talked out of setting half the pikeys of the East End onto him and his to teach them the kind of lesson they badly needed. Instead, Nasr got declared persona non grata by the State Depaartment with an International Arrest Warrant on his head and my mate spent the summer in body armour, because Nasr went home to Daddy and threw his toys pout of the pram: I'm no longer welcome in the Savoy as a result. Oh, me f'in heart bleeds. The reason I'm safe is because he, Nasr, asked me for my help, and he really would lose face paying me back any worse.

You will have noticed that in theory the Officer should preempt these problems. What arose in WWI is that nobody had time to find out what the inevitable baggage a newcomer brought with him was, and so if they were of such weak character their minds snapped and they turned and legged it, then the consequences were likely to be inevitable. As I type, the BBC is talking about the effects of bullying on children, and there's some of that in these problems: life is sometimes too kind, and when you get someone immature bullied and ordered into a position where he'd rather kill himself than put up with it any longer, or commit suicide by Military Cop, then it will happen, particularly where the High Command didn't give a monkeys.

This was true at Blenheim, it was true at Waterloo, it was true in the Somme and it's true now. It will probably be true until we no longer need an Army. HOWEVER, the awareness of what's going on behind the facehas advanced, if only by learning the hard way, although we still don't sign up to all the H&S psychobabble. Nowadays, we try to kick out the bastards who still don't give a damn, as they're the sort who won't give a damn about the women and children in the way. We need soldiers who have been trained to perform under continual pressure, and this is why some of the recruiting films you'll have seen have only one in three passing the course, you may be too weak in limb, mind or morality to do the job. The Special Forces add other criteria, which is why I know them, but walked away from them, because they had not added morality to the list when I was in. It's there now, and I have friends there because they've learned I was right: for example, one of my WEU mates has Chapter 8 of the Osprey Book on Heroes of the SAS all to his little self, much to his fury: I paid him for eight years, and his pension for another ten. Which is why I calm down people wanting a slice of an Arab Crown Prince. That extra is what makes them Special, and is why I continue to argue here, because the work the folk movement can be very helpful in bringing children on to become balanced adults who know when to act and when to hold their hands. The gung-ho types have to be balanced with proportionate responsibility, or we end up in the situation where nobody can see because of an eye for an eye and nobody can hear because of an ear for an ear. It's why I ended up in WEU, I've not changed, I was always a moderating force on new officers coming in full of "I'm the Colonel of the 4th Foot and Mouth and had 2000 serving men": we taught them that their new serving men were Kipling's 5: What, and Who, and Where, and Why, and When. Or for that matter Warsaw Pact people who'd been brought up to be afraid of their won shadows, and had to be taught that they had a valuable voice and opinion from what they had spent their time observing. WEU succeeded because we made the diplomats and military talk to each other, and exercise jaw-jaw instead of war-war. It's the futurte of the world, and not the guys who react to the red fog of war.

And foremost among them at the moment seems to be you, dearest Teribus. When you try to dis me like you have, I'm human, and get insulted, and may treat you with the contempt you have undoubtedly earned. I've been around diplomats for long enough to count to ten, but when, having counted to ten, you still are a prat preaching respect for the armed forces but not observing it when it comes to it, then you live with the consequences. Let's put it this way. I'm never likely to want to perform with you if ever I discover your real identity. Max knows mine, and has checked my background: my friends detected his checking and asked me who he was, as they were concerned about my arse during the summer's contretemps. That will have to satisfy you.

So, have you ever served in an infantry unit?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:35 AM

When posters stray well off the musical topic they should have the good grace to open a new thread below the line ASAP and leave us to our music.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 07:27 AM

"We executed men for cowardice."
Very true Musket that did happen it was a -Fact - In FACT out of an Army of some 5.5 million men we executed 17 of them for "Cowardice".

"Court Martials were quick summary affairs."
Sorry Musket not a fact - it is another one of your myths:

"Between August 1914 and 31 March 1920, just over 3,000 men were sentenced to death in British army courts martial. Offences included desertion (by far the most common capital crime), cowardice, murder, espionage, mutiny and striking a superior officer. In roughly 90% of cases, the sentence was commuted to hard labour or penal servitude."

In the British army, there were four types of courts martial. Only two of them - the general court martial (GCM) and the field general court martial (FGCM) - were invested with the authority to sanction the death penalty. Before any death sentence was carried out all papers relating to the case had to be reviewed at Army HQ and any death warrant had to be signed by the Commander of the British Army - So not all that quick or summary in nature at all.

"Red tops shot and wounded men found behind lines."
Another instance of you just making stuff up I'm afraid - another of your myths - not one instance of this ever happening - for any member of the armed forces to act in this way would be illegal - Fact. You are welcome to provide us with evidence to the contrary - I won't hold my breath.

The records to substantiate all I have stated above are in the public domain and have been for some considerable time.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 06:23 AM

I suspect this thread is destined to be moved below the line....

Kitty

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 06:04 AM

We executed men for cowardice. Fact. Court Martials were quick summary affairs. Fact. Red tops shot and wounded men found behind lines. Fact.

I think the establishment is rewriting history successfully without cap doffering support by peasants thank you very much. In their eyes, you are "other ranks" so your blind attacks on reality aren't even appreciated by those you fawn over.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:56 AM

Ah so GUEST,Rahere - No examples of Military Police forcing men "over-the-top" or of any summary executions then.

But not having the honesty or integrity to admit to your mistakes what do we get? Threats to someone who has as yet not even contributed to this thread.

Very pleased to hear that as a "beancounter" you can in fact count to ten - I take it that you could only reach twenty if someone else untied your shoe laces and took your socks off.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:28 AM

How I wish we could actually talk about music and do something positive here. But as I've been there and done it, I've not got much choice, which doesn't leave me feeling very nice about certain people, Teribus and Keith right up top of the list, and I'm starting to have to count to ten. Let's stop right here before I travel up to Hertford, not far from me, and cut the strings on Keith's guitar.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:05 AM

An example of what GUEST,Rahere is on about:

" GUEST,Rahere - PM
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 06:11 AM

Keith
If posting Military "Battle" Police immediately behind the front line checking the trenches for anyone who didn't go "over the top", driving them over if necessary, and subesquently executing anyone who escaped them for cowardice"

Complete and utter MYTH - it never happened - no doubt that GUEST,Rahere will be able to give us chapter and verse on any such incident - he'll have trouble doing that as there were none.

British Military Police on the Western Front

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:44 AM

I don't think anything's been demolished here, Rahere. Nor do I believe there is such a creature as a poppy-junky (not in that sense anyway!). I do believe in dialogue though. And letting people talk whilst they're still talking, especially on such an emotive issue as this one.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:19 AM

Well, we had made the case and demolished the poppy-junkies, and deservedly so. Let it Rest In Peace.

Subject: RE: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:18 AM

For FERAL read REAL. Although feral's good too. Damn my new Macbook Pro and its corrective predictions...

Subject: Obit: The No-Man's Land Thread
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:15 AM

Rather than re-designate this as a BS thread, I'm going to close it, as it's no longer about the song or the recent recording. -mod

The most depressingly offensive words you'll ever read on Mudcat. God knoweth there's enough faceless bureaucracy in the feral world without having it here as well.

For shame & despair!

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 10:41 AM

Please look back to the Christmas Truce thread where I quoted and linked to about a dozen working, publishing Historians while vainly asking for any dissenters.
I included most of those listed by BBC as the leading ten.
I included all those who contributed to the BBC History site's pages on WW1 and the OU History Dept. who provided the research fo the Paxman series.

Musket, your suggestion that all current Historians are involved in a plot to suppress the truth is ludicrous.
Desperation!

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 10:31 AM

A worthwhile & noble cause and war...???

... so which individuals, armaments manufacturers, ancillary product suppliers, etc, and Nations
profiteered most from sustaining WW1 for so many long tragic years...???

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Musket
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 09:56 AM

I don't confuse. It was context. That said, there is more symmetry between MOD and top brass military than DoH and NHS. Trust me.

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 09:31 AM

Keith, in case nobody ever told you, I'll do you a favour: you're about as arrogant a git as I've ever come across, and I work with historians. You're so far up your own arse you think you can see sunlight, because you're cleaning your teeth from the tonsils end.
Your problem is probably that you get your history from the crap end of the daytime TV channels, which specialise in the "historic" study of the socialist policies of the National Socialist Party of Germany, focusing on the performance of the Messerschmidt 109, and their brethren in the gutter press, After The Battle and its descendants, whatever it is now.

Musket, be careful not to confuse the MOD and fighting forces. The teeth end have as little as feasibly possible to do with the MOD, because the latter are a bunch of time-serving civvies whose service is something associated with the form used in the CofE: all faith and only by a miracle does anything actually result. You could fire the lot and the delivery of the Military would shoot up.
Whether it is anything to do with the reality that they're mostly distributed in places like Llangennech and Runcorn, which make Little Britain look like a documentary, and recruit locally, I leave up to you.

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 09:14 AM

Keith could you let me have names of historians you have read or even better the books concerned.

Ta

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Musket
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 08:48 AM

Point of order. You can't call older views revisionist vis a vis new views.

Funny how they all got their donkeys barbecued on the road to Damascus about the same time the establishment wanted history sanitising in order to make the armed forces look better than they are. Too many dead soldiers in recent conflicts. Can't have poor leadership questioned now they can be sued by widows for not leading and protecting their men eh?

(Just in case anyone wondered what all the recent sanitising of incompetence is all about.

As someone once charged with looking at efficiency in The NHS, the criminal waste and corruption of The MOD is something I take more than a passing interest in.)

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 08:13 AM

I am fully aware that a previous generation of Historians held those revisionist views.
I Have always had an interest in those events and back in the 60s and 70s accepted those views myself.
All the current historians I have come across reject those views.
I have found no dissenters and neither has anyone else.
I am not so arrogant as to believe that my opinion is worth more than the historians'.
I merely point out that Musket's views are not supported by current historians.

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Musket
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 08:04 AM

Gosh, maybe I'm not a liar after all?

Who'd have thought it...

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 06:56 AM

The Guest at 5.59 was me

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 06:45 AM

Checking back, has Keith ever posted anything about real music? I've just checked his profile for the last couple of months, and he's not posted a thing other than being argumentative, which suggests he's fallen prey to self-aggrandisement, at least. Which is a subtle way of saying, get a life, man.

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 06:11 AM

Keith
If posting Military "Battle" Police immediately behind the front line checking the trenches for anyone who didn't go "over the top", driving them over if necessary, and subesquently executing anyone who escaped them for cowardice, regardless of any other considerations, whith only a death from enemy machine guns as the likely outcome in front, is not callous disregard for human life, then I don't know what is.
Mind you, the fact you can trot out that argument shows you share the same fault. Callous disregard for human life.

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 05:59 AM

Keith,

The ringing endorsements you suggest have been made of the British leadership include the following.

Churchill's judgement on Haig was he "wore down alike the manhood and the guns of the British Army almost to destruction"

The Military Historian Sir John Keegan wrote "On the Somme, (Haig)had sent the flower of British Youth to death or mutilation, at Passchendaele he had tipped the survivors into the slough of despond"

JFC Fuller wrote of Passchendaele "to persist ... in this tactically impossible battle was an inexcusable piece of pigheadness on the part of Haig"

The historian B H Liddell Hart (himself a veteran) wrote "He (Haig) was a man of extreme egoism and utter lack of scruple, who, to his overweening ambition, sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men. A man who betrayed even his most devoted assistants as well as the government he served. A man who gained his ends by trickery of a kind that was not merely immoral but criminal"

Praise indeed.

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 05:35 AM

Are we posting in duplicate now?

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 04:57 AM

There was no callous disregard for human life.
On the question of the leadership of the army, historians have reached a different conclusion to yours Musket.
Perhaps you are aware of something that they have all missed.
I just think you are incapable of seeing beyond your prejudice and ignorance.

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 02:24 AM

I don't disagree with any of that. I simply don't understand how such considerations in any way "damn the dead". They don't seem to me to imply any lack of respect or compassion for those who died. Could you elucidate what exactly you meant by that particular phrase, please?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: Musket
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 02:03 AM

For me, your post above misses the point. You speak of politics of the day and you speak of views about the war and justification of it. Those two aspects rely on how people thought back then.

What you are not factoring into your post is the callous disregard for human life that fuelled said politics and goals. You don't seem to be taking on board the well documented incompetence and poor leadership, or the jingoism and propaganda used to lure young men to their death, or indeed their lives from that point onwards being so so different.

That's what is so wrong about the armchair wannabe fools who keep cropping up to defend the awful sanitising of war who wish to rewrite history to make it look as if the gung ho top brass knew what they were doing. The biggest stain the revisionist lot have inflicted is make Blackadder possibly the nearest we have to the attitudes of the day. When a comic parody described attitudes better than the Michael Gove team of historians, something somewhere stinks.

Subject: RE: No man's land protest
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 01:18 AM

In what way does difference over political motivations a century ago 'damn the dead'? One can respect their memory without having to agree with all those who denounce the very fact of the war's having occurred. NB that this is not a statement of justification for the war itself, merely for the right to discuss the limited aspects of the topic which this thread addresses.

In which connection, I have no idea of what Troubadour's question to me a few posts above implies? I put a non-rhetorical question, and did not suggest any answer. How does my doing my so suggest that I think that moral principles should be shelved while its implications are considered?

≈M≈