WWI, was No-Man's Land

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.