WWI, was No-Man's Land

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:35 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: 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 - 01:42 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 - 01:52 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: 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 - 01:57 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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