WWI, was No-Man's Land

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.