WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:16 PM

Jim, I have read extensively on this, and I have supplied actual quotes from actual historians available on the net.
In recent days I have given you a historian writing in the Times Higher Educational Supplement and an article by another eminent historian, Dan Todman.
On the old threads I gave you actual quotes of Hastings, Brown, Sheffield and many others.
It is easy to find historians who rubbish your views because they ALL do.
You have not found a single one who believes what you do because it is just politically motivated shit.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 05:40 AM

Yeah, err... Rock on Terribulus.

After all, of course he did understand from your perspective. You seem to share a common delusion.

🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:37 AM

" Musket - 21 Nov 14 - 04:33 PM

You have obviously read a lot. No question.

Did you understand any of it?"

Obviously a damned sight more than you ever did.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:11 AM

"I quoted numerous eminent , well known and well qualified historians in their own words"
No you didn't Keith - you 'referred' to historians who you claimed backed your case - you always do.
How can you quote from historians you haven't read.
You select bits from the net which appear to back your case, but taken in context, say exactly the opposite, Christine Kenealy, the writer on the Irish Famine being a typical case - one minute the oracle of British defence, the next, a Republican monster.
Max Hastings the same - twice you've been given a summary of his view of the war, yet you ignore it and cling on to him as a supporter
Max Hastings' hatred for the military
Easily sorted, of course – give us all the names NOW of those you claim back your case along along with what they have to say (remember – you claim that "all modern historians do, so it should be easy), and you may have a point.
You really can't expect to be taken seriously unless you are prepared to put your money where your jingoistic mouth is, otherwise you will remain the flag-wagging rightist you are thought to be.
At least Terrytoon seems to have a little knowledge of his subject, even if it is only from Boys Own and Dan Dare comics
Go read a book
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw economically-minded
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:52 PM

Just saving the keystrokes, Keith? Do consider extending that policy.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:46 PM

Jim, look back at the Armistice and Christmas Truce threads.
I quoted numerous eminent , well known and well qualified historians in their own words.
Steve, by you people I meant you Jim and Musket.
Just saving the keystrokes.
Musket, it is not hard to understand.
I say what they say while you can only quote the long dead and discredited.
You lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:42 PM

"I have quoted numerous historians, all living or recently decd."
Which ones and what did they say?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw sayin' it all
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:35 PM

"You people." Says it all really.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:33 PM

You have obviously read a lot. No question.

Did you understand any of it?

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:27 PM

No opinion on UKIP.
I am very well read on the History of WWI and I have quoted numerous historians, all living or recently decd.
You people have nothing but your own prejudice and preconceptions.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 02:54 PM

"I get my history from the historians"
Who are they and what do they say?
And more to the point - how do you communicate with them - ouija board maybe - you don't read
What a clown - who needs circuses?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw co-tosser (alleged)
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 02:39 PM

Shall we get him going?


Ahem:


God, UKIP. What a bunch of xenophobic, racist, demented pillocks!


Keith...?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:43 PM

He's on about two mugs of Ovaltine I reckon.

Be fair to the poor bugger Steve. He just admitted he isn't very good at researching his claims. He can't find any historians who disagree with his absurdity for starters. This despite his stance being shot down in flames somewhere up the page by someone who quotes the historians he names saying the exact opposite of whatever he is waffling on about.

Tell you what Co Messiah. If you and I start saying how caring and comptetent the top brass were and how grateful families were for being able to sacrifice their fathers, sons and husbands... I guarantee that within hours, Keith will be saying the exact opposite. He even defends homophobia and Israeli terrorism so long as it makes you or I look like tossers.

Snag is, I am a tosser. It's a monthly thing....

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:03 PM

And what precisely do you suspect I believe that no historian believes? What details of the Somme do you dispute (not that I've given any details for you to dispute in any case)? In other words, what are you on about?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 12:43 PM

No valiant defence from me.
I get my history from the historians.
Where do you get yours?
Not one historian believes (present tense) what you people believe.

Unless you can claim superior knowledge to the actual historians you have lost the argument.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM

A different planet to dead soldiers, and a different planet to the rest of us. Good job there are enough planets to go round...

Look on the bright side. In his post above, Terribulus is already conceding there were mistakes and they were all 1914 and 1915. I call that progress... Give him a few months and he he might ask himself why he felt it necessary to remove two years from his argument.. Only two more to go then.

Give him even longer and he might get interested in WW2. Then he might read what I mentioned about WW2 officers and the (Keith likes this next word) eminent writing of A J P Taylor.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 10:52 AM

Well now, I'm no historian, am I. But anyone reading Teribus's and Keith's valiant defence of the organisation and competence of the British military leadership, who then goes on to read an account of the Battle of the Somme, will come away wondering what bloody planet these two are on.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:51 AM

""I am more inclined to give credence to the senior officers in WW2 who, as junior officers in WW1, didn't wish to make their senior officer's mistakes and cost unnecessary lives."

Also rather strange Musket that if you actually believe that, that you blithely ignore, or completely deny the fact that there were officers who learned from their mistakes in 1914 and 1915 and applied them in 1916, 1917 and in 1918. How is that? Do you think that they all signed a piece of paper to agree what rules they were going to play this war under and that there could be no changes of rules until the next world war kicked off? For that is how that argument of yours quoted above comes over as - if you do think that then you are a complete and utter idiot.

Oh and the way things changed between Loos in 1915 and Amiens in 1918 was the difference between chalk and cheese, all those changes wrought by those in command of the British Armies in France and those changes Musket old son basically still hold good - they still determine in basic form how conventional land battles are fought to this day.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:23 AM

"I am more inclined to give credence to the senior officers in WW2 who, as junior officers in WW1, didn't wish to make their senior officer's mistakes and cost unnecessary lives."

And instances demonstrating that Musket are?

Instances of those senior officers in WW2 coming up against the situations senior officers in WW1 faced are? (They did occur and I can tell you what happened and how those situations were dealt with)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:10 AM

Gosh.. All these cut and pastes of views of people not even on Mudcat but no debate or opinion based on assessment of the myriad views.

Being a bit selective, aren't we?

A bit, you know, stating that war happened rather than how it was executed?

Like I said, I am more inclined to give credence to the senior officers in WW2 who, as junior officers in WW1, didn't wish to make their senior officer's mistakes and cost unnecessary lives.

Or is AJP Taylor a discredited donkey too?

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 08:36 AM

PFR - As far as Great Britain was concerned the thing that made her entry into the Great War on the side of the Allied Powers of France and Russia against Germany was something that could only have been prevented by Germany not mobilising her troops.

The 1839 Treaty of London guaranteed the neutrality and sovereign integrity of Belgium.

The German war plan for any battle against France required the drawing of French troops into an attack in Alsace-Lorraine while German forces attacked France through Luxembourg and Belgium - This was von Moltke's revision of the former Schleiffen Plan which also involved German troops invading The Netherlands. As road and rail networks in Belgium would be congested the Germans could not carry out a full mobilisation of troops and hold them massed within her own borders. The Germans had to carry-out a simultaneous mobilisation and invasion otherwise bottle-necks would develop and the attack would falter and the plan would fail.

Once Germany violated Belgian neutrality then Great Britain would enter the conflict - nothing whatsoever could have been done by "politicians" or "industrialists" in Great Britain to prevent that from happening it was entirely in the hands of the German Emperor, his Generals and the German Imperial General Staff. They wanted war and they got it.

In defence of the British "Industrialists" it took them two years to shake off the inertia and get the country's industrial might fully behind the war effort. I said before if you are planning to fight a war you prepare for it before hand - As far as her industries went Great Britain was totally unprepared in 1914.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 08:13 AM

Just applying a little tweaking to better qualify a point..

"The ones that aspired to make most personal gain from it not being prevented from happening ???"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolrocker
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 07:51 AM

"Really PFR and what "politicians" and industrialists "conspired" to make the First World War happen?" ***

errr... the ones that made it happen...???

The ones that made most personal gain from it not being prevented from happening ???

It surely was not an 'act of god' or 'natural disaster'...

See.. the beauty of applying a deliberate simplistic 'naive'
[ .. and perhaps a smidgeon tongue in cheek, 'marxist' theoretical] analysis
to great events of mass human destruction and despair,
is that it can effectively cut to the essential core of the most profoundly vile human culpability...



*** of course there are serious and respectable academic sources to explore & research,
which may most probably name & shame individual power players,
if you're keen on expending hours reading up on that sort of thing...

History is not my chosen hobby.. a reasonably well informed minimalist framework
is sufficient for my own personal need for understanding...

..that world war is not a particularly sensible or welcome solution to disagreements between sociopathic wealthy power elites..

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:58 AM

Gerard DeGroot not what I just said.
Same article.

On February 3 1928, the British paid their respects to a departed hero. Crowds lined London streets as the funeral cortege bearing Field Marshal Earl Haig made its way to Westminster Abbey. Rarely in this century has a death been lamented so deeply. Then, not long after the funeral, Haig was transformed from war hero into the "Butcher of the Somme" whose stubborn adherence to outdated tactics caused needless sacrifice. When the British felt the need for a scapegoat, they created one in Haig.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:52 AM

Times Higher Educational Supplement, by historian De Gerood,

But was he (Haig)so bad? He was in some respects singularly appropriate to 20th-century industrial war. A brilliant administrator, he made sure that his men were well fed and clothed, and that wounds were dressed with appropriate speed. We have Haig to thank for the fact that the British army was the only major force which did not suffer a serious collapse of morale.

He has commonly been blamed for causing a war of attrition. But attrition was inevitable. In this war, heavily laden men had to walk unprotected over broken ground enfiladed by machine gun fire, blasted by artillery, obstructed by barbed wire and poisoned by gas. Trenches were not Haig's invention, they were a natural human response to the problem of exposure and the risk of annihilation. Haig's mistake was that he thought he could restore movement to this inevitably static war. Lives were needlessly lost because of this error. But this loss should be measured in thousands of dead, not, as his detractors think, in hundreds of thousands.

Haig has been accused, perhaps justifiably, of being insensitive to suffering. His religious beliefs may have inspired a confident but dangerous fatalism. Certainty in life everlasting could have caused him to be careless with lives temporal. But, given that this war was destined to involve massive losses, would a more sensitive commander have succeeded?

While many soldiers would eventually remember Haig as the Butcher of the Somme, few thought of him in these terms at the time. What is striking are the countless examples of deep respect. Corporal H. Milward, given some food by Haig when the latter passed him in his car, later remarked: "how extraordinary it was that a man with so much responsibility could find time to think of the wants of a humble soldier." Anecdotal though such comments might be, they are nevertheless far more prevalent than derisory references.

The reaction against Haig was a post-1928 and largely middle-class phenomenon. As the years passed, sections of the middle class began to feel shame over what they saw as a betrayal of working-class trust by Haig. This upsurge of remorse was fuelled by disillusioned war poets, by anguished writers like Vera Brittain and Richard Aldington, and by the vitriolic memoirs of David Lloyd George. Every A-level English student today reads Siegfried Sassoon, whose poetical general "speeds glum heroes up the line to death" while he sits "guzzling and gulping in the best hotel". The great mistake is to assume that this outpouring of middle-class guilt was echoed across the social spectrum. The war poetry of Sassoon, Wilfred Owen et al has endured because it is stylistically "good" and because it embodies an accepted vision of the war as futile. We tend to forget (or remain blissfully unaware) that the vast majority of war poetry supported the war effort and idolised Haig right up to November 1918. Every Armistice Day renews the ritual of Haig-bashing in a ceaseless barrage of castigation. Hatred has been made up in retrospect; ordinary soldiers now swear that they always despised the butcher Haig.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:02 AM

"The leadership was poor and focused on impressing political leaders, leading to disaffected front line staff and poor care."

That may well indeed be the case as you found it within the upper echelons of the top-heavy, over bureaucratic management that exists in today's NHS but it most certainly was not the case with the British Army during the course of the First World War if you compare the size, state and capability of that Army between August 1914 and August 1918.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:57 AM

You can have my point again.
Military historians all accept that the army was an effective fighting force and competently led.
Musket and Jim think they know more about it than them, on the basis of nothing but their political ideology.

I am happy to let them think they have won the argument on that while normal people will know better.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:02 AM

You'd have been safer lying in a field and praying. I had the unfortunate task of being part of the original Healthcare Commission investigation that found the problems there, and those at Maidstone too. I also was a technical advisor to the Francis affair, gave evidence to it and helped draft the recommendations. I resigned from being an advisor at The Care Quality Commission when I saw how Mid Staffs had been buried and I had no confidence in the then leadership. For the record, none of those leaders whose incompetence matched the Mid Staffs board are there any more.

You have chosen a brilliant comparison. The leadership was poor and focussed on impressing political leaders, leading to disaffected front line staff and poor care. Sounds like WW1 in many ways.

Mind you, I have never been a manager in either military or NHS, so I can only profess sympathy rather than empathy.

Sorry, what was your point again?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 03:23 AM

"Planning wars...

Oh, so they planned the wholesale slaughter and carnage?"

Yes aggressors generally do if they have any idea what they are about.

Others plan other things as well...

that result in wholesale carnage - like at the Stafford Hospital Musket, where between 2005 and 2008 you would have been safer on foot patrol in Sangin District, Helmand Provence, Afghanistan than you would have been entering the Accident & Emergency Depart of that hospital.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 03:02 AM

Planning wars...

Oh, so they planned the wholesale slaughter and carnage?

Why didn't you say? Might have saved us a lot of time

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:45 AM

Really PFR and what "politicians" and industrialists "conspired" to make the First World War happen?

As for your first point related to "Military Historians" ...... That is ludicrous because to examine in detail how a war was fought you must first examine in detail the period that led up to it happening as wars are not initiated and fought by the aggressor at the drop of a hat or on the spur of the moment - a great deal of time consuming planning and preparation is required.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 02:46 PM

Military historians place the emphasis of their interest on how wars were faught...
not on how politicians & industrialists conspired to profit from making them happen.....???

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 01:35 PM

Military historians say they were, but Musket thinks they are all wrong.
I am happy to leave it there.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 09:45 AM

so lets get this right. They were competent because other armies were less competent?

You ought to go on the fucking stage. I'd come and laugh at you.

😹😹😹







💩💤

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 06:41 AM

"In the meantime, search for photos of "white crosses" and "white rectangular headstones that don't scan so well in a song" and ask yourself how competent leadership leads to this."

Now let me see:

Here in this graveyard it's still No Mans Land
Countless white crosses in mute witness stand"

Compared to:

Here in this graveyard it's still No Mans Land
Countless white headstones in mute witness stand"

Seems to scan well enough for me Musket. The original is accurate if it refers to an American War Cemetery while the latter more accurately describes a British or Commonwealth War Cemetery.

By the way Musket when nations go to war with each other people do tend to die.

"dig out the AJP Taylor bits on WW2 where he writes at length of the senior officers who were better leaders because they were junior officers in the first war and learned from seeing the "awful mistakes and rhetoric" of their old commanding officers."

Ah so you do not deny that lessons were learned then and it is only due to your lack of knowledge, inability to grasp details or understand the written word that you deny that lessons were actually learned during the course of both the First and the Second World Wars.

As far as the First World War goes Britain started out with the smallest Army and then ended up with one of a size comparable to the major European Powers and one that hadn't mutinied in the field and was still capable of undertaking offensive operations.

Now look at those offensive operations - the Germans in Operation Michael in the Spring of 1918 were trying to do the same thing as they tried in 1914 and they were trying to do it almost exactly the same way with hundreds of thousands more men - the result? - They were stopped just as they had been before on the Marne. But look what happened just three weeks after they had been stopped and their offensive ran out of steam - the 100 days offensive undertaken by the British and Commonwealth Armies - the most successful campaign ever fought by a British Army EVER.

Did they use the same tactics as they had used in 1915 - No.
Did they use the same tactics as they had used in 1916 - In part.
Did they use the same tactics as they had used in 1917 - In the main but vastly improved.

When they went over onto what would be the final offensive of the Great War they applied lessons learned from 1914 onwards:

- Optimised time of attack for the attacking force
- Creeping Barrage
- Infantry attacks supported by armour (British Invention)
- Infantry supplied with hot food and ammunition and reinforced using armour
- Close ground support and artillery spotting by aircraft
- Exploitation of local "gaps" by cavalry and by a special type of fast tank

Compared to either the Germans or the French the British were far better better led and that is the judgement of History demonstrated by fact (Almost by every metric could could wish to name).

The fact that you cannot recognise it makes you the ignorant, ill-informed fool.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 05:16 AM

Why dig out facts Musket?
Because they expose your ignorance.
You are known for making assertions and just insulting anyone who disagrees.
Baseless assertion is not debate.
Debate involves making a case and supporting it with evidence and fact.
You just can't do that so you don't like it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 04:41 AM

Why "dig out" facts? This is a debate, not a race to see who can find the most trivia on the internet, fool.

If you love digging, dig out the AJP Taylor bits on WW2 where he writes at length of the senior officers who were better leaders because they were junior officers in the first war and learned from seeing the "awful mistakes and rhetoric" of their old commanding officers.

In the meantime, search for photos of "white crosses" and "white rectangular headstones that don't scan so well in a song" and ask yourself how competent leadership leads to this.

Fool Take II

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Elmore
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 09:02 PM

Eric Bogle is one of the kindest, most charming people I've met. However, he smokes cigarettes and should be drawn and quartered

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 05:25 AM

Rather liked this bit of nonsense from Musket:

"Any chance of digging out a few facts instead?"

You've got some nerve Musket - Any chance of you ever digging out ANY facts instead of your usual clichéd "made-up-shit"?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 04:39 AM

Ah.. Crosses versus rectangular Slabs.

I don't recall mentioning any soldier in particular and there are many Americans with their cross shaped headstones anyway.

Any chance of digging out a few facts instead?

After all, there are some lefty type chaps reading.

zzzzz

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 04:16 AM

From Matthew Stewart's review of Brian Bond's: "The Unquiet Western Front: Britain's Role in Literature and History."

1: Bond's overall conception of World War I is straightforward: "It was, for Britain, a necessary and successful war, and an outstanding achievement for a democratic nation in arms"

2: The first chapter contains one reminder that neither historian nor imaginative artist can afford to ignore: to understand the people of a past age requires a suppression of our own attitudes and post-hoc conclusions. All social classes saw the war as "a literal crusade against uncivilized behaviour." and this attitude was not entirely jettisoned in 1916, 1917 or 1918, even after the public's initial ignorance was replaced by knowledge of modern warfare's horrific powers of destruction. That is the historical reality and the prevailing ironic view of the war in 2003 is the product or after-the-fact mythologizing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 03:45 AM

Musket - 18 Nov 14 - 12:46 PM

"The countless White crosses in mute stand"

Ah so Willie McBride was an American then? Any explanation therefore for him dying back there in 1916?

"Meanwhile back at the ranch, we appear to be discussing whether "winning" equates to effectiveness."

Ehmmm no Musket I believe that it was you who started wittering on about wars being conducted effectively ( Musket - 18 Nov 14 - 09:08 AM) and you have simply been asked what metrics if any you use to judge whether a war is conducted "effectively" or not and if "winning" said war would be one of them. Most, if not all questions asked of you remain unanswered, so become rhetorical.

You certainly DO need to start reading something from the non-fiction section as it might increase your general knowledge and might reduce your output of easily dismissed "made-up-shit".

Found any instances of "Red tops" shooting and wounding men found behind the lines yet Musket? - NO - thought not - Example of Musket "Made-up-Shit".

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:10 PM

I accept what you say PFR and I think you are an honest poster.

When truth is presented here against fashionable political myth, I think it strengthens the forum.
I too am a "lefty" sort of bloke, but I'm no damned "liberal"   :0)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 02:05 PM

akenaton - I'm a lefty liberal sort of bloke...

Who in their right mind should disagree ???

"its refreshing to see truth upheld in the face of myth and popular political ideology...

.. Time some more of the myths attached to our society were exposed for what they are...."



Key words for my personal mindset have always been - 'objectivity' - 'rationality' - 'integrity' - 'honesty'...

I reiterate.. I am a lefty liberal sort of bloke...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:53 PM

Well I'm no expert on warfare, and Mr T and Keith are obviously well read on the subject, so its refreshing to see truth upheld in the face of myth and popular political ideology.

Time some more of the myths attached to our society were exposed for what they are, "liberal" fairy tales.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:25 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Here historian Dan Snow debunks WWI myths including donkey myth.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:17 PM

☝☝☝☝☝☝☝☝-up .....

Who gives a flying one what old Muskibumz reads?

Hmmmm. Thought not······

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:16 PM

Dr Gary Sheffield on BBC History site rubbishes Donkey myth.
His conclusion,
He (Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:46 PM

All together now..

The countless White crosses in mute stand
To man's blind indifference to his fellow man
To a whole generation, butchered and damned.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, we appear to be discussing whether "winning" equates to effectiveness.

I might as well start reading The Daily M*il as log onto this shit. Tell me, do you all wear army surplus cammy jackets and go off roading in old Land Rovers, pretending you are soldiers?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:38 PM

Peter Simkins, senior historian at the Imperiall War Museum reported by BBC.
Extracts
What is much less widely known is that 78 British and Dominion officers of the rank of Brigadier General and above died on active service in the First World War while a further 146 were wounded. These figures alone show that, contrary to popular belief, British Generals frequently went close enough to the battle zone to place themselves in considerable danger.


During the period known as the "Hundred Days", the British and Dominion divisions on the Western Front won a dozen major victories - the greatest series of victories in the British Army's whole history, and also the only time in British history that the British Army has engaged and defeated the main body of the main enemy in a continental war.

In the process, Haig's armies took 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns - only 7,800 prisoners and 935 guns less than those taken by the French, Belgian and American armies combined.

These successes were not the result of accident or luck. They were, of course, achieved above all by the courage and endurance of the front-line soldiers.

But the senior commanders too played their part. They did, after all, oversee and encourage the tactical and technological improvements which transformed the abilities and striking-power of Britain's first ever mass citizen army between 1916-1918.


As the historian Ian Malcolm Brown has pointed out in his recent book British Logistics on the Western Font (Praeger 1998), all this was made possible by an excellent administrative and transport system that, in 1918, not only enabled Haig to deliver attacks of tremendous power but also to switch the point of attack to another sector at short notice - so keeping the Germans off balance.