Honoured At Last

[Waffenlandser]

Nothing to do with the SAD debate, Barry - just thought I'd point out that you have the flag upside down. Unofficially, that orientation is regarded as a sign of distress.............

Andy.

The Flag was meant to be upside down. In memory of the men who died. I dont have enough room for a flag pole or it would have been at half mast.

[Northern Soul]

The Flag was meant to be upside down. In memory of the men who died. I dont have enough room for a flag pole or it would have been at half mast.

Thouight it must have been something like that. Very moving - the pistol holsters give it added pathos.

The Soviet flag is there to commemorate all those murdered by Lenin and Stalin, no doubt?

[Waffenlandser]

Thouight it must have been something like that. Very moving - the pistol holsters give it added pathos.

The Soviet flag is there to commemorate all those murdered by Lenin and Stalin, no doubt?

If you look carefully you will see three Russian Moisin Nagant rifles on your right. All are Finnish refurbs that actually fought the Russians in the winter war.

I have no sympathy with either of the two comrades you mention

[PMHart]

I see the death penalty was confirmed by Haig.

Well its one of several hundred thousand he signed.

Blimey,

Haig, must have sufered terribly from repetitive strain injury or RSI to lovers of sad acronyms! Several hunded thousand death sentences over three years - that works out at thousands a day - you're right that Haig was an utter cad and bounder! A murderer! A beast! A slavering monster with the blood of his innocent victims oozing from his jaws! The most evil man who ever lived! A demon! An evil despot! Golly you could just smack his bottom couldn't you! I bet you could couldn't you! Oh go on!!!

Of course if this 'fact' is wrong then you're just a blithering idiot! Remember you're going to prove that Haig signed several hundred thousand death sentences! Best of luck! Or do you just mean he was in charge of an army of millions in a continental war against a country with the best army and biggest economy in the world - no not Lithuania - Germany!

But I have faith in you oh Anonymous Enfield Collector! You wouldn't let us down by putting up nonsense and wasting our time better spent stacking and re-stacking facts back to front and **** about face! Would you?

Pete

[59165]

But I have faith in you oh Anonymous Enfield Collector!

Pete

He's called Barry,Pete .Not too anonymous & not due the title 'blithering idiot'.

Dave.

[Waffenlandser]

Of course if this 'fact' is wrong then you're just a blithering idiot! Remember you're going to prove that Haig signed several hundred thousand death sentences! Best of luck! Or do you just mean he was in charge of an army of millions in a continental war against a country with the best army and biggest economy in the world - no not Lithuania - Germany!

But I have faith in you oh Anonymous Enfield Collector! You wouldn't let us down by putting up nonsense and wasting our time better spent stacking and re-stacking facts back to front and **** about face! Would you?

When you run out of arguments, call your opponent names.

about 20 years after Haig's "victories", Germany was once more one of the most powerful nations on earth and certainly did have the best army as illustrated by Dunkirk, The blitzkrieg through Europe, Dieppe and Narvik. I believe the Wehrmacht trotted through the Somme in 24 hours.

Its Germany wer'e talking about here, definitely not Lithuania that was overun in a week or two.

Visiting the Somme battlefield in northern France is largely a matter of going from one Commonwealth Graves Commission cemetery to another. The graveyards are everywhere, some of them very small, comprising only a handful of white Portland marble stones, many bearing the inscription, A Soldier of the Great War / Known unto God. One sees so many of these cemeteries and so many stones—along with the vast memorial at Thievpal bearing the names of some 70,000 British soldiers whose bodies were never recovered—that after a few hours of it, you feel numb. Overwhelmed.

The magnitude of the battle still stuns the imagination. The Somme was an epic of both slaughter and futility; a profligate waste of men and materiel such as the world had never seen. On the morning of July 1, 1916, 110,000 British infantrymen went “over the top.” In a few hours, 60,000 of them were casualties. Nearly 20,000 of these were either dead already or would die of their wounds, many of them lingering for days between the trenches, in no man’s land. The attacking forces did not gain a single one of their objectives.

Even so, a staff colonel had the cheek to write: “The events of July 1st bore out the conclusions of the British higher command and amply justified the tactical methods employed.”

Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, chief of staff of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and architect of the battle, evidently agreed. On the day after the debacle, stating that the enemy “has undoubtedly been shaken and has few reserves in hand,” he discussed with subordinates methods for continuing the offensive.

Which he did, with a kind of transcendent stubbornness, for another four months, until winter weather forced an end to the campaign, if not the fighting. By then, Haig’s army had suffered more than 400,000 casualties. For the British, in the grave judgment of noted military historian John Keegan, “the battle was the greatest tragedy…of their national military history” and “marked the end of an age of vital optimism in British life that has never been recovered.”

But Haig was not finished yet.

The great commanders of history fascinate us, and we read their biographies looking for one or more character attributes we believe accounted for their success. With Napoleon, for example, we think imagination. In Lee, we see audacity. Wellington, composure. Hannibal, daring. Of course, truly great generals seem to possess all these qualities to some degree. They are artists of a kind, blending in one person intelligence, intuition, courage, calculation and many other traits that allow them to see what others cannot and to act when the time is right. For students of military history, the question of what makes great commanders is inexhaustibly fascinating.

We are, naturally, not intrigued by unsuccessful generals any more than we like to read about ballplayers who hit .200 lifetime. There is nothing edifying in the biography of, say, Ambrose Burnside or any of the Union generals tormented by Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley.

But Douglas Haig may be the great exception to this rule. First, because he still has defenders who—in spite of those many graveyards and inconclusive, costly battles—would claim he was not in fact an unsuccessful commander. At the end of the war, after all, the army he commanded—and had almost ruined—was, if not victorious, then plainly on the winning side. Still, at the other extreme, one can argue persuasively that Haig did not merely fail to achieve his stated objectives in the great battles of the Somme and Ypres. He failed in a much grander sense; failed classically in the fashion of Pyrrhus, who lamented after the battle at Asculum, “Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone.”

While the controversy over Haig has never been settled, there was no question about his fitness for command when he took over the British forces on the Western Front after the failures of 1915. The battles at Arras and Loos had been badly planned and managed, captured little ground and resulted in what seemed at the time heavy casualties. Then–BEF commander Sir John French was exhausted, demoralized and lacked confidence in himself and that of his immediate subordinates. He was replaced by Haig, who was, in the words of Winston Churchill, “first officer of the British Army. He had obtained every qualification, gained every experience and served in every appointment requisite for the General Command.” And Haig was as confident as he was qualified. Churchill, again: “The esteem of his military colleagues found a healthy counterpart in his own self-confidence….He was as sure of himself at the head of the British army as a country gentleman on the soil which his ancestors had trod for generations and to whose cultivation he had devoted his life.”

I rest my case. An executioner who needed no death warrants to be executed.

Rather a "blithering idiot" with no blood on his hands than a national icon whos hands are no so pristine.

[dutchbarge]

I think that your last couple of threads have garnered relatively high view counts for similar reasons to why car crash TV always gets high viewing figures.

I beg to differ. Apart from the predictable 'already sorted this' there have been quite a few posters who have taken both these threads seriously. I'm sure many members (old and new) have enjoyed following the thread, exercising their own beliefs, possibly even learning something new. And why shouldn't the conventional be challenged occassionally? If it's worthy it will stand the test. A learned defense can be both fortifying and illuminating. Cheers, BIll

[dutchbarge]

Bill.

I'll take up your offer of photos of the 1/2 track,please.

Can you start a thread in Skindles as it'll be almost as off topic as this photo?

In my defence,this is the 1st WW museum in Bullecourt.My dad on the left & Jean,my mate & it's owner on the right.His Jeep.We'd just had a drive through the battlefields surrounding.A singular experience!

I filmed it & may post it on here some time.

Dave.

Hey Dave,

Great fotos. Nice looking jeep. Nothing like a drive thru the French countryside in a 4 banger, top down.

I'll post the HT on skindles tomorrow. Speaking of Bullecourt, I'll also one of the barge at Ricquivel Bridge.

Cheers, Bill

[Waffenlandser]

Blimey,

!

But I have faith in you oh Anonymous Enfield Collector! You wouldn't let us down by putting up nonsense and wasting our time better spent stacking and re-stacking facts back to front and **** about face! Would you?

Pete

Neglect of WW1 war memorial in Muswell Hill.

Muswell Hill War Memorial

A couple of quid from the residents of this town may restore honor to their war dead.

[PMHart]

Hi,

Barry Who? My name is Peter Hart - easily deduced from my user name PMHart, plus I sign everything Pete - my middle initial is M by the way (standing for Michael). You are Enfield Collector and occasionally sign things Barry. You're pretty anonymous to me mate! Barry Sausage? Barry Fish? Barry Cross? Barry Fotheringay Phipps? Barry Forgetmenot? Or are a gang of international Haig fans searching to kill you requiring you to cloak your greatness under a bushell?

As you have accused me insulting you presumably by calling you a 'blithering idiot', you by implication accept that you will not be able to prove your statement that Haig signed hundreds of thousands of death warrants. As you will see I made the insult only dependent on your ability to defend your statement! Hey ho! Lets go! as the fabulous Ramones used to say!

Who is the author of the long anti-Haig diatribe you quote so proudly as conclusive proof of God knows what? What prevented you from revealing the source of this Third Form drivel?

Did Haig suffer from RSI or not? Was his wrist damaged by writing hundreds of thousands of death warrants? Was he really Welsh?

Why is the memory of the dead served only by nasty mean-spirited passive-aggressive diatribes? Put it this way I heve rarely - since the days of the blessed Arnie (lord bless him thricefold and all who sailed with him) - seen such corruscating hatred masquerading as deep felt concern! Calm down and keep taking the medication!!!

Pete

[Gunner Bailey]

Neglect of WW1 war memorial in Muswell Hill.

Muswell Hill War Memorial

A couple of quid from the residents of this town may restore honor to their war dead.

Off your own topic and displaying a mighty large anti Brit chip on shoulder.

Gunner Bailey

[Sue Light]

Neglect of WW1 war memorial in Muswell Hill.

A couple of quid from the residents of this town may restore honor to their war dead.

The whole anti-British tone of these posting sickens me. Maybe you could concentrate on the thousands of British people who spend much of their own time and money on remembering their local dead - hundreds of them on this Forum. I'd make sure your own nation's house is in order first.

Sue

[Gunner Bailey]

The whole anti-British tone of these posting sickens me. Maybe you could concentrate on the thousands of British people who spend much of their own time and money on remembering their local dead - hundreds of them on this Forum. I'd make sure your own nation's house is in order first.

Sue

Sue

Totally agree.

Perhaps this is the time to close this thread before it becomes a mud slinging match.

Gunner Bailey

[Steven Broomfield]

A learned defense can be both fortifying and illuminating. Cheers, BIll

I had intended not to rejoin this thread, but the problem is, Bill, that Barry hasn't shown a lot of learned defence. He shows a lot of anti-British feeling, and an awful lot of anti-Haig feeling (it's a democracy, so both views are allowed), but - in so far as I can tell - fails to back it up with any learned defence. Comments such as that picked up by Peter Hart, that Haig signed an inordinate number of death warrants, and earlier comments alleging that the British Army was a spent force by 1918 are just bunkum, with no defence at all, learned or otherwise.

That's what's made this thread into car crash viewing - Barry putting forward undefendable cases and then signally failing to defend them: just moving on to the next rant without bothering to clear up the mess of the last one.

And that really is it for me in this one. Sooner it gets closed the better, I say.

[Dragon]

I don't agree with some of Barry's points, and I'm not certain he knows as much as he suggests about trauma psychiatry, but I feel very strongly that ad hominem attacks are outside the spirit of this forum. I'm with Dave's comment earlier, post #288.

Secondly, it isn't a requirement that people disclose their names. Some people have real and valid reasons for anonymity. If my name was Peregrine, and there were already 32 Peregrine permutations registered, I'd have to use a nom-de-plume.

Gwyn

[George Armstrong Custer]

I'm with Peter and Steve on this. The starter of this thread has no credibility whatsoever and frankly is little better than a troll in that he thinks - supported by a handful of people - that he can spout whatever unsubstantiated drivel he likes and yet be immune from anyone pointing out that that it what it is. Being too precious about calling a clown a clown makes it too easy for the wind-up merchants to have a field day. To come onto a forum such as this and repeatedly claim that you have knowledge and insight into a subject and then say that Haig signed hundreds of thousands of warrants is something which, in the absence of any other explanation being forthcoming, might fairly be called the actions of a blithering idiot.

We've seen this before, of course, with the Arnie threads. And always there are three or four people who defend the right of anyone to post the most outrageous unsustainable and indefensible counterfactual material so long as it has a smidgin of Great War relevance. The mark of serious debate on this forum is that when unorthodox opinions are put forward, those holding them will defend them through references to sources and explain why they've arrived at the conclusions they have. Whether everyone then agrees with these conclusions or not is irrelevant - the person holding them has at least demonstrated that they are a valid interpretation of demonstrable facts. Posters like Barry and Arnie are the antitheses of this process and ought to be in Skindles creating spoof Great War threads - having them purporting to be seriously debating topics by claiming to be putting forward legitimate alternative points of view on the main boards brings the credibility of the forum into disrepute.

Nor should the likes of Barry and Arnie be mistaken for genuinely interested newcomers to the subject who may make understandable crass errors of fact as they get to grips with the subject, or who have formed their opinions on unreliable sources but are willing to be guided to and and least look at alternative sources.

I had initially thought Barry might be one of the SAD campainers who brought so much discord to this forum over two years ago. I see now that that is not the case and that he is just another Arnie. Leading on from this is the anti-British undercurrent to what has been posted by Barry and posters of his ilk in the past. If any of we Brits ventured onto a US military history forum and began telling them how their histories got it wrong and spouting the most outrageously unsubstantiated counterfactual statements then I can guarantee you that the members of said forum would wrap themselves in Old Glory and the united backlash against such a limey interloper would make what's been said to Barry here look like kindergarten stuff.

[George Armstrong Custer]

You can tell people that their information is wrong and their arguments don't make sense without calling them names.

I see. But it's OK for people like Barry to show utter contempt for the intelligence or knowledge of others here? And if you read over his threads - not just this one - he's not backward at casting aspersions at others himself - or, for that matter, at the British nation as a whole. In my view, if it acts like a clown, talks like a clown, then there's a fair chance it is a clown.

[Pete1052]

I think Enfield Collector was speaking metaphorically about Haig when he mentioned hundreds of thousands of death sentences. Disagreement with EC need not include gratuitous name-calling and personal abuse.

[Kate Wills]

Barry,

Any chance of your thoughts on the case of Pte Dennis please?

[Moston]

Damn spit & bother...I said to myself I wouldn't bother with this thread...and now look what I've gone and done !?!

For my sins I regularly contribute to another similar style messageboard - a football supporters board. There is one member on that board that our dear EC mirrors almost exactly. (In my eg the chap is a grey middle aged accountant)... - which is why I found it relatively easy to avoid responding.

Just ask yourself WHY is EC posting threads like this?

When I say 'like this' I mean lets pick the most sensitive subjects I can think of and see if I can annoy the hell out of some folk so that I get lots and lots of attention....I know....Haig, the butcher and...er....oh and then I'll have a go at 'Shot at Dawn'.

I genuinely feel he isn't in the least bit interested in ANY reply contrary to his own opinion, and as such does not deserve your time in responding to him.

We all have different opinions on many issues - but 'we' are able to at least see another viewpoint, which makes this forum tick.

PLEASE..don't react to him, he'll go away.

[Waffenlandser]

Barry,

Any chance of your thoughts on the case of Pte Dennis please?

Not enough proof yet Kate, but rest assured its coming.

[Kate Wills]

Proof? Proof of what exactly? and what are you using as proof?

Are you saying you have found new evidence in this case?

[Waffenlandser]

Thanks Mr Rat. I presume this is your real name as I have been chastised for using a non de plume.

I have answered every argument put forward by the GWF.

Show me where I have not. Kate is the xception as I research the matter in greater detail.

Pllease feel free to call me any names you want, My wife calls me a lot worse.

[AlanCurragh]

Barry - I've never called you any names, and couldn't really care whether you (or any pal) use a nom-de-plume.

Perhaps you can tell me where you responded to the points I made in posts 50 or 93 of this thread? Also Peter Hart asked you the source of the text you posted in post 291 - where did you answer that? Apologies if I've missed your responses.

Alan

.

[Jim Clay]

I have answered every argument put forward by the GWF.

Show me where I have not.

Barry

Look at posts 119/121/124 if you like - I don't mind if you don't. Oh yes, and post 179.

Jim