Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Sign in to follow this  
Martin Bennitt

Lloyd George becomes prime minister

Recommended Posts

Take on me
The only two in WW11 were Slim and perhaps Monty purely for his professionalism. As for Alexander, well you only have to read what Monty thought of him. Allenby perhaps, WW1, but Allanbrooke???far too cautuious. I remembering reading a book once and I am sure that contributors will have read it " A Psychology of British Military Incompetence" which looks at our whole class ridden Military system based on Bull****, and bullying with the Israeli army which concentrates on ability and excellence in Training with no Parade ground bull****

Read Why the Allies Won by Rchard Overy if you want an assessment of Alan Brooke's career, there is more to being a general then field command. Add to that the fact that Monty was pretty disparaging of everybody so Alexander does not surprise me. I am not sure it is fair to contrast the modern Israeli Army with the 1900-45 British Army either.

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyHollinger
The only two in WW11 were Slim and perhaps Monty purely for his professionalism. As for Alexander, well you only have to read what Monty thought of him. Allenby perhaps, WW1, but Allanbrooke???far too cautuious. I remembering reading a book once and I am sure that contributors will have read it " A Psychology of British Military Incompetence" which looks at our whole class ridden Military system based on Bull****, and bullying with the Israeli army which concentrates on ability and excellence in Training with no Parade ground bull****

Yes, I do and remembered thinking of the time, what a piece of bat guano. I will take the British Army over the Israelli army any day of the week. In a previous life, I had to deal with both which is where I formed that opinion.

The book above states a blatantly anti-militaristic stance and tries to boil military systems down to "management" of resources, etc. Israeli success comes from a lot of backs-to-the-wall type defence and long logistical lines paid for by the US whereas the British military has had many other objectives and uses. Put the Israeli miliary 3K miles from home in an unpopular war and watch the results ... I would also say that if you compare the British Military experience in N. Ireland and the Israeli in Gaza or Palestine, you'd see a marked degree of success being on the British side.

Yes, I form my opinions as a former officer in the US Army, but also as a historian. Other than the above mentioned book, where are your accusations of a 500 years of military tradition based? Remember if you will the Political liberty you and we cherish was a result of a particularly different and somewhat successful British Military system whereas French and German authoritarianism grew out of essentially their military system. Also, you must credit this system based on "class ridden parade ground bull" for creating and keepting not one world empire, but two. If there is a world movement for politically liberal representitive democracy it is largely a gift of the British Army who made the world safe for a market economy based on capitalism and essentially free trade that bodes well for said democracy.

An other than the 50 years of independence of the state of Israel the Israeli military has done what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeldr

quote: other than the 50 years of independence of the state of Israel the Israeli military has done what?

Pray, what more would you have them do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin Fowkes
Yes, I do and remembered thinking of the time, what a piece of bat guano. I will take the British Army over the Israelli army any day of the week. In a previous life, I had to deal with both which is where I formed that opinion.

The book above states a blatantly anti-militaristic stance and tries to boil military systems down to "management" of resources, etc. Israeli success comes from a lot of backs-to-the-wall type defence and long logistical lines paid for by the US whereas the British military has had many other objectives and uses. Put the Israeli miliary 3K miles from home in an unpopular war and watch the results ... I would also say that if you compare the British Military experience in N. Ireland and the Israeli in Gaza or Palestine, you'd see a marked degree of success being on the British side.

Yes, I form my opinions as a former officer in the US Army, but also as a historian. Other than the above mentioned book, where are your accusations of a 500 years of military tradition based? Remember if you will the Political liberty you and we cherish was a result of a particularly different and somewhat successful British Military system whereas French and German authoritarianism grew out of essentially their military system. Also, you must credit this system based on "class ridden parade ground bull" for creating and keepting not one world empire, but two. If there is a world movement for politically liberal representitive democracy it is largely a gift of the British Army who made the world safe for a market economy based on capitalism and essentially free trade that bodes well for said democracy.

An other than the 50 years of independence of the state of Israel the Israeli military has done what?

Phew!!!!!Good points, the israelis are fighting for their lives I suppose, But I still feel that whilst there probably was no alternative to Haig, that DLG was right to look at alternatives and that helping to knock Austria or turkey out of the war first was sensible strategy.

I did say perhaps I was being simplistic, but I come back to our Hierachy of command and leading generals and Admirals. DLG was right to be cautious. Without his energy we would have lost whereas Haig could probably have been replaced by any number of Harrow/ Eton educated cavalry officers, who probably would not have done any better because of the points already made...i:e the nature of mechanised warfare and massive firepower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyHollinger
quote: other than the 50 years of independence of the state of Israel the Israeli military has done what?

Pray, what more would you have them do?

Actually nothing. However, I was not the one claiming they were superior to the BA or the BA system. Actually, if I could ask their army to do anything it would be to solve the same problems that every occupying army has tried to accomplish ... They are not supermen nor above the rest. From my experience their biggest problem is believing their own press clippings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan Tucker
Phew!!!!!Good points, the israelis are fighting for their lives I suppose, But I still feel that whilst there probably was no alternative to Haig, that DLG was right to look at alternatives and that helping to knock Austria or turkey out of the war first was sensible strategy.

I did say perhaps I was being simplistic, but I come back to our Hierachy of command and leading generals and Admirals. DLG was right to be cautious. Without his energy we would have lost whereas Haig could probably have been replaced by any number of Harrow/ Eton educated cavalry officers, who probably would not have done any better because of the points already made...i:e the nature of mechanised warfare and massive firepower

If course DLG was right to look at alternatives but then he should have dismissed them as sideshows. Haig was 100% right. Germany could only be defeated on the Western Front. Germany could have fought on without Turkey and Austria.

Alan Tucker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin Fowkes
If course DLG was right to look at alternatives but then he should have dismissed them as sideshows. Haig was 100% right. Germany could only be defeated on the Western Front. Germany could have fought on without Turkey and Austria.

Alan Tucker

Without Turkey perhaps , but not Austria. The blockade against Germany was very effective, and Germany was dependant on austria for Grain supplies. In fact I think I read somewhere that just before Austria surrendered, she stopped a massive shipment by river to germany , of grain which she needed herself. germany would have had to occupy Ausria/Hungary, and the Balkans.

The point is of course that youmay well be right, but the west could only be won by attrition, i:e who can afford to lose the most men. Thats what it came down to and that was the overiding strategy until 1918.

more importantly I suppose, untill 1918 we were junor partners to france, who were losing more men than us, and we were in their backyard, so Haig even if he had been a brilliant innovator would have had to clear everything with the French

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan Tucker
Without Turkey perhaps , but not Austria. The blockade against Germany was very effective, and Germany was dependant on austria for Grain supplies. In fact I think I read somewhere that just before Austria surrendered, she stopped a massive shipment by river to germany , of grain which she needed herself. germany would have had to occupy Ausria/Hungary, and the Balkans.

The point is of course that youmay well be right, but the west could only be won by attrition, i:e who can afford to lose the most men. Thats what it came down to and that was the overiding strategy until 1918.

more importantly I suppose, untill 1918 we were junor partners to france, who were losing more men than us, and we were in their backyard, so Haig even if he had been a brilliant innovator would have had to clear everything with the French

If the sideshows are supposed to be more attractive in terms of fewer casualtiies it must be remembered that attrition on the Western Front affected both sides and the wearing down of the German army from 1916 brought its rewards in the Battle of the 100 days. Also what was Gallipoli and Salonika if not part of the same pattern? Italy was no war of movement either.

Alan Tucker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin Fowkes
If the sideshows are supposed to be more attractive in terms of fewer casualtiies it must be remembered that attrition on the Western Front affected both sides and the wearing down of the German army from 1916 brought its rewards in the Battle of the 100 days. Also what was Gallipoli and Salonika if not part of the same pattern? Italy was no war of movement either.

Alan Tucker

Yes Alan of course your right, but the phrase you used "Wearing down" means as I said "Who can lose the most men without being defeated".... Thats what I'm sure rankled with DLG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...