Pighills Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 I watched this programme and, in my very limited knowledge of WWI, it seemed a good programme to me. It certainly made me think about things from different angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joan and Terry Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 Very thought provoking programme,very sorry that the subject matter is Taboo on the Forum,it would have been interesting to know what peoples views are,I cannot understand the reason why it is forbidden,but sadly have to go along with it.I wish to stay as a member of the Forum,so will abide by the rules. Joan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desmond7 Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 Joan - in my view the ruling is entirely correct. This subject, as Hislop rightly points out, is steeped in emotion. Rarely is there a debate of wisdom on the issue. It becomes an exercise in fratricide. Des Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 Joan - in my view the ruling is entirely correct. This subject, as Hislop rightly points out, is steeped in emotion. Rarely is there a debate of wisdom on the issue. It becomes an exercise in fratricide. Des And more to the point, threats of legal action against the owner of this forum. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 My contribution unfortunately didnt appear, I havent seen the whole programme yet, but did see part of the first soldier. Forum rules prevent me from going further so if anyone wishes to see the information I had the please do PM me. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joan and Terry Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 Joan - in my view the ruling is entirely correct. This subject, as Hislop rightly points out, is steeped in emotion. Rarely is there a debate of wisdom on the issue. It becomes an exercise in fratricide. Des Des. I fully understand the point you are making and do not wish send out the wrong signals,if it did become an exercise in fratricide then the moderators would be in a position to remove any offending posts.My thoughts are,it did happen,not to allow a debate is like pretending it never took place. Joan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 Joan Have a search for the many threads over the years that have taken place on this subject and you will see the enormous repsonse that it generated. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borderman Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 You're joking Andy...really? That seems a bit extreme. Missed all that while I was away. To quote Boris Johnson "Cripes! I mean blimey! Whoops!" Well then fair enough - Taboo it is then. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 A good balanced programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 You're joking Andy...really? Absolutely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joan and Terry Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 And more to the point, threats of legal action against the owner of this forum. Andy Andy, I am puzzled by your remark,countless books have been written on the subject,but not knowing the law,it would be nice to know where one stands regarding comments made on the issue. Joan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 I am puzzled by your remark Whats to be puzzled about? I suggest that you pm the forum owner for clarification. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borderman Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 Totally believe you Andy, but….. (just trying to get my head around this) Bloke opens a forum on the Great War. At his own expense Openly invites anyone with an interest in the Great War to join Opens specific areas for people to populate with their own threads etc Encourages debate on issues Creates a resource for all to use freely Then someone offers a point of view, in open debate - that another disagrees with – so they threaten to sue him Is it just me but isn't that 'barking'? IMHO Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treetop Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Then someone offers a point of view, in open debate - that another disagrees with – so they threat to sue him Is it just me but isn’t that ‘barking’? IMHO Dave Unfortunately this is probably correct i.e 'barking mad' but we have lawyers to thank for that. An excellent programme in my opinion and Hislop just refrained from presenting a slushy,sentimental interpretation of the subject. It amazed me to hear that 90% of the sentences were not carried out,putting the ' popular ' view of uncaring Generals in a different light for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate Wills Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Andy, I am puzzled by your remark,countless books have been written on the subject,but not knowing the law,it would be nice to know where one stands regarding comments made on the issue. Joan, Dave x2 and others, Please read Pardons and Executions for Chris's announcement. We have had very many debates on SAD since the Forum began. It is a subject that raises temperatures. Most members who participated, representing the entire gamut of opinion on SAD, bridled passionate views with reasoned and polite argument - most, but not quite all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 I guess it was as balanced as one could expect but it missed out important points and minutiae in some of the case studies. Did not really understand why they interviewed Haig and do not think they did him any favours by doing so - rather wish they had left him alone. Still probably the best thing that has been on terrestrial tv this year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joan and Terry Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Joan, Dave x2 and others, Please read Pardons and Executions for Chris's announcement. We have had very many debates on SAD since the Forum began. It is a subject that raises temperatures. Most members who participated, representing the entire gamut of opinion on SAD, bridled passionate views with reasoned and polite argument - most, but not quite all... Point taken,I can understand that feelings do have a tendency to take over from common sense at times,I just thought it would have been nice to learn what views other members had on the subject. If I maybe allowed to ask one question,during the interview with the Son of Earl Haig,he did say that something had to be done as around 1000 men deserted each month.As there were less than 4000 court martials,what happened to the 1000's that deserted,were they never found,did they become prisoners,or maybe it depended on which branch of the forces they belonged to? Joan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Shropshires Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 A well balanced programme, his last comment as made me rethink my views. Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick H Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 b*gg*r I missed it as well. Had to take couple kids to the panto. Does anyone know if its likely to be repeated Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 Hi Joan, I think one of the problems with interviewing the current Earl Haig at this time and on this issue is that he can only give the thoughts of an old man who is trying to protect the memory of his father. A lot of what he said was just plain wrong. I expect one such comment being that around a 1000 men a month were deserting (if he did indeed say that). I dont categorically know the answer to your question but I imagine what he meant to say was either 1) that up to 1000 FGCM were conducted on average throughout the war per month - although this seems excessive and obviously includes non-capital offences as well or 2) that up to 1000 men went absent on average throughout the war per month. Being absent was not itself a capital offence and if you look through just one "local" newspaper of the time, which named "absent" men or draft dodgers, then I would be surprised if it was as little as 1000 men per month on average nationwide. These are my assumptions in the absence of any other answer forthcoming. I am happy to be corrected by anyone with hard facts. Regards, Jon S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murrough Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 A good programme,well balanced ,thought provoking and well presented in an impartial way by Ian Hislop. Regards, Murrough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pighills Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 It was Ian Hislop who quoted the 1,000 figure of dessertions each month - this was in his argument to balance the scales, showing that although many had deserted, not all of them received the same sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 I thought that IH presented a well balanced and unbiased account backed up with research and refrained from giving us his personal views. All the better for that I thought and a refreshing change on this particular subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joan and Terry Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 It was Ian Hislop who quoted the 1,000 figure of dessertions each month - this was in his argument to balance the scales, showing that although many had deserted, not all of them received the same sentence. I think it was Haig that first stated the figure of 1,000 to Ian Hislop.have just sent an email off to Channel 4 asking if the programme will be shown again. Joan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooter Posted 3 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 3 January , 2007 b*gg*r I missed it as well. Had to take couple kids to the panto. Does anyone know if its likely to be repeated Patrick The first series was repeated recently on the satellite channel More 4 on Sunday sfternoons so I would keep a look out for it on E4 or More 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now