waffenlandser

[Waffenlandser]

These issues have been discussed many times on the forum. Click here to read one of the threads.

despite this I need to have my say. Its been haunting me for years and needs closure. The very existance of this forum shows there is no and never will be, closure.

From a previous thread.

"The first thing that gave me pause for thought was the plain fact that Haig led the army that won the war"

I disagree. It was Tommy Atkins and the hundreds of thousands of Troops from the British Empire who lie beneath the mud of the Somme and Flanders who won the war.

From a British TV documentary

" Field Marshal Douglas Haig, not the sharpest knife in the drawer of the British Army, was placed in command..............."

[Greenwoodman]

You've misread the quote. It says "led the army that won the war" thus acknowledging that the army (including Tommy Atkins) won the war. There is no disputing that Haig was in command.

[IanA]

You can't blame people for thinking you are a troll - such fatuous comments seem designed to stir up trouble and, as has been pointed out, such rantings have been dealt with many times before.

As for 'thousands of white crosses on the somme' - where?

[Chris_Baker]

In the American cemetery at Bony!

Haunting you for years and needs closure, Enfield? There are dozens of ways in which you could end it all.

[Ozzie]

Well, why not discuss it in the appropriate threads? Why start another unless you wish to flame?

Debate with those who are currently contributing to Haig threads.

I am sure you must have new sources and documents to bring to the table in the appropriate threads, otherwise why start a new thread?

Kim

[TonyE]

From a British TV documentary

" Field Marshal Douglas Haig, not the sharpest knife in the drawer of the British Army, was placed in command..............."

One would hope for slightly more academic rigour than an alleged quote from an unnamed TV documentary if your case is to be taken seriously.

Regards

TonyE

[truthergw]

Yet another Yank rolls up to explain to us poor benighted Brits, how we were put upon and led like lambs to the slaughter by our aristocratic brass hats. An evening spent trawling through the forum and its discussions over the years on all of those subjects, may have led you to consider that perhaps your time might be better spent reading and learning, instead of trotting out the same old rubbish which has been comprehensively dismissed in dozens of books as well as here on the forum.

[SiegeGunner]

Haig was very good at blaming his underlings like Rawlinson who was sacked and disgraced

Really?

Oh, and there's only one 't' in Britain.

EC/Waffenlandser should perhaps change his handle to Rip van Winkle, for he has surely been asleep for the past 30-odd years.

[IanA]

In the American cemetery at Bony!

Doesn't cut the mustard Chris. Less than 2,000.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

This post is a genuine attempt to delve into history and do some unmasking of the truth.

South Africa, unlike the UK had no Chelsea Pensioners. There were few hospitals for rehabilitation. South Africans were not so directly affected by a war 5000 miles away. Her youth went off to die for a Brittain they hardly knew. There was not the adoring and grateful population waiting for the wounded and maimed. Private organisations like Saint Dunstans and the MOTHS, looked after the blind and the limbless, hence the presence of disabled ex servicemen on the streets begging to stay alive and support their families.

Doesn’t the Kaiser and von Schlieffen have any responsibility for the deaths in 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and every other year WWI veterans died and suffered from war related causes? Try unmasking the full truth.

I suggest that you delve into South African history a bit deeper, and look for example into campaigns in the German South African colonies, you might find WWI was a bit closer to SA than you think! The British did not force the South Africans to fight in France & Flanders and were in no position to do so. Nor were they in a position to decree what provisions South Africa made for their returning soldiers.

[Waffenlandser]

Doesn’t the Kaiser and von Schlieffen have any responsibility for the deaths in 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918 and every other year WWI veterans died and suffered from war related causes? Try unmasking the full truth.

I suggest that you delve into South African history a bit deeper, and look for example into campaigns in the German South African colonies, you might find WWI was a bit closer to SA than you think! The British did not force the South Africans to fight in France & Flanders and were in no position to do so. Nor were they in a position to decree what provisions South Africa made for their returning soldiers.

South Africans went dutifully to the colors in 1914 as they did in 1940. They fought and died for France and England, as did the Aussies and Canadians.

The soldiers of 1914, both German and British fought and died to save a few hundred square mile of cow pastures. They were not responsible for the carnage. It was the politicians and old senile generals who were responsible.

Everybody on this forum seems engrossed with the cemeteries and memorials of that ghastly time in our history and not by the actual facts that caused these killing fields to be memorialised.

[Waffenlandser]

Really?

Oh, and there's only one 't' in Britain.

EC/Waffenlandser should perhaps change his handle to Rip van Winkle, for he has surely been asleep for the past 30-odd years.

Better to be asleep for the last 30 years than the youth of 1916 who have slept for the last 90 years.

I apreciate the speling tutorial, BTW

[Simon Jones]

WISE WORDS MATE

[Chris_Baker]

fought and died to save a few hundred square mile of cow pastures

So the great nations fought a war that bankrupted them to "save a few pastures"? What? Even a four year old wouldn't come out with such nonsense. I'm sorry my friend, I wont't be wasting any more time on you. You clearly have read little, reflected little and have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

[Will O'Brien]

The soldiers of 1914, both German and British fought and died to save a few hundred square mile of cow pastures. They were not responsible for the carnage. It was the politicians and old senile generals who were responsible.

Everybody on this forum seems engrossed with the cemeteries and memorials of that ghastly time in our history and not by the actual facts that caused these killing fields to be memorialised.

I'm sorry but do you really expect reasonable debate when describing both the Great War & the members of this forum in such tones. There are many different views both held & expressed here. Most are done so with a degree of logic & reason. I see little constructive value in your comments.

[Waffenlandser]

So the great nations fought a war that bankrupted them to "save a few pastures"? What? Even a four year old wouldn't come out with such nonsense. I'm sorry my friend, I wont't be wasting any more time on you. You clearly have read little, reflected little and have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

sorry if the truth hurts that much mate.

Show me the great industrial complexes and large cities in Picardy.

Show something besides cemeteries and sleepy little villages.

In participating in this thread I have tried to be as respectful and sensitive to the feelings of the old sweats of the forum. Mostly, I try to respect the memory of our Dead. Criticising the generals of the time, is in no way showing a lack of respect to the Dead.

[truthergw]

..........................

Everybody on this forum seems engrossed with the cemeteries and memorials of that ghastly time in our history and not by the actual facts that caused these killing fields to be memorialised.

Which you are now going to explain to us. How very decent of you.

[TonyE]

sorry if the truth hurts that much mate.

Show me the great industrial complexes and large cities in Picardy.

Show something besides cemeteries and sleepy little villages.

I think that statement shows the depth of your understanding of what happened in the war more than any of your previous prejudices.

I'm with Chris on this one.

Bye bye

TonyE

[truthergw]

I will join Chris and Tony on this. The whole point of this farrago is to provoke a response and keep it going as long as possible. I do not intend to gratify these rather strange needs.

[Waffenlandser]

I think that statement shows the depth of your understanding of what happened in the war more than any of your previous prejudices.

I'm with Chris on this one.

Bye bye

TonyE

I have stated my case and now rest my case. It has been my pleasure "debating" with you all.

Thank you for your time.

From the Heart of Texas.

Enfield Collector.

Trying to keep history alive and always searching for the real truth.

[SiegeGunner]

Trying to keep history alive and always searching for the real truth.

I'm afraid that evidence of this 'searching' is not apparent.

[Waffenlandser]

I'm afraid that evidence of this 'searching' is not apparent.

apart from the endless litany of the dead, this forum's search for the truth is also somewhat lacking in depth.

[Simon Jones]

"127 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes" - there must be one out of the 126 who has the necessary depth to support this chap?

[dundeesown]

Ah Bless him,ignorance is bliss let him be,

[Paul Hederer]

...Yet another Yank rolls up to explain to us poor benighted Brits...

Tom,

Actually, I don't think we can take credit in this case.

Paul