How else would he describe the appalling losses at various battlefields? Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered daily in some mass attacks. Hardly the approach of someone who is in touch with reality of the situation.

Actually, "a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite" is a pretty good description of the current administration...

I'm from the Somme. In my town in France there are nearly 2500 British soldiers tombs from 1 battle in 2016. There are hundreds of similar cemeteries across the area. There's nothing heroic or great about this war. And when you were born to see tombs everywhere you go ( there is not one stretch of road in the Somme that doesn't have a British cemetery nearby) you really can understand the stupidity and uselessness if this war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He knows more about this than you do. He is referencing serious work by excellent academics. The old Lions Led by Donkeys view is thoroughly out of date.

I'm not sure the Pals' Regiments would agree with you there...

Amusing that the 'lions lead by donkeys' line which he seems to be so vehemently against was coined by one Alan Clarke, former Tory cabinet minister. But yes, it's all an invention of Lefties Who Hate Britain.

Personally, my opinion is any war that sees 2.5 million men per side killed and lays the seeds of Stalinism in one country (approx 20 million killed) and Nazism in another (6-10 million killed depending on estimates and a continent wrecked) can't really be described as a success. At absolute best it could be described as a necessary evil.

And anyone who thinks Haig was anything other than a blithering idiot needs their head examining.

The people who were involved in it very much universally seemed to think it was a bad idea, from written testimony of various sorts. I'll take their view over Gove's. Plus his department's behaviour suggests he doesn't know an 'excellent academic' from a stick stuck in the ground.

Alan Clarke was a good historian, and so I understand is Tristram Hunt. Michael Gove is not, and none of us is either. But good or bad at this, none of them, and none of you, has done any historical research ever. I only ask that a little more respect should be shown by all sides to those who have.

If you don't like their conclusions for political reasons you have to brand them. Either Gove is calling them unpatriotic, or you are saying they need their heads examined. They don't. They examined archives, they studied international affairs, military tactics, local and national politics, colonial wars and all the other things that you have no idea about, and that led to a more nuanced view than just "this bloke had a silly mustache and was a bit of a git".

Researchers currently consider the Donkeys view to be a misrepresentation based on unrealistic expectations. They are people who spend a lifetime becoming experts in a field and then meticulously researching the intricate links between significant events. Only to have their work misused by vicious political imbeciles.

I agree with this mostly, except WWI was an economical war, not a war of ideology so really there was no reason for it to happen. Also Nazism? in WWI? You may want to check that.

Not exactly. The history I was taught was that the settlement terms at the end of WWI along with the worldwide recession in the 1920's created the conditions that led to the rise of extremism in Germany. Essentially The Treaty of Versailles blamed the entire war on Germany and forced major concessions upon it as a result. Those terms allowed Hitler to play on a growing sentiment that Germany was unfairly punished after WWI to gain popularity, essentially to portray the German people as victims oppressed by a conspiracy against them both within and without. when a loaf of bread costs a week's wages, its easy to buy into that kind of sentiment. Essentially, Nazism was born out of the end of WWI. Like most of history though, this theory is a matter of some debate.

I think you answered my question. The Germany that took part in WWI was not Nazi. There was no ideology to defend on their part. Germany being humiliated after end of WWI and having to repay war damages to the winning side led to the rise of Nazism.

I think you need to re-read what Jon said. It laid the seeds, i.e. it contributed to the conditions which led to the popularity of the National Socialist movement in Germany and Stalinism in Russia.

My bad, reread the comment. Got the wrong end of the stick :S