I was feeling quite down about one thing and another. Then I turned on the TV and learned that a protester had thrown a pot of paint at Charles and Camilla's Bentley and it cheered me up no end.
I have never ever come across any historical source which has not indicated in not so many words that the Allied Dardanelles Campaign was a complete and utter balls-up. The thought that I might be *completely* wrong about that as opposed to *somewhat* is intriguing. (I don't think I'm wrong, but that's by the way.)
The reason I am "shallow" about India is because otherwise I'd have to write a book of a comment in response.
As for 1914 war - there I have done my homework and nothing has convinced me that all the diplomatic grandstanding could not have been avoided. Also once the retreat at Mons and the safeguarding of Paris were done, the rest of it was a truly pointless palaver on the Western Front at least with grandiose claims such as "bleeding the French white" and a method by which the attacking force was likely to have more troops killed itself than its victims. It didn't work, and rather than note it didn't work, the generals just kept pouring men into battle after battle. It's all very well to stand at the Cenotaph, but would it not have been better if these millions of men had lived, not been blinded, shellshocked, facially mutilated, crippled, or having their intestines and brains leaking out onto French and Belgian mud as they died in agony? And these included Chinese labourers who were treated as slaves, less than human. No wonder Sassoon sneered with rage at the idea that "Their name liveth forever" and Vera Brittain said "The War smashed up my life."
You now say that you 'have never ever come across any historical source which has not indicated in not so many words that the Allied Dardanelles Campaign was a complete and utter balls-up': and so it was, as executed. But that is not what you first said, which is what was, simply, wrong. The campaign was badly executed; that it was badly planned, however, and planned so as to wantonly sacrifice Empire troops, is false. You needn't take my word for it: that was the view of, inter alia, Roger Keyes, who was present as a Naval officer and urged his superiors (in vain) to follow their orders; Josiah Wedgwood, who was at Helles, a Labour MP; and the young officer who was the next to last man off the beach at Suvla Bay, one Clement R. Attlee, all of whom regarded Churchill's strategy as sound and damned others for its failed implementation.
I may add that the motive for the Dardanelles Campaign was to break the Western Front stalemate you deplore.
I do not see how von Falkenhayn's purpose at Verdun in any way condemns the Allied participation in a clearly just war in which the Central Powers were the aggressors, in which Britain had treaty obligations, and in which anything less than victory should have rewarded German aggression (as it was, allowing the Germans an armistice after the Allies broke the Hindenburg Line and were advancing merely permitted the Germans to create their 'stab-in-the-back' myth - and sowed the seeds, thereby, for the Hitler War). I suppose that one can take the Bethmann-Hollweg view that Belgian neutrality was a 'scrap of paper' and thus that the war was caused by 'diplomatic grandstanding', but such a position is as squalid morally as it is false in fact.
But, there, you did say that nothing should convince you otherwise, and you seem to find controversion of your beliefs patronising, so it seems pointless to continue the attempt to correct them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Hmmm...
Date: 2010-12-09 11:34 pm (UTC)The reason I am "shallow" about India is because otherwise I'd have to write a book of a comment in response.
As for 1914 war - there I have done my homework and nothing has convinced me that all the diplomatic grandstanding could not have been avoided. Also once the retreat at Mons and the safeguarding of Paris were done, the rest of it was a truly pointless palaver on the Western Front at least with grandiose claims such as "bleeding the French white" and a method by which the attacking force was likely to have more troops killed itself than its victims. It didn't work, and rather than note it didn't work, the generals just kept pouring men into battle after battle. It's all very well to stand at the Cenotaph, but would it not have been better if these millions of men had lived, not been blinded, shellshocked, facially mutilated, crippled, or having their intestines and brains leaking out onto French and Belgian mud as they died in agony? And these included Chinese labourers who were treated as slaves, less than human. No wonder Sassoon sneered with rage at the idea that "Their name liveth forever" and Vera Brittain said "The War smashed up my life."
It;'s unfortunate you feel patronised.
Date: 2010-12-10 03:52 pm (UTC)You now say that you 'have never ever come across any historical source which has not indicated in not so many words that the Allied Dardanelles Campaign was a complete and utter balls-up': and so it was, as executed. But that is not what you first said, which is what was, simply, wrong. The campaign was badly executed; that it was badly planned, however, and planned so as to wantonly sacrifice Empire troops, is false. You needn't take my word for it: that was the view of, inter alia, Roger Keyes, who was present as a Naval officer and urged his superiors (in vain) to follow their orders; Josiah Wedgwood, who was at Helles, a Labour MP; and the young officer who was the next to last man off the beach at Suvla Bay, one Clement R. Attlee, all of whom regarded Churchill's strategy as sound and damned others for its failed implementation.
I may add that the motive for the Dardanelles Campaign was to break the Western Front stalemate you deplore.
I do not see how von Falkenhayn's purpose at Verdun in any way condemns the Allied participation in a clearly just war in which the Central Powers were the aggressors, in which Britain had treaty obligations, and in which anything less than victory should have rewarded German aggression (as it was, allowing the Germans an armistice after the Allies broke the Hindenburg Line and were advancing merely permitted the Germans to create their 'stab-in-the-back' myth - and sowed the seeds, thereby, for the Hitler War). I suppose that one can take the Bethmann-Hollweg view that Belgian neutrality was a 'scrap of paper' and thus that the war was caused by 'diplomatic grandstanding', but such a position is as squalid morally as it is false in fact.
But, there, you did say that nothing should convince you otherwise, and you seem to find controversion of your beliefs patronising, so it seems pointless to continue the attempt to correct them.