Most heinous British war crime?

[davek]

Wasn't the Battle of the Spion Kop an atrocity? It'd make perfect sense.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

No, the Germans followed the Schlieffen Plan, which was an offensive tactic. They adapted when they were stalled by defensive tactics. Even then, at Amiens for example, the Germans constantly attacked and tried to break the stalemate for the entire four years, because neither side knew any different. The machine gun was a game changer, and neither side knew what to do about it in defensive situations. They knew it was catastrophic, and they did change tactics with night time sorties and so on, but ultimately they couldn't just stop doing anything because they had to maintain the stalemate on that line.

I was talking about the somme in particular (And haig's part in it).

While you're right about tactics and the schlieffen plan....You was dead wrong to call them deaths unavoidable and necessary. Of course some were unavoidable; a lot weren't - but 'necessary' to send people over the top knowing the enemy are already wise to your previously failed tactics?

Nah.

 

[Gladystweet]

didn't think anyone would be onto it that quick

It was one of them "mboto gorge, mboto gorge, where have I heard that?"

 

[roydo]

I used both.

And no, I maintain 'necessary' is the right word.

Tomato Tomato maybe, but I would say the war was necessary, the deaths hence unavoidable.

 

[peteblue]

The one we waged against the Irish for a rather long time like.

The UK was not at war with Eire, nor any declarations of war with any other party. Northern Ireland paramilitary groups were fighting each other and the Uk had to deploy troops to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary in an attempt to keep the peace between the rival factions. They did so by openly putting their lives at risk against terrorists who hid in the shadows and set off bombs. Over 1000 RUC and British Army personnel were murdered by these terrorists......

 

[Tubey]

I was talking about the somme in particular (And haig's part in it).

While you're right about tactics and the schlieffen plan....You was dead wrong to call them deaths unavoidable and necessary. Of course some were unavoidable; a lot weren't - but 'necessary' to send people over the top knowing the enemy are already wise to your previously failed tactics?

Nah.

And both sides did it. At the same time. See Verdun for details.

They simply didn't know any better, all around. It's not possible to apply a retrospective logic to it when the situation on the ground at that time didn't have that benefit - both sides just needed to break the stalemate or significantly weaken the enemy, and they got increasingly desperate to do so.

Again, both sides did this right to the end at Amiens, when the Allies broke through following the German failure in a massive offensive called Operation Michael and the overall Spring Offensive. Again, massive casualties going over the top, over half a million dead, because they didn't have any other options - air power couldn't win it alone, tanks were rudimentary at best, and defensive technology was supreme.

 

[Tubey]

Tomato Tomato maybe, but I would say the war was necessary, the deaths hence unavoidable.

Agreed. Both words are interchangeable, but have different meanings - and together both sum it up. That's why in my first post a few pages back, I said "unavoidable and necessary."

 

[roydo]

Agreed. Both words are interchangeable, but have different meanings - and together both sum it up. That's why in my first post a few pages back, I said "unavoidable and necessary."

One is a touch more inflammatory, imo. But you know your WW1 way better than me.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

They don't call it the Butchers apron for nothing, Take your pick. Over the last few hundred years we've invaded or been at war with over 200 countries or around 90% of the world. No wonder everyone thinks we're bad bells.

Is right!

 

[Moomin]

The creation of Pakistan, killed over a million people in sectarian violence.

Creation of Israel.

Boer concentration camps.

 

[peteblue]

Tomato Tomato maybe, but I would say the war was necessary, the deaths hence unavoidable.

WW1 was not necessary and the deaths were avoidable. WW2 was necessary and even here many deaths were avoidable on reflection.......

 

[peteblue]

They don't call it the Butchers apron for nothing, Take your pick. Over the last few hundred years we've invaded or been at war with over 200 countries or around 90% of the world. No wonder everyone thinks we're bad bells.

I'm just staggered that we missed a few bits.......

 

[terry nodder]

OOh don't forget the opium wars, although I have to say I like nothing better than settling down with some a-grade opium and a banana nesquik on a sunday afternoon.

Cheers, TEd.

 

[Armaghtoffee]

The UK was not at war with Eire, nor any declarations of war with any other party. Northern Ireland paramilitary groups were fighting each other and the Uk had to deploy troops to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary in an attempt to keep the peace between the rival factions. They did so by openly putting their lives at risk against terrorists who hid in the shadows and set off bombs. Over 1000 RUC and British Army personnel were murdered by these terrorists......

Reading that was like watching a BBC news report from 1972.

 

[roydo]

WW1 was not necessary and the deaths were avoidable. WW2 was necessary and even here many deaths were avoidable on reflection.......

Happy to defer to others about the ifs and buts of WW1.