best forces in the world bar none dont care what any sad act statistical dickhead says. Bottom line no one on the face of the planet has more experience at fighting wars.
Since you already started reading you cant stop. My name is Kalena. I have black hair, and green eyes. I am 13. I was abused my whole life. I have no ears or nose, because my parents chopped them of with a rusty fork. I am dead. I will show up in your room in 13 days and kill you by chopping off your body parts with a rusty fork unless you repost this on 5 pages. THIS IS NO JOKE!! If you do, something good will happen to you within 13 days. If you don't believe this, wait
and where did "Prof Richard Holmes" get his stats from? - his ass i suppose,the only german figures-from credible german sources are in churchills book-so where else? ohh i got it- uncle jim clancys - guesstimates on enemy casualty i guess- cause thats what ur figures are -"guess" hehh
in fact in guderians "Panzer General" - he quotes one very specific instance - in the breakthrough over sedan british/french pilot tried to destroy the bridge by flying at rooftop height were absolutely sluaghtered by the geram ack ack guns-he notes the bravery of the pilots AND the stupidity of the allied higher command that forced them on such a suicide mission.in the battle of sedan the alleis lost over 150 planes for no reported german loss - a real tragedy if there ever was one.
@asku23 So what? RAF Blenhiems got shot to pieces on daylight ops. Guess what? Post France, the RAF switched to night time ops predominantly. The USAAF B-17's were massacred until the advent of the P-51 escort fighter. At one point in 1943, the casualty figures were so high, the USAAF virtually curtailed bombing ops over Germany. The US bombers could NOT defend themselves adequately against fighters(US IGNORED RAF ADVICE)- a lesson we learnt in FRANCE in 1940. SO your point is WHAT exactly? ROFL
another stat for ur thick lead head : 100000 american dead in the air fighting over europe
145000 british dead despite the fact that americans were doing the daylight fighting from 1943-45 while the brits were the night pussies,and yeah given the british record we have to listen to them hahahahaha
@asku23 Another statistic- more inaccurate drivel on your behalf. The USAAF lost 32,000 aircrew over Europe- we have a monument to them at Duxford AFB & I have seen it myself. The RAF lost 55,000 bomber aircrew between 1939-45. Have you ever heard of the Kammhuber Line cretin? The most sophisticated night air defence system during WW2- hence heavy casualties. Your really should put down your GI Joe comic & pick up some quality literature- you would save yourself further HUGE embarassment.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hehhh - in arlington little fella - we have exactly 99633 deaths listed for the US air force.even your memorial have faulty figures LOL-if in fact that is the number there.in fact USAAF(Europe) has a detailed list of the members lost,even taknig your wrong figures it is clear u guys lost more men then we did despite us fighting in open daylight-no nighting fighting defence however sophisticated can match daylight fighting with multiple layers of alarms
@asku23 No doubt those figures include ALL USAAF personnel, from aircrew to ground staff. The RAF sustained heavier aircrew losses than the USAAF bomber force, 55,000 to 32,000. I am refering SPECIFICALLY to bomber crew losses. The memorial at Duxford relates SPECIFICALLY to aircrew losses. Is that simple enough for your to assimilate?
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the US Airforce in fact by 1945 was a generation ahead of its allies- it is the ONLY country that came close along with the germans in building the famous jet fighter - american plnaes have since been ahead of all other countries today having an airforce that can conceivably crush any or any grouping of opponents u may care to imagine - thats our mind of innovation island boy
@asku23 Sir Frank Whittle-inventor of? THE JET ENGINE. The British built & flew jet aircraft in 1943- Gloster jet. By 1945, the Gloster Meteor was entering service. What are 'american plnaes?' Do you have special needs per chance? In 1943, the Brits discovered the secret of maintaining full control over an ac as it approached the sound barrier & suffered compressibility problems. The fully movable tail plane- the Yanks had NO idea about that innovation until 47. Heard of the Miles 52 jet? lol
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH u stupid dumbass - the meteor was a direct copy of the Ryan FR-1 Fireball where lockheed built the first jet engine - partly taken from a captured german jet fighter - but htis desgin was completely copied by the british for their first real jet fighter.in fact the main reason the germans looked at the jet was the way out mustnags were massacaring their fighters-in fact by 1944 our bomber planes could fly over germany almost untouched while we bombed the shit outta the nazis
LOL moron: actually its the only correct thing u said - i am in fact an accountant- u know the kind that looks at stats and figures to bring out the truth as opposed to u who likes think history is made out of quotes - which are infact just somebody opinion.LOL- all my figures have been uqoted-if u ONLY knew to read properly :)
sorry cant help u there mate- ask ur middle grade teachers for ehlp hahah
@asku23 Lies? There are three types, lies, damn lies & statistics. You throw figures around & provide no source, with the exception of Churchill's figures which are at best dubious. You refute historic facts IE 'KINDERSLOSS.' That is a FACT. German intel reports estimated British strength to be NINE infantry divs-based on the tenacity of the resistance they encountered. In reality there were THREE divs. The Germans also believed the BEF had semi-auto rifles. Mons was a victory for the BEF- FACT.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH lol i never "refuted" kindergloss - i point out to the british putting it out of context,lol-u never seem to like to face reality-churchills figures are the MOST thoroughly researched figures of any english historian-his book contains figures directly from the horses mouth - the german archives published pre ww2,these archives were destroyed in 1945 in alleid bombing,also cant see why churchill would lie- u think he was pro-german lol?
@asku23 Perhaps you would like to speculate then why Mons is regarded by military historians as a British victory then buffoon?! Are you suggesting the BEF was defeated!? ROFL Do you actually comprehend what the objective of the BEF battle plan was?! It was to deliver a short, sharp blow to stem the German advance, which prior to Mons resembled a runaway train. The BEF achieved it's primary aims, to slow the Germans down dramatically, to hammered the vanguard German units & avoid encirclement.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH which "eminent" hisotrians? pryor/wilson,churchill,ferguson,lidell hart,john keegan,mosier,dennis winter,bean(australia official historian),SIR JOHN FRENCH(the commander) all of them refer to it as a "retreat",i guess u could find people -playing to the stupid crowd-as yourself-or in other words - BEF apologists like simmonds,sheffield hwo like to still think quotes for actual history lmfao
@asku23 1,600 British casualties against over 5,000 German KIA- a shocking defeat for the BEF-NOT You do realise don't you junior, that the intent at Mons was to stun the Germans, break off to avoid being encircled and withdraw. It is apparent that you have zero military experience & little understanding on the strategy that was involved at Mons. As I said earlier- watch Prof Richard Holmes on YT- " MONS- WAR WALKS." The HISTORY PROFESSOR has the edge over you & your innane stats I feel....ROFL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH u and ur mons figures - what a dunce -i am quoting form britains greatest leader not to mentions one of its best historians along with HIS sources - and you - some BEF apologist and NOT once u have specified HIS sources which i am guessing is from his english behind lol
@asku23 And Britain's greatest war leader NEVER made any mistakes did he? Ergo, he must be infalliable then? ROFL Ever heard of the Dardenelles!? Quote Winston as much as you like- his figures for British KIA at Mons are nonsense. As I said- go and do some research, then come back & eat copious volumes of your momma's apple pie :)
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH ohh just because he quotes figures that dont feed into your fantasy he is wrong? LOL - i still dont see where ur great "prof holmes" is quoting his german figures from-the ONLY ONLY english historian who saw the reicharchives is churchill and the australian historian bean - both of them consistently back up my figures.i will eat my "momma apple pie" while u get "prof holmes" sources hahahahaha
@asku23 If you wish to verify the figures that Holmes quotes, & his assessment of the Mons, get off you fat Yank arse & either buy his works- of which their are many- he is a prolific & respected writer, or email him at Cranfield University where he lectures. Even a buffoon such as yourself must surely possess the initiative to obtain his email address. I do not need to account for, or justify HIS figures, let alone to a myopic, enthnocentric Yank imbecile with a comic book grasp of affairs ;)
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH this even though-TO THIS DAY british historians like to claim equal brit and german losses on the somme.in fact on the mons -Monty who was a junior commander then says - the germans always moved faster-occupied the higher ground ,dug in and let their artillery do the attacking-the germans walking to the british guns is a lot les frequent than is supposed by our arm chair strategists back home-guess he was referring to the likes of u boy LMFAO
@asku23 "The Great War & The Shaping Of The 20th Century," Jay Winter & Blaine Baggett. P79. "On 23rd August John Lucy's unit went into action at Mons. After taking up defensive positions as best they could, they were attacked by WAVES of German infantry advancing over open fields. German tactics were as OUTDATED as the French, for which they paid dearly. Lucy, "Our rapid fire was appalling even to us. Such tactics amazed us & after the first shock seeing men fall down as they were hit.......TBC
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Lucy quote cont:- "......gave us a great sense of power & pleasure. It was all so EASY."
The BEF hammered the leading German infantry units with rapid fire from .303 Lee Enfields. Mons was NOT about trying to hold the ground-it was primarily about stemming the German charge & forcing them to re-group their mauled units. This allowed the heavily outnumbered BEF to withdraw to the Marne-where the British & French STOPPED the German advance DEAD. FACT.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH in fact as churchill quotes (in 1930) the junior officer core has essentially been wiped out-when montogmery looked around his regiment on the night after the battle at le chateu-there was barely one officer left standing-a observation entirely consistent with churchills figures which as i have quoted earlier shows a casualty rate of 50% for the BEF in 1914-the main reason why the BEF build up was at a snails pace
@asku23 Irrelevant waffle, a feenle attempt to retract your initial statement which decreed that the "At Mons the BEF lost the bulk of it's core." WRONG-TOTALLY & UTTERLY WRONG.
@asku23 "World War One," Philip Warner P104- Re The Somme, " THE BRITISH, WHO HELD THREE QUARTERS OF THE FRONT, SUFFERED SOME 420,000 CASUALTIES, THE FRENCH LOST 205,000. THE GERMAN CASUALTY FIGIRES WERE 680,000." Capt Von Hentig- German General Staff, " THE SOMME WAS THE MUDDY GRAVE OF THE GERMAN FIELD ARMY & ITS FAITH IN THE ABILITY OF GERMAN LEADERS. GERMAN FIELD COMMAND WHICH ENTERED THE WAR WITH ENORMOUS SUPERIORITY, WAS DEFEATED BY THE SUPERIOR TECHNIQUES OF IT'S OPPONANTS......TBC
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH VON HENTIG CONTINUED:- " IT (GERMAN HIGH COMMAND) HAD FALLEN BEHIND THEM IN THE APPLICATION OF DESTRUCTIVE FORCES AND WAS COMPELLED TO THROW DIVISION AFTER DIVISION WITHOUT PROTECTION AGAINST THEM INTO THE CAULDRON OF THE BATTLE OF ANNIHILATION." Straight from the mouth of a member of the GERMAN GENERAL STAFF, not an ill-informed American fool obsessed with stats! lol The Germans repeatedly counter-attacked at the Somme & they incurred horrendous casualities- more than Britain
Britain - 445000 including the "diversion" at auberville
France - 207000
Germany: 200000 from July-Nov +37000 December.
a figure ALSO consistent as published by British war office,C Ve guerre(french General staff)
somme - half a millino losses and 7 miles gained- David llyod words - "a greater disaster has yet to make itself on the british army-how the devil are we going to finish htis war" read your own PM memoirs
@asku23 Please do provide the source for these alleged quotes. Title, author, page number & ISBN. Then, you can provide the source of these comments-otherwise I will not accept them! Sounds familiar!? ROFL. Talking of morons, what about the US General who on 11th Nov 1918, minutes before 11 o'clock, ordered his infantry to attack a Spa town. His purpose? To allow his troops to BATHE. Over 200 Yankee doughboys were slaughtered in the process. Good sound military logic from the Americretins lol :)
@asku23 Perhaps you would like to explain the relevance of your quote of 20,000 dead within the first hour of a battle that lasted for over FOUR months? WHO is disputing the fact that 20,000 died in the first hour, and by the end of the first day, 60,000 casualties had been sustained? Are you implying that because so many forfeited their lives on day ONE, of a battle that lasted over four months, that the Germans did not ultimately lose even more men?! lol Your point is WHAT?! ROFL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the "20000" comment was in response to your idotic dubious comment about the doughboys.i beleive i have pasted DETAILED figures i have on the somme form churchills book which shows 3 allied casualties for each german.in fact i even pasted the breakdown for each armies.another piece of advice - READ before responding hahahahaha
@asku23 Figures that have since been extensively revised in the many decades since WW1! lol Please do provide the title, author, page number, ISBN of the book you gleened this inaccurate data from. Otherwise, these figures are completely meaningless. You are quoting figures collated during the chaos of WW1. With the passage of time & research, more accurate figures are available today. Based on your assertion that the BEF "LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE AT MONS," you have NO credibility whatsoever.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH LOL figures collated during the chaos of WW1. - the reicharchives figures are computed in 1922 - 3 years AFTER the war-the reichsarchive is a summary of all the battlefield reports- including the dead and missing-taken from 2 UNIMPEACHABLE SOURCES - the german high command + German medical corps LOL.also i still do not see HOW ur figures are being computed? in fact the german figures are considered soo accurate that even today the best gistorians use them for reference
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH A RETREAT WHERE U LOST MORE MEN THAN YOUR ENEMY IS NOT A VICTORY-even a primary school-community college educated fool can tell you this - i guess your education does not even run that deep-hahaha does it?! again using your 1600 "wikipedia" research skills? the bef lost 12500 soldiers at MONS you pathetic uneducated,not understanding basic figures deluded isalnd ape.
@asku23 Americunt, you have proved that you are de facto, a moronic oaf who is incapable of reading & assimilating straight forward information. With regard to the respective casualty figures sustained at Mons, 1,600 British KIA & 5000+ German KIA, you failed to note that I provided TWO literary sources for these figures. 1) "World War One-A Narrative," Philip Waner ISBN 0-304-35057-5. 2) "Britain's Army In The 20th Century," Field Marshal Lord Carver ISBN0-333-73777-6. Wikipedia? You wanker lol
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH apart from researh u also seem to be having ENGLISH understanding problem,no worries i will repeat myself :
when a historian quotes statistics,he either:
1)specifies how he computed or arrived at these figures
2)what his SOURCE(S) are for quoting these figures,in case u did not know-these are also called the REFERENCE section LOL - so go back to your "extensive collection" and along with Title, author & page number look for REFERENCE heheh - ASSIGNMENT 1 ma boy
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH "world war 1 - a narrative" - hahahahahaha is it like star wars? a fiction book? or a comic book with less than 100 pages- is that your "extensive military collection" - no wonder you cant seem to find no sources in them,i can find 2000 ww1 books ,their names ISBNs ni less than 10 secs,does not prove i actally read a single line of them - as i think with all your "out of the ass" pulled "quotes" which i seem to find each one on wikipedia
@asku23 Why do I need to prove what books I possess, & which books I have read to an ignorant, obnoxious Yank buffoon such as yourself?! lol You have been slaughtered throughout this entire exchange. Your banal opinions are entirely based on figures, many of which are outrageously inaccurate EG Mons- I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. The fact that you argued that the BEF "LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE AT MONS," illustrates your complete ignorance & total lack of credibility! Fucking clown!!
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hehh i could care less about your books unless you quote thier sources- how do you add up to the figures u r quoting - Well my "banal opinions" are also Churchills which are from the MOST authentic source of all - the german imperial archives-do u even know how thorough the german archives are? it contains casulaty stats coming on every 10 days from the fled from multiple sources- the german general staff,the german medical services which is consdrd by MOSt historians as best
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH "laughter is the simplest form of denial" - voltaire - hehhhh that quote says it all about your "laughter".following up on your love of quotes:
sir edward spears quoting sir john french - "the army is a spent force,we need to bring our boys out as quickly as possible,let everyone else finish the war as best as they can" - quoted in the OFFICIAL british history as reprinted in haigs command by dennis winter-read lol
@asku23 Pleaseprovide the DATE & CONTEXT of French's quote, else I will not accept it. Provide the page number for the quote. The quote in itself is meaningless, it does not change historical fact- IE that the BEF did NOT " AT MONS LOSE THE BULK OF IT'S CORPS." Did the British withdraw from France & Belgium in WW1?! lol Carry on as long as you like buffoon, you cannot recover from your ridiculous assertion that Mons was a defeat for the British! You reinforce your own idiocy continually! lol
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH my "assertion" is based on the comment made by French in December 1914 - i never claimed he made it at Mons.in mons we agree the british retreated,in mons churchills shows 12500 brit casulaties to 9000 german ones,does retreating AND losing more men make it a british victory? LOL in your book i guess so that it does
@asku23 As already cited repeatedly, the British lost 1,600 men KIA at Mons, not 12,500. THREE British divisions fought at Mons, a figure of 12,500 KIA would in effect mean that the best part of an entire British divisions had been annihilated. In military terms, if you lose 33.3% of your total force, your force is no longer deemed to be a viable fighting force. Had the BEF lost the best part of a division at Mons, it would have been an unmitgated disaster. KINDERSLOSS was A GERMAN phrase! ROFL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH ok mr ROFL 3 divisions consist of roughly 45000 men so a loss of 12500 and using the standard 2 wounded for 1 killed gives us a figure of 39000 casualties not the 1600 u keep pasting from wikipedia - i prefer looking at churchills figures from the british war office-u know a slightly more credible sourece than your wiki -eh boy? a battle where almost 70% of the men involved become casulties suggest not a defeat- but a CATASTROPHE ,and when did i say it was an english phrase ?
@asku23 Oh dear, for an alleged 'accountant,' you have problems with basic maths. A typical British infantry division consisted of THREE Brigades. Each Brigade consisted of THREE infantry battalions. A WW1 battalion generally has an established strength of between 600 & 800(occassionally 900-1000) soldiers. A total of THREE infantry divs fought at Mons- 27 Battalions of infantry. Let's be generous & say ALL battalions had a strength 800 men= 21,600 infantry soldiers. Even with arty & cav NOT 45k
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH in fact in his "battle of the marne" chapter sir john french constantly cries about how few infantry he had left to exploit the gap in the german line,one reason why the allies where NEVER able to break the german line before their orderly retreat to the aisne-the remants of the BEF simply did not have the strength to do anything but blunder forward-as joffre put it: "hardly the force to entrust such a critical mission with" boy was he right LOL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH u again back to using the QOUTES as history eh? u got a royal thrashing form me regarding the sources and now we r back at sqaure 1 - u going with quotes and me doing the math LOL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH charles bean - quoting spears -" not ONE man of ours got to the german line.the german artillery DECIMATED them,watching them the frech general mangin observed remembering the crimean war - this is magnificient but it is not war"
When i surveyed the battlefield after the attack i could only see piles after piles of british dead while in the german trenches we barely found 20 bodies - since u like "quotes"-here is one from somebody DIRECTLY on the field after battle
@asku23 What an amazing revellation! You have provided a quote that merely confirms a well known & undisputed fact! Namely that some attacking British units suffered heavy casualties-simply stunning initiative on your behalf-NOT. I do not recall disputing that! lol Now perhaps you would like to discuss the FACT that the Germans actually suffered heavier losses by insisting on counter-attacking where ever the British gained some ground- as evidenced by German Staff officer Capt Von Hentig?? ROFL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH WOW what an einstein: the allied lost 653000 casualties to the germans 237000 and this quote somehow proves the german suffered "heavier losses" - u r one fantastic analyst my friend.first of all the british and german attacks were vastly different-the british attacked heavily entrenched germans while the german counterattackes came almost/always immediately against exhausted reminants of british survivors of the initial attack - analysis - Myth of the great war-john mosier
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH another CLASSIC example of you taking a quote off context and somehow expalining it as the norm in a battle involving millions of men that went on for over 6 months LOL.Americans had a casulaty ratio of less than 12% while the brits lost 25% in almost any engagement of size that they fought-only 2nd to the turks and the serbs - verbatim quote-niall ferguson-pity of war-it is in the FIRST PAGE of the book LOL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH and pelase please stop using wikipedia again for your research - it is too easy to catch u doing it LOL.so kid here is your assignment for tonight:
1)READ the books ur pulling your "qoutes and stats" from and tell me their sources or atleast the method of how they are basing their estimates on.these are simple steps even a high school kids will know-ofc which u may not be LOL-again it is the accountant talking hehh-
@asku23 I know not why the obnoxious Americunt keeps wittering on about Wikiapedia- his own favourite fount of flawed 'knowledge.' Especially since every piece of information & quote provided has included the source title, author and page number. If you want to investigate the reference sources that various authors used, get your wallet out & buy your own books & scruntise them yourself. I am under NO obligation to justify the works of minds far superior to that of the Americunt imbecile! ROFL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH island boy - when u read a book u must take atlast a little time to analyse what they r saying? if they are making sense? i guess it never occured to you to question how these figures came to be? i guess u never heard the word "historiograhy"? well well,just some guy quoting figures does not make it a FACT,it is rather an opiinon unless he can back it up with documents,analysis,research or experience all of which seems too alien to you or maybe even your countrymen hahaha
@asku23 I see. So evidently the opinions of Holmes, Caver, Warner & the other authors & sources I quoted, including the opinions of GERMAN field & staff officers, are those of charletons? lol What a pompous & arrogant prick you are Americunt! lol It amuses me no end that the opinions & conclusions of authors such as Holmes are internationally highly respected within historical circles, yet the Google & Wikipedia King Americunt knows better than a Professor of military history!!! ROFL You clown!!
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH where r the SOURCES - u dumb fuck!!!! quotes from german officers do not form sources - like archives,regimental records,german medical services documents,u r such a dunce! u do not even understand the meaning of sources LMFAO,u think von hertig statement PROVES german losses were higher? LOL-WOW i am faced with a gigantic taks in educationg your ass lol
@asku23 Temper temper you insignificant gimp!! For somebody who demands that every single point be backed up not only by figures, but by the inclusion of bibliographical cross references/sources, you seem extremely reluctant to actually provide any such evidence yourself. I suspect that Staff officer Kapt. Hertig had a far greater understanding of the battle of the Somme & it's impact on the German army than an American geek sat behind his PC surfing Google & Wikipedia in 2011 ever will ROFL :)
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hehh i guess the great "captain hertig" as can be seen from his title had more knowledge than von falkenhayn.hmmmm i am not providing bibliography? LOL how about the REICHARCHIVE which i have been pasting your ass with in almost every comment ? LOL
ASSIGNMENT 2 for u island boy - finish assignment 1 hahahaha
@asku23 PROVE you have used REICHARCHIVE sources, otherwise it is just more innane Yank cretin hot air! PROVE the accuracy of the REICHARCHIVE ROFL Tonight junior, your first grade homework project is to research the battle of Mons AGAIN. Your last effort was dire & completely off the mark! You made wild & ridiculous comments about the BEF "LOSING THE BULK OF IT'S CORPS." Clearly you did not pay attention in class, you completely failed to comprehend the strategy & the British intent. E minus
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH in 2006 wilson wrote a book " churchills world history as HISTORY" in which he proved the churchills figures were entirely consistent with battlefied reports,aggregated casualty counts and was in fact in line with what the british war office and the french govermnet(including the famous andre maginot) had collected from the german archives.NONE of which is in any of the books u have quoted except QUOTES from some guy LOL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH PROVE the accuracy of the REICHARCHIVE - hehhh the reichsarchive is the official german equivalent of britains official history u moron- countries in their official versions do not just paste figures without THROUGHLY researhing them - they dont copy paste figures from wikipedia like u LOL.a classic example of the throughness and intrinsic consistency of the german data is the fact that someone as anti-german as churchill thought thme to be highly accurate - FOOL
@asku23 So the German figures are beyond reproach are they? 100% accurate?! ROFL "World War One, " Warner, P 104, final paragraph:- " The German (Somme) casualty figures were 680,000, but even this maybe TOO LOW as the Germans WERE LESS CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT KEEPING A RECORD OF THEIR CASUALTIES, citing 'a shortage of clerks, & in addition did NOT USUALLY INCLUDE THE LESS SERIOUSLY WOUNDED." Clearly then, the German figures you quote as NOT reliable! You meet yet ANOTHER Waterloo my cretinous oaf!
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hmmm i c,so why do you beleive the british figures are correct and the german too low? LOL the british might well have lost more than a million-so basically u r telling me that u will only beleive figures that u want to beleive LOL?
as i said before churchill-as anti german as they get himself beleives the german figures to be accurante as do a host of prominent experts including niall ferguson - accepted generally as the BEST british historian in the world today LOL
@asku23 Please do provide a quote from Ferguson that supports your assertion that German figures are believed to be accurate. TITLE, CHAPTER, PAGE & ISBN LET'S HAVE IT!! :) Else it is merely more innane Yank hot air :) Please do list the ' host of prominent experts' who concur with this theory! WHO recognises Ferguson as the 'best' British historian in the world? Has somebody taken a poll? lol Plenty of assertions- as usual ZERO EVIDENCE to support them. Tut, tut- very poor Simple Simon!
Niall Feguson - Piy Of War - quote on churchill - chapter 4 - dealing with ww1
Churchill's World crisis as history by Robin Prior, 1983,Croom Helm edition,
Charles Bean - australia official history ,pryor wilson-somme,john mosier-myth of the great war,dennis winter-haigs command,the BRITISH WAR OFFICE STATISTICS(1922),abel ferry/andre maginot -Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine
@asku23 I see you have been busy on Google again.........lol How odd, ordinarily people provide book titles & author details alongside their original posts/assertions. So far, you have posted reams of stats, now, retrospectively (post Google search) you list a number of titles. Highly suspicious- why refrain from providing your sources when you made your initial posts? Taken with a pinch of salt..........
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH yeah internet soldier-since i cannto scan and paste the entire BOOK here in a video forum with limited character count this is all i got 0 -unlike your wikipedia consistent figures LOL.also i think u did not read my original posts -all with refrences but hey rnt u the same that still cannot understand the difference b/w stats and quotes to determine the result of a battle? hehhh
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH BTW churchill is no fool to beleive watever the germans showed him-he is a seasoned hisotrian u dunce-thats why he spent 1.5 years CHECKING his sources-unlike u LOL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH want more island boy? ohh BTW a simple google search will get u the ISBN LOL - but i guess u know how to search as most of your "out of the ass" pulled figures are from there LOL
@asku23 Please do PROVE your continual assertion that I am utilising Google to obtain information. You continually make the allegation- PROVE it. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. EVERY quote I have posted originates from a collection of books I possess. Websites are hardly reknown for their accuracy. I was not aware that websites generally oblige with page numbers for respective quotes..... I post quotes, authors & page numbers- you proffer statistics- I suggest you know your own Google/Wiki tricks best.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH even assuming all of churchills figures wrong just look at the difference b/w yours and mine - 237000 vs 68000(even that too low for you) LOL?! that is the error margin of more than 300%! hehh so u saying that in reality the germans had 3 casualties to their every single one? u CLEARLY have a problem with numbers mate - real wonder how u maintain a bank balance or ur wife if she does it for ya hahahahaha
@asku23 What I am stating quite simply, is that 1,600 British soldiers were killed at Mons & over 5,000 Germans were killed. Is that simple enough for you? The British did NOT lose 12,000+ men.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH it is also a well known FACT that on the somme per front/mile the british had the LOWEST number of machine guns/howitzers and they were attacknig entrenched german positions and also almost every account is consistent that most british shells-sharpnel did not burst and certainly did not destroy the german barbed wire let alone the trenches-based on what logic one can claim german losses anywhere near let alone greater is beyond me -except ofcourse a mozilla head like u
@asku23 Again, with regard to the scale of the German casualties on the Somme, your woeful lack of military tactics & history is evident.The Germans, as I highlighted with the quote from Kapt Hertig, the staff officer, adopted the tactic of launching immediate counter-attacks wherever the British seized ground. By doing so, they sustained huge casualties- their divisions were chewed up by British artillery & machine gun fire. They allowed themselves to be drawn into an ATTRITIONAL battle.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH u and ur stupid quotes again,i notice everytime u get hammered on stat u ren back to your quotes - stick to one will ya?
OK-the german counter attacks delivered against british remians of initial british attacks is not the same as the british attack on PREPARED german positions u fool-that is basic military common sense which u clearly dont have.
@asku23 Temper temper my grey suited bean counter! Allow me to continue with your massacre-" WAR WALKS- From Agincourt To Normandy," Prof Richard Holmes- Professor of Military & Security Studies-Cranfield University & the Royal Military College of Science, Brigadier(R) Rtd, Page 106 on Mons:- The British had lost 1642 men, most of them from the Royal Fusiliers, Middlesex & Royal Irish, German losses cannot have been LESS than 5000 & may easily have been MUCH MORE." Game, set & match my US fool!
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH also i REPEAT : only a gigantic fool would not notice the GIGANTIC discrepancy b/w your figures and those given by the GERMAN goverment in its archives 237 vs 680(also 22 low for u) LOL
@asku23 You should consider contacting CARVER, WARNER, HOLMES, WINTER & BAGGETT & a myriad of other historians who adhere to the figure of 600-680,000 German casualties on the Somme. Clearly, these 'gigantic fools,' who are mere professional military historians, have it ALL wrong, compared to the OAF Asku23, whose basic knowledge is appalling Eg You DENIED that Germany suffered widespread food shortages & starvation. You argue Mons was a defeat, where 'THE BEF LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE." IDIOT.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH also i guess u dont have the brains to question? why would the german miss somehting as basic as "seriously wounded" - infact the main factor in determining the benefits which a veteran is eligible for? i REALLY REALLY am beginning to doubt your quotes and sources which i beleive are comin right out of your ass like a machine gun in ww1 lol
@asku23 How ironic, you attempt to sneer at one who possesses a good working knowledge of WW1, when you have posted such nonsense. Need I remind you that you DENIED that Germany suffered appalling food shortages & starvation as a result of naval blockade? Staggering ignorance & stupidity on your behalf. "The Great War & Shaping Of The 20th Century," Winter & Baggett P303 "WHAT MADE GERMAN DEFEAT UNAVOIDABLE WAS THE FACT THAT MILITARY DISASTER COINCIDED WITH A FOOD CRISIS ON THE HOME FRONT." ROFL
in fact the german data includes accurate missing figures subtracting out POW info - those who returned after the war - it is not "chaos" - also it is funny-u STILL have not quoted your SOURCESso finish up on that assignment lol.dont waste more time on rants-do ur HW - else u only gonna get more ass hiding form me with my figures lol - also my BEF mons quote is from Sir John french-the commander of the BEF as quoted by churchill - so assignment 2 - read churchills - world crise
@asku23 WC's literary work was written YEARS ago & it is NOT the definitive historical account! His figures are very much open to being challenged. A defeat for the BEF at Mons would have involved being outflanked, encircled & destruction in detail. In reality, the Germans charged at prepared Brit inf positions & they were shot to pieces-slaughted. They admitted it themselves, as evidenced by their adoption of the term, 'KINDERSLOSS.' WHY create such a term if they had prevailed?! IMBECILE lol
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH do u even read u dumbass? - i think i wrote about wilsons book which in its title itself suggest using churchills book as history,churchill spent 1.5 years researching the german archives going to-fro - his book in fact is the ONLY DEFINITIVE and complete acconuting we have of the german figures.nial ferguson in fact was soo impressed with churchills book that he contanstly refers to it as his referred source of referece assface.
@asku23 Churchill had access to inaccurate German figures, as already highlighted, they did NOT maintain highly accurate records ie they DID not record those soldiers who suffered minor wounds, & even their records of KIA cannot be entirely relied upon. Ergo, their figures are NOT beyond reproach. 1.5 years spent scrutinising inaccurate statistics does not create accurate figures. Some accountant you must be.......lol
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH oh they are inaccurate because U SAY SO - LOL? the germans are known for their thoroughness in almost everything,i wonder why in this category all their figures are wrong and a brit internet hero is calling them which is beleived by a host of the most prominent militarty historians in the worls LMFAO LMFAO
@asku23 No, read my original post in relation to the dubious accuracy of German figures, I quoted Philip Warner from his book, I even obliged with the page number & paragraph. Do you have learning difficulties of special needs per chance? How stupid do you have to be to confuse a quote from Warner, with me? I did not say so- WARNER ARGUES THE POINT. :) On the flip side of the coin, the German figures are accurate because YOU say so? The figs WC studied are highly likely to be innaccurate! lol
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH so your great source - warner if indeed is the case does not explian the HUGE discrepancy b/w 237000 and 680000? so the germans under-reported their casulties 3 times LOL? for even a math DUNCE like you that should be obvious.BTW i still dont see how warner arrives at his estimates? churchills is based on the THOROUGH research of the reicharchives and your "Warners" figures? where they from - his ass? that is called "checking your sources" LOL
@asku23 Warner quotes 680,000 German KIA at the Somme. How about Field Marshal Lord Carver in "Britain's Army In The 20th Century," (in association with The Imperial War Museum)? Guess what? Page 86, penultimate paragraph, " at a cost of 419,654 British & 204,253 French casualties. Estimates of German casualties over the same (4.5 month) period vary from 465,000 to 680,000." Clearly there IS discrepancy in German figures- they are NOT beyond reproach & they DID sustain HIGHER casualties.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH so where did marshall craver and get his figures? that is what i have been asking you again and again and again - the ONLY german figures are in the reicharchives,there are NO OTHER german figures available-so where did this "marshal" get his figures? his figure of 418000 brit is initself inaccurate,the britsih war office puts somme total as 445000
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH so where did marshall craver and get his figures? that is what i have been asking you again and again and again - the ONLY german figures are in the reicharchives,there are NO OTHER german figures available-so where did this "marshal" get his figures? his figure of 418000 brit is initself inaccurate,the britsih war office puts somme total as 445000,so there itself it is clear that "warner" has not checked his sources on the british side let alone his estimates of the german
@asku23 "War Walks," Holmes- on the Somme , " Allied casualties totalled about 600,000, two-thirds of them British. DIFFERENCES IN CASUALTY REPORTING PROCEDURE MEAN THAT OFFICIAL GERMAN FIGURES ARE CERTAINLY TOO LOW, although some have accused Brigadier-General Sir James Edmonds, the official British historian, of over optimism in inflating them to 680,000. It is far safer, based on more recent research, to state German losses as being 600,000 men, many in COUNTER ATTACKS & MORE TO ARTILLERY."
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the wiki MORON is back with his usual nonsense "sources".the german goverment reports its losses as 230000 and u r saying 600000 - 3 TIMES the number - has it EVER occurred to u in that little brain of yours why there is soo large a error margin? LOL - i guess not,BTW i STILL STILL do not see how your "emininet" historians are basing theri fugures on - if they ARE indeed eminent they would provide SOURCES for their accounting-and you would know it if in fact u read them lol
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH"DIFFERENCES IN CASUALTY REPORTING PROCEDURE" - hahahahahahahaha,OK-so let me get this straight - a wounded/dead/missing is somehow different in german than it is in english LOL - as i stated earlier - the german accounting contained not just the missing but also something as detailed as casualties caused by WEAPON TYPE as stated in churchills book.in my next comment i would like a quote a really lovely phrase from john mosier - myth of the great war
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH "having suffered almost 45000 casulaties the british were under great compulsion to beleive that losses were atleast equal,although churchill,the war office,the official australian/canadian historian - bean have proved the absurdities of these claims,the attacks by BEF apologists are soo vicious so much so that EVEN today most british beleive either the hyped number is true or the matter is in some dispute," - a TEXTBOOK phrase for MORONs like u and your "sources"
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH you air filled moron - the german counterattacks were against SURVIVORS of the slughter through the initial british attack while the german attacks were against PREPARED fortified german positions protected by layer after layer of barb wire and machine guns and it is also generally accepted that british artillery was TOTALLY ineffective aganist the kind of fortifications the germans had - no wonder they thought they were walking towards empty german positions
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH final riposte to a feather head fool - since u r quoting the sources it is YOUR job to CHECK how they are ESTIMATING their figures on - german battle reports,reicharchive,medical reports, etc etc etc - do u even get the basic concept of an AUDIT you unrecoverable idiot? laso i see ALL ALL ALL of your figures are directly seem to show up in the wiki page of somme - be a little original next time LOL
PS: WIKIPIDEA IS NOT HISTORY - even morons like u can edit that page lol lol
@asku23 Considering the wild inaccuracy of most of your posts, which are completely bereft of historical knowledge, any criticism you attempt to direct at me is frankly laughable. Oh the irony of it! The ignorant moron who was unaware & even denied that Germany was largely starved into submission! The moron who argued that Mons was a defeat for the BEF, and quoted ridiculously inaccurate stats in relation to casualties! Wikipedia & Google are your reference tools empty head, NOT mine! ROFL
@asku23 Not interested in your bullshit opinions wanker. You have ZERO credibility, you have repeatedly made a public spectacle of yourself & highlighted your stunning levels of ignorance.the EG Your denial that Germany suffered starvation as a consequence of the naval blockade. EG You assertion that Mons was a defeat & that the BEF lost, ''THE BULK OF IT'S CORE." Your opinions have much in common with, and are as interesting as, a used piece of toilet paper. Cheerio :)
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH - wiki boy wiki boy - still dont c u providin ur "sources" accounting methods - LOL i guess they dont exist? or more likely - you ran out of figures to copy paste from wikipedia-your be all/end all source of history hahahaha.u got one proper hiding me from me boy.hmm also did u notice something? ALL ALL my sources are BRITISH - some of them the greatest leaders - military/civilian - churchill,monty,niall ferguson-ALL of them accepts somme as an epic catastrophe,hh coincedence?
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH - hmm so we are back to mons are we? AGAIN do your sources provide from where they r pulling these figures from - or is this another of your wiki research we r dealing with here? Read the following paper from the BRITISH WAR OFFICE STATISTICIANS - "Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1920" - the mons figure are there in BLACK AND WHITE - 80000 british troops engaged - 12557 casulties - LOL LOL LOL-END OF STORY for u
General Fayolle - french general staff - "with russias collapse - the bread basket of europe - ukraine/romania/hungary fell into german hands" russia pre ww1 was the BIGGEST exporter in the world of foodstuffs - grain,wheat,meat etc etc - germany had the resource of ALL OF EUROPE to draw from - u stupid OAF,what did she need to import and from where? also one germanys BIGGEST losses economically was the collapse of trade relations with USA - one can hardly credit the british for that LOL
@asku23 I guess that is why so many Germans starved to death then-you blithering idiot. Only a complete imbecile would continue to try and deny HISTORICAL FACT. You are attempting to defend an indefensible position- an act of sheer folly & stupidity. You continue to cling onto Churchill's figures which were obtained from INACCURATE German records. The consensus amongst contemporary historians is that the German figures are far from accurate, yet the bean counting oaf refutes the opinions. ROFL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the only "contemporary" historian disputing the german numbers is you - LOL and from your research skills i can gather how much worth your "disputing" is LOL,the german figures are accepted as highly accurate as not just by churchill but also the aussie/canadian OFFICIAL historian - charles bean not to mention the british war office - your own goverment hahahaha,totally completely childish fella
@asku23 As already highlighted on numerous occasions, Churchill's figures are based on data that is now widely regarded by many contemporary military historians as INACCURATE. How odd that numerous respected historians I have quoted argue EXACTLY that point, yet the simian brained Americunt oaf bean counter, who regards historical FACT as a simple matter of statistics & percentages, knows better! ROFL. You DENY established facts, such as German starvation, and quote statistics!! IMBECILE! lol
@asku23 Oh dear, you poor chap, you seem to struggle to assimilate the most basic logic. The German 'official' figures collated during WW1, & 'officially' accepted by the British 80 years ago- are widely disputed by contemporary historians. The fact that Churchill, utilised & endorsed those now DISPUTED figures, when he wrote his literature over 60+ years ago counts for naught. It's Simple SImon- the figures you are so reliant on are NOT infallable-their accuracy is highly questionable.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the ONLY "contemporary" historian is you with your wikipedia influenced rants lol,so everyone- the german goverment,the british goverment,churchill are all wrong but your "prof holmes" with his still mysterious accounting techniques is the only one correct? LOL
@asku23 As I have already challenged you on several occasions, please do EVIDENCE your assertion that I am referring to Wikipedia & Google. Put up, or shut up clown. How odd, that ALL my comments have been supported by direct quotes from established military story authors, including page number, paragraph & in several cases the ISBN. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia & Google provided such data, there again, you are the 'expert' with regard to abstracting data from the internet! ROFL Feeble cretin!
@asku23 Sorry old twat, you are the party that continually quotes figures derived from Google searches, frequently without ANY provenance, aside from being labelled, ' the official German/British figures.' You reinforce this by citing Churchill's figures-which are based on(now) DISPUTED stats. You make desperate attempts to undermind the quotes & sources I provide to support my arguments by dismissing them as being 'obtained from Wikipedia.' Amateur reverse psychology-piss poor effort.
@asku23 Ah yes, that must be why the HISTORY books concerning WW1 are brim full of facts about THE STARVATION OF GERMANY. It is estimated that 800K German civilians died directly as a consequence of food shortage/starvation. Just to put that into perspective for your amoeba brain, it is believed that circa 600K Germans died in WW2 as a result of the allied strategic bombing campaign. The irony is whilst it is acceptable to starve people to death, dropping copious amount of HE on them is not.
sorry, what! it becomes totally acceptable to starve 800k people when compared to the 6 million jews were taken from their houses and forced into camps to die of starvation, disease or in some cases gassed in their thousands during the holocaust. that is not mentioning homosexuals poles communists disabled people and jehovah's witnesses. Yes the starving of 800k civilians was wrong but it brought the great war to an abrupt end.
@H0GGY123 You miss the point entirely. I am not arguing as to whether the starvation of 800k people was right or wrong in terms of helping end the war. The point I am making is clearly OBVIOUS, IE people make a huge fuss over the aerial bombing of Germany in WW2, which killed an estimated 600k people. Yet it appears that bombing is far more unacceptable to such people than starvation which killed even more, because it rarely receives a mention.
total british/french DEAD only in western front against germany - 1.25 million(french) + 775000(British)
total german DEAD(western,eastern,italian,rumanian,turkish,palestine,naval) - 1.98 million
ALL figures - The War Office (2006). Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914—1920. Uckfield, East Sussex: Military and Naval Press
PS:brit/france had more DEAD on one front than germany in 6 fronts chew on it - hahahaha
@asku23 Please do explain the relevance of your pointless quote of total casualties. Do these figures & the disparity between them change history?! Do they imply Germany actually prevailed in WW1? How stupid are you? A rhetorical question. All you contribute is FIGURES, your posts like any vestige of knowledge of strategy, I wonder why that might be? Could it be because de facto you are woefully ignorant? Afterall, YOU repeatedly refuted that Germany suffered starvation- AN ESTABLISHED FACT! lol
I thought the total figures spoke for themselves,but i seem to have forgotten that i am talking to a middle age man with the brain of a 12 year old,no worries i will eloborate,the total figures PROVE -
1)the german army was tactically FAR SUPERIOR and the british/french were no match to it.
2)your imaginary mons/somme figures of always showing/implying equal/greater brit-german losses does not add up LOL
3)the entry of the fresh american millions was DECISIVE for the defeat of germany
you mentally challenged moron - churchills figures as i have REPEATEDLY said is the GERMAN GOVERMENTS figures,these figures have been accepted by your own GOVERMENT so much so that they have published it in their OFFICIAL STATISTICS of the WAR.as i proved earlier your mons figures are fantasies as your OWN GOVERMENT FIGURES show 12557 british casualties.finally i STILL STILL do not see "prof holmes" sources for his imagined german numbers LOL- if in fact that is what he is quoting
@asku23 Quarterwit, the figures you cling to as the gospel truth, are anything but & MANY historians challenge the accuracy of the German figures. I will have no further truck with your innane drivel. The fact that you openly state on your channel, "ALL MUSLIMS ARE SCUM," highlights your stupidity aptly. Clearly you are so lacking in intelligence & judgement that you are willing to generalise in a negative way about hundreds of millions of human beings. STUPID, RACIST, BIGOT- potential NAZI.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH r u a parrot? tweeting the same rubbish again and again and again expecting a ifferent response LOL.IF the german figures are inaccurate i would like to know how these "great" historians that dispute the german goverments numbers are making their estimates,u have been AVOIDING answering me on this over and over again-just proves u either have not read the books u r quoting or your quoted "authors" are pulling numbers out of their asses themselves-i more likely go with the 1st
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH i have CONCLUSIVELY proven based on your OWN GOVERMENTS publicly available published figures that your Mons casualty totals are sheer rubbish-in fact EVEN your british totals for somme are too low as the british goverment admits at total of ~447000 british casualties(aggregate July - Nov based on the monthly totals in the paper i qouted numbskull) with the CORRESPONDING german totals which closely match churchills accounting.
@asku23 You have proven NOTHING at all. You have simply argued over one set of figures against another. You have PROVEN with many of your comments that you know NOTHING about the chronology of events in WW1. You have also PROVEN that you are an ARROGANT, ENTHNOCENTRIC, ODIOUS, RACIST BIGOT-A BRAINLESS THUG- your views about Muslims are akin to those of the Nazis towards Jews, Slavs, Russians etc. You would make a fine recruit for an SS Einsatzgruppe-you FILTH, you shame your nation. DISGUSTING.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH LOL i see how u have COMPLETELY avoided stopped responding to my facts and figures given the thorough ass wiping i have given u and are retorting to cheap pro-terrorist rants to try to divert the issue,i guess u ran out of wiki figures to quote from hahaha?
ohh BTW were it nor for this "filth" u would be speaking german today u ungrateful slimy terrorist loving freedom hating sand nigger loving bastard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@asku23 The odious, imbecilic, racist content of your comment stands as testament to what you are, a moronic Nazi thug, complete SCUM. You are also irredeemably stupid. First of all, YOU had no personal involvement in WW2, so I owe you no thanks whatsoever. Secondly, the Battle Of Britain secured Britain's freedom & Maverick & Iceman had nothing to do with that. Thirdly, with your mentality, you would have been on the other side in an SS Einzgruppen murdering one racial group or another.
@asku23 You have proved NOTHING, aside from the fact that there is considerable dispute amongst historians, many of whom argue that the 'official figures' are NOT infallable. You have proved with comments such as, "THE BEF LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE AT MONS IN 1914," & your denial that Germany suffered food shortages & starvation, that you know NOTHING about WW1. Your modus operandi is to hastily Google for statistics & quibble over figures- PISS POOR PERFORMANCE FROM A RACIST NAZI.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH i still do not have ur response as 2 why the germans why there is soo large a discrepancy b/w the figures u provided and that given by the german goverment.has it ever occurred in that small brain of yours if it is logically possible to hide 368000 german casualties,error margins(if u have EVER heard the term) are never over 5% MAX - not the 300% ur total math ignorant brain estimates LMFAO
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH in 1918 germany occupied russia uptil the caspian sea and russias army had TOTALLY COLLAPSED/DEFEATED/ROUTED.99.98% of belgium was overrun,only a small sliver of barren territory with no towns/civilians remained in allied control till the armistice.Mutiny does not matter?!-hahahaha-what a stupendous fool u r - in 1917 almost 70% of the french army basically REFUSED to obey orders to fight and petains MAIN STRATEGY of restoring morale was to stress AMERICAS ENTRY
@asku23 I will have no further dealing with odious NAZI SCUM such as yourself. Due to your incredible stupidity & racism, you are prepared to condemn many hundreds of millions of people around the world due to their religious belief, simply because a handful of cretins- BIGOTS filled with hate, just like YOU, committed an act terrorism. Where was the US 'outrage' at terrorism during thirty years of violence & murder in Northern Ireland? You twats FUNDED the terrorists- duplicious wankers.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hmm based on your rant - it is clear to me u r probably a muslim - one of those oily haired leather skin bearded bastards who MURDERED 3000 INNOCENT people a decade ago-let me tell u this if u r a mossie-we will roast u curry cocked bastards like we are doin in iraq/afghan,DONT DARE CALL ME A NAZI - u filthy motherfucker!!!!!! it was young men like me that crossed the ocean,risked their life and SAVED u TWICE,were it not for us -it would be u wh would have been a nazi-punk!!
@asku23 Congratulations you inbred, moronic NAZI SCUMBAG, on revealling your true, disgusting racist nature on a public forum. Nazis were people who generalised about entire racial groups, the Jews, the Slavs etc. Just like you generalise about hundreds of millions of Muslins. Nazis hated these groups for no good reason & launched a genocide against these people on an industrial scale. The soldiers who died in WW2 to obliterate the Nazis would regard you as a NAZI considering your odious racism.
@asku23 As I have explained countless times, the official German figures & to a lesser degree, British figures, ARE DISPUTED BY MANY HISTORIANS. Additional research in the last three decades has caused many historians to conclude that the figures are FAR from reliable. It matters NOT that British statistics published 'officially' many, many years ago were based on an acceptance of the accuracy of German figures. The bottom line is Simple Fuckin Simon- THE OFFICIAL FIGURES ARE WIDELY DISPUTED.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hey einstein - did u do the HW i told u the last couple of days? did u EVER take the trouble of checking russias food output pre-ww1?LOL-i think not.germany biggest economic disaster in ww1 was shortage of rubber,and loss of credit - BOTH of which was ONLY due to americas suspension of its economic ties with the germans something u peanut headed ingrate island niggers NEVER thanked us for lol
@asku23 I do like your ironic sense of humour. You make a feeble attempt to be sarcastic by using the name 'Einstein.' Yet it is YOU who has been wrong consistantly about the course of WW1. Let me remind you AGAIN- you stated that the BEF 'LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE AT MONS,' which is TOTALLY WRONG. You denied that Germany suffered starvation as a result of the Royal Naval blockade of the North Sea. You argued that Germany had 'Europe at it's feet & no shortage of food.' Oh the irony! ROFL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH just calling something a fact dont make it so LOL-its like saying u got a big cock-if u gotta say it-chances are it aint true-LOL.lets re-hash some "indisputable" facts:
how many allied countries were overrun before america entry? - 4- belgium,russia,rumania,serbia
how many allied countries faced mass mutiny before america entry? - italy,france
how many CP countries overrun before america entry? - ZERO
how many allied countries faced mass mutiny before america entry? - ZERO
@asku23 First of all, Russia was not 'overrun' in WW1. The Russian war effort collapsed as a result of the Russian Revolution in 1917. The Germans did not invade Russia to any significant degree. Why else do you think the Germans were able to launch the Spring Offensive of 1918.?Three guesses where they redeployed troops from? Belgium was not 'overrun' either. Where is Ypres? Belgium. Who held it? The British. Who NEVER captured it? The Germans. Mutiny has no relevance to US entrance to WW1.
"All you contribute is FIGURES" - hahahahahaha,that sentence alone puts your IQ in the unrecoverable category.i guess u r the kind that in his life has never done any analysis,asked questions,done research etc..? have you? LOL - it is ALWAYS about NUMBERS you putz.u r the kind i guess who does not care how 1+1 becomes 2 LOL - you r one brainwashed oaf as is perfectly clear-but i AM having 22 much fun to stop LOL
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH well the british army according to Dennis winters book in mons consisted of 51000 soldiers - 4 divisions -some of them partally involved,it does not say anywhere how many men a single division of the british army contained - i am going with the well accepted figure - 15000 men,even taking your account the sheer difference AGAIN 12500(from churchill) vs 1600 is baffling,i mean why would the british war office say it lost 12500 when only 1600 were killed? interesting question
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH we can discount your "inaccuracy" charge of the german archives,it is hard to understand why the german goverment would miss something as simple as "wounded" out of its official documents,alo to answer your queston why these r importnat?since these same figures were used in germany to give social benefits to veterans(just like in UK),it is hard to see how german goverment would allow such a wildly inaccurate accounting of its casualties
@asku23 Warner highlights that by their OWN admission, the Germans themselves throw doubt on their own figures. They cite 'a shortage of clerks,' (to maintain accurate figures) & in addition the fact that, 'They did NOT usually include the less seriously wounded.' Add those who were atomised/buried in the mud & never recovered, and it is evident that there is certainly potential for considerable inaccuracy. I am not going to argue over which came first, chicken or egg.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH what a moron u must be to beleive that statement,germany in ww1 was the most educated society in the world-hard to see them facing a "shortage of clerks" hahahaha.also i have REPEATEDLY stated churchills figures INCLUDES missing,even assuming the german accounting was not thorough(which it WAS) it hard to see them being inaccurate as it be as low as 1/3 of the total casualties they supposedly suffered,a figure they used to give benefits to its veterans LOL
@asku23 Perhaps being an imbecile, the salient point evades you with regard to shortages of clerks.......The Germans were engaged in a WORLD WAR, and in 1916 during the Somme, they were fighting on TWO fronts, East & West. You do not need to be Steven Hawkinge to appreciate WHY they had a shortage of pen pushers, nealy all the men were carrying a rifle & bayonet in the front line. Education had nothing to do with it, shortage of men due to war had EVERYTHING to do with it.
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH buddy boy: dont u read? the german accounting was done POST WAR - u stupid ass,for 3 years from 1919-1922 LOL also since u do not know-in wartime most clerical jobs are done by WOMEN fool-not to forget the old,the disabled from a population of 70 millino i find it hard to accept there would be a shortage of pen pushers-not that it is relevant at all since churchills figures are based on post war acconuting,another hiding? island boy -i am kickng ur ass too easy now
the style of warfare has changed through the years,guns and equipment also has but the courage of a British Soldier never will.
Marlever357 3 months ago
people hating on these videos are you also aware that these guys you giving hate to are the guys that give you the right to do that?
TheBenultimate 5 months ago
best forces in the world bar none dont care what any sad act statistical dickhead says. Bottom line no one on the face of the planet has more experience at fighting wars.
dANNNimal 10 months ago
who knew there would be arguments on this page, what a surprise!. If you dont like/support the British army the get the fuck off this video.
danhodg1 11 months ago
@danhodg1 Aye, you can't make a video with "Britain" or "America" in the title without this happening >.>
Shadowfang3000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since you already started reading you cant stop. My name is Kalena. I have black hair, and green eyes. I am 13. I was abused my whole life. I have no ears or nose, because my parents chopped them of with a rusty fork. I am dead. I will show up in your room in 13 days and kill you by chopping off your body parts with a rusty fork unless you repost this on 5 pages. THIS IS NO JOKE!! If you do, something good will happen to you within 13 days. If you don't believe this, wait
LadyValkyrieChan 11 months ago
WTF seriously just watch the damnvideo
PichuGeneral 11 months ago
RIP all those who sacrificed their lives for our island home and so we can live free. never forget.
ManicMammoth 1 year ago
and where did "Prof Richard Holmes" get his stats from? - his ass i suppose,the only german figures-from credible german sources are in churchills book-so where else? ohh i got it- uncle jim clancys - guesstimates on enemy casualty i guess- cause thats what ur figures are -"guess" hehh
asku23 1 year ago
in fact in guderians "Panzer General" - he quotes one very specific instance - in the breakthrough over sedan british/french pilot tried to destroy the bridge by flying at rooftop height were absolutely sluaghtered by the geram ack ack guns-he notes the bravery of the pilots AND the stupidity of the allied higher command that forced them on such a suicide mission.in the battle of sedan the alleis lost over 150 planes for no reported german loss - a real tragedy if there ever was one.
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 So what? RAF Blenhiems got shot to pieces on daylight ops. Guess what? Post France, the RAF switched to night time ops predominantly. The USAAF B-17's were massacred until the advent of the P-51 escort fighter. At one point in 1943, the casualty figures were so high, the USAAF virtually curtailed bombing ops over Germany. The US bombers could NOT defend themselves adequately against fighters(US IGNORED RAF ADVICE)- a lesson we learnt in FRANCE in 1940. SO your point is WHAT exactly? ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
another stat for ur thick lead head : 100000 american dead in the air fighting over europe
145000 british dead despite the fact that americans were doing the daylight fighting from 1943-45 while the brits were the night pussies,and yeah given the british record we have to listen to them hahahahaha
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Another statistic- more inaccurate drivel on your behalf. The USAAF lost 32,000 aircrew over Europe- we have a monument to them at Duxford AFB & I have seen it myself. The RAF lost 55,000 bomber aircrew between 1939-45. Have you ever heard of the Kammhuber Line cretin? The most sophisticated night air defence system during WW2- hence heavy casualties. Your really should put down your GI Joe comic & pick up some quality literature- you would save yourself further HUGE embarassment.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hehhh - in arlington little fella - we have exactly 99633 deaths listed for the US air force.even your memorial have faulty figures LOL-if in fact that is the number there.in fact USAAF(Europe) has a detailed list of the members lost,even taknig your wrong figures it is clear u guys lost more men then we did despite us fighting in open daylight-no nighting fighting defence however sophisticated can match daylight fighting with multiple layers of alarms
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 No doubt those figures include ALL USAAF personnel, from aircrew to ground staff. The RAF sustained heavier aircrew losses than the USAAF bomber force, 55,000 to 32,000. I am refering SPECIFICALLY to bomber crew losses. The memorial at Duxford relates SPECIFICALLY to aircrew losses. Is that simple enough for your to assimilate?
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the US Airforce in fact by 1945 was a generation ahead of its allies- it is the ONLY country that came close along with the germans in building the famous jet fighter - american plnaes have since been ahead of all other countries today having an airforce that can conceivably crush any or any grouping of opponents u may care to imagine - thats our mind of innovation island boy
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Sir Frank Whittle-inventor of? THE JET ENGINE. The British built & flew jet aircraft in 1943- Gloster jet. By 1945, the Gloster Meteor was entering service. What are 'american plnaes?' Do you have special needs per chance? In 1943, the Brits discovered the secret of maintaining full control over an ac as it approached the sound barrier & suffered compressibility problems. The fully movable tail plane- the Yanks had NO idea about that innovation until 47. Heard of the Miles 52 jet? lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH u stupid dumbass - the meteor was a direct copy of the Ryan FR-1 Fireball where lockheed built the first jet engine - partly taken from a captured german jet fighter - but htis desgin was completely copied by the british for their first real jet fighter.in fact the main reason the germans looked at the jet was the way out mustnags were massacaring their fighters-in fact by 1944 our bomber planes could fly over germany almost untouched while we bombed the shit outta the nazis
asku23 1 year ago
LOL moron: actually its the only correct thing u said - i am in fact an accountant- u know the kind that looks at stats and figures to bring out the truth as opposed to u who likes think history is made out of quotes - which are infact just somebody opinion.LOL- all my figures have been uqoted-if u ONLY knew to read properly :)
sorry cant help u there mate- ask ur middle grade teachers for ehlp hahah
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Lies? There are three types, lies, damn lies & statistics. You throw figures around & provide no source, with the exception of Churchill's figures which are at best dubious. You refute historic facts IE 'KINDERSLOSS.' That is a FACT. German intel reports estimated British strength to be NINE infantry divs-based on the tenacity of the resistance they encountered. In reality there were THREE divs. The Germans also believed the BEF had semi-auto rifles. Mons was a victory for the BEF- FACT.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH lol i never "refuted" kindergloss - i point out to the british putting it out of context,lol-u never seem to like to face reality-churchills figures are the MOST thoroughly researched figures of any english historian-his book contains figures directly from the horses mouth - the german archives published pre ww2,these archives were destroyed in 1945 in alleid bombing,also cant see why churchill would lie- u think he was pro-german lol?
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Perhaps you would like to speculate then why Mons is regarded by military historians as a British victory then buffoon?! Are you suggesting the BEF was defeated!? ROFL Do you actually comprehend what the objective of the BEF battle plan was?! It was to deliver a short, sharp blow to stem the German advance, which prior to Mons resembled a runaway train. The BEF achieved it's primary aims, to slow the Germans down dramatically, to hammered the vanguard German units & avoid encirclement.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH which "eminent" hisotrians? pryor/wilson,churchill,ferguson,lidell hart,john keegan,mosier,dennis winter,bean(australia official historian),SIR JOHN FRENCH(the commander) all of them refer to it as a "retreat",i guess u could find people -playing to the stupid crowd-as yourself-or in other words - BEF apologists like simmonds,sheffield hwo like to still think quotes for actual history lmfao
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 1,600 British casualties against over 5,000 German KIA- a shocking defeat for the BEF-NOT You do realise don't you junior, that the intent at Mons was to stun the Germans, break off to avoid being encircled and withdraw. It is apparent that you have zero military experience & little understanding on the strategy that was involved at Mons. As I said earlier- watch Prof Richard Holmes on YT- " MONS- WAR WALKS." The HISTORY PROFESSOR has the edge over you & your innane stats I feel....ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH u and ur mons figures - what a dunce -i am quoting form britains greatest leader not to mentions one of its best historians along with HIS sources - and you - some BEF apologist and NOT once u have specified HIS sources which i am guessing is from his english behind lol
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 And Britain's greatest war leader NEVER made any mistakes did he? Ergo, he must be infalliable then? ROFL Ever heard of the Dardenelles!? Quote Winston as much as you like- his figures for British KIA at Mons are nonsense. As I said- go and do some research, then come back & eat copious volumes of your momma's apple pie :)
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH ohh just because he quotes figures that dont feed into your fantasy he is wrong? LOL - i still dont see where ur great "prof holmes" is quoting his german figures from-the ONLY ONLY english historian who saw the reicharchives is churchill and the australian historian bean - both of them consistently back up my figures.i will eat my "momma apple pie" while u get "prof holmes" sources hahahahaha
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 If you wish to verify the figures that Holmes quotes, & his assessment of the Mons, get off you fat Yank arse & either buy his works- of which their are many- he is a prolific & respected writer, or email him at Cranfield University where he lectures. Even a buffoon such as yourself must surely possess the initiative to obtain his email address. I do not need to account for, or justify HIS figures, let alone to a myopic, enthnocentric Yank imbecile with a comic book grasp of affairs ;)
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH this even though-TO THIS DAY british historians like to claim equal brit and german losses on the somme.in fact on the mons -Monty who was a junior commander then says - the germans always moved faster-occupied the higher ground ,dug in and let their artillery do the attacking-the germans walking to the british guns is a lot les frequent than is supposed by our arm chair strategists back home-guess he was referring to the likes of u boy LMFAO
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 "The Great War & The Shaping Of The 20th Century," Jay Winter & Blaine Baggett. P79. "On 23rd August John Lucy's unit went into action at Mons. After taking up defensive positions as best they could, they were attacked by WAVES of German infantry advancing over open fields. German tactics were as OUTDATED as the French, for which they paid dearly. Lucy, "Our rapid fire was appalling even to us. Such tactics amazed us & after the first shock seeing men fall down as they were hit.......TBC
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Lucy quote cont:- "......gave us a great sense of power & pleasure. It was all so EASY."
The BEF hammered the leading German infantry units with rapid fire from .303 Lee Enfields. Mons was NOT about trying to hold the ground-it was primarily about stemming the German charge & forcing them to re-group their mauled units. This allowed the heavily outnumbered BEF to withdraw to the Marne-where the British & French STOPPED the German advance DEAD. FACT.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH in fact as churchill quotes (in 1930) the junior officer core has essentially been wiped out-when montogmery looked around his regiment on the night after the battle at le chateu-there was barely one officer left standing-a observation entirely consistent with churchills figures which as i have quoted earlier shows a casualty rate of 50% for the BEF in 1914-the main reason why the BEF build up was at a snails pace
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Irrelevant waffle, a feenle attempt to retract your initial statement which decreed that the "At Mons the BEF lost the bulk of it's core." WRONG-TOTALLY & UTTERLY WRONG.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@asku23 "World War One," Philip Warner P104- Re The Somme, " THE BRITISH, WHO HELD THREE QUARTERS OF THE FRONT, SUFFERED SOME 420,000 CASUALTIES, THE FRENCH LOST 205,000. THE GERMAN CASUALTY FIGIRES WERE 680,000." Capt Von Hentig- German General Staff, " THE SOMME WAS THE MUDDY GRAVE OF THE GERMAN FIELD ARMY & ITS FAITH IN THE ABILITY OF GERMAN LEADERS. GERMAN FIELD COMMAND WHICH ENTERED THE WAR WITH ENORMOUS SUPERIORITY, WAS DEFEATED BY THE SUPERIOR TECHNIQUES OF IT'S OPPONANTS......TBC
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH VON HENTIG CONTINUED:- " IT (GERMAN HIGH COMMAND) HAD FALLEN BEHIND THEM IN THE APPLICATION OF DESTRUCTIVE FORCES AND WAS COMPELLED TO THROW DIVISION AFTER DIVISION WITHOUT PROTECTION AGAINST THEM INTO THE CAULDRON OF THE BATTLE OF ANNIHILATION." Straight from the mouth of a member of the GERMAN GENERAL STAFF, not an ill-informed American fool obsessed with stats! lol The Germans repeatedly counter-attacked at the Somme & they incurred horrendous casualities- more than Britain
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
battle of somme REAL figures AGAIN churchill :
Britain - 445000 including the "diversion" at auberville
France - 207000
Germany: 200000 from July-Nov +37000 December.
a figure ALSO consistent as published by British war office,C Ve guerre(french General staff)
somme - half a millino losses and 7 miles gained- David llyod words - "a greater disaster has yet to make itself on the british army-how the devil are we going to finish htis war" read your own PM memoirs
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH I guess u forgot to mention rawlinson famous order on the somme - " do not fire on machine guns"?! hahahaha
gough - "do not allow them to wear helmets - they will lose their military ardor"
haig - "the cavalry are sharpening their swords"
some verbatim quotes from the great british armies leaders
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Please do provide the source for these alleged quotes. Title, author, page number & ISBN. Then, you can provide the source of these comments-otherwise I will not accept them! Sounds familiar!? ROFL. Talking of morons, what about the US General who on 11th Nov 1918, minutes before 11 o'clock, ordered his infantry to attack a Spa town. His purpose? To allow his troops to BATHE. Over 200 Yankee doughboys were slaughtered in the process. Good sound military logic from the Americretins lol :)
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
atleast they never walked to a machine gun - 20000 dead in less than 2 hours - 1st july 1916 hahahahahahaha
Quotes from War Memoirs - David LLOYD as reprinted in robin pryor/Wilson - Somme - "As they said" section - page 234 hehhhh
but yeah dude - u aint gonna find them on your wikipedia research hahahahahaha - this is 222 much fun-bring it on island boy
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Perhaps you would like to explain the relevance of your quote of 20,000 dead within the first hour of a battle that lasted for over FOUR months? WHO is disputing the fact that 20,000 died in the first hour, and by the end of the first day, 60,000 casualties had been sustained? Are you implying that because so many forfeited their lives on day ONE, of a battle that lasted over four months, that the Germans did not ultimately lose even more men?! lol Your point is WHAT?! ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the "20000" comment was in response to your idotic dubious comment about the doughboys.i beleive i have pasted DETAILED figures i have on the somme form churchills book which shows 3 allied casualties for each german.in fact i even pasted the breakdown for each armies.another piece of advice - READ before responding hahahahaha
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH pasted a SECOND TIME : SOMME
battle of somme REAL figures AGAIN churchill :
Britain - 445000 including the "diversion" at auberville
France - 207000
Germany: 200000 from July-Nov +37000 December.
a figure ALSO consistent as published by British war office,C Ve guerre(french General staff)
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Figures that have since been extensively revised in the many decades since WW1! lol Please do provide the title, author, page number, ISBN of the book you gleened this inaccurate data from. Otherwise, these figures are completely meaningless. You are quoting figures collated during the chaos of WW1. With the passage of time & research, more accurate figures are available today. Based on your assertion that the BEF "LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE AT MONS," you have NO credibility whatsoever.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH LOL figures collated during the chaos of WW1. - the reicharchives figures are computed in 1922 - 3 years AFTER the war-the reichsarchive is a summary of all the battlefield reports- including the dead and missing-taken from 2 UNIMPEACHABLE SOURCES - the german high command + German medical corps LOL.also i still do not see HOW ur figures are being computed? in fact the german figures are considered soo accurate that even today the best gistorians use them for reference
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH A RETREAT WHERE U LOST MORE MEN THAN YOUR ENEMY IS NOT A VICTORY-even a primary school-community college educated fool can tell you this - i guess your education does not even run that deep-hahaha does it?! again using your 1600 "wikipedia" research skills? the bef lost 12500 soldiers at MONS you pathetic uneducated,not understanding basic figures deluded isalnd ape.
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Americunt, you have proved that you are de facto, a moronic oaf who is incapable of reading & assimilating straight forward information. With regard to the respective casualty figures sustained at Mons, 1,600 British KIA & 5000+ German KIA, you failed to note that I provided TWO literary sources for these figures. 1) "World War One-A Narrative," Philip Waner ISBN 0-304-35057-5. 2) "Britain's Army In The 20th Century," Field Marshal Lord Carver ISBN0-333-73777-6. Wikipedia? You wanker lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH apart from researh u also seem to be having ENGLISH understanding problem,no worries i will repeat myself :
when a historian quotes statistics,he either:
1)specifies how he computed or arrived at these figures
2)what his SOURCE(S) are for quoting these figures,in case u did not know-these are also called the REFERENCE section LOL - so go back to your "extensive collection" and along with Title, author & page number look for REFERENCE heheh - ASSIGNMENT 1 ma boy
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH "world war 1 - a narrative" - hahahahahaha is it like star wars? a fiction book? or a comic book with less than 100 pages- is that your "extensive military collection" - no wonder you cant seem to find no sources in them,i can find 2000 ww1 books ,their names ISBNs ni less than 10 secs,does not prove i actally read a single line of them - as i think with all your "out of the ass" pulled "quotes" which i seem to find each one on wikipedia
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Why do I need to prove what books I possess, & which books I have read to an ignorant, obnoxious Yank buffoon such as yourself?! lol You have been slaughtered throughout this entire exchange. Your banal opinions are entirely based on figures, many of which are outrageously inaccurate EG Mons- I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. The fact that you argued that the BEF "LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE AT MONS," illustrates your complete ignorance & total lack of credibility! Fucking clown!!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hehh i could care less about your books unless you quote thier sources- how do you add up to the figures u r quoting - Well my "banal opinions" are also Churchills which are from the MOST authentic source of all - the german imperial archives-do u even know how thorough the german archives are? it contains casulaty stats coming on every 10 days from the fled from multiple sources- the german general staff,the german medical services which is consdrd by MOSt historians as best
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH "laughter is the simplest form of denial" - voltaire - hehhhh that quote says it all about your "laughter".following up on your love of quotes:
sir edward spears quoting sir john french - "the army is a spent force,we need to bring our boys out as quickly as possible,let everyone else finish the war as best as they can" - quoted in the OFFICIAL british history as reprinted in haigs command by dennis winter-read lol
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Pleaseprovide the DATE & CONTEXT of French's quote, else I will not accept it. Provide the page number for the quote. The quote in itself is meaningless, it does not change historical fact- IE that the BEF did NOT " AT MONS LOSE THE BULK OF IT'S CORPS." Did the British withdraw from France & Belgium in WW1?! lol Carry on as long as you like buffoon, you cannot recover from your ridiculous assertion that Mons was a defeat for the British! You reinforce your own idiocy continually! lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH my "assertion" is based on the comment made by French in December 1914 - i never claimed he made it at Mons.in mons we agree the british retreated,in mons churchills shows 12500 brit casulaties to 9000 german ones,does retreating AND losing more men make it a british victory? LOL in your book i guess so that it does
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 As already cited repeatedly, the British lost 1,600 men KIA at Mons, not 12,500. THREE British divisions fought at Mons, a figure of 12,500 KIA would in effect mean that the best part of an entire British divisions had been annihilated. In military terms, if you lose 33.3% of your total force, your force is no longer deemed to be a viable fighting force. Had the BEF lost the best part of a division at Mons, it would have been an unmitgated disaster. KINDERSLOSS was A GERMAN phrase! ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH ok mr ROFL 3 divisions consist of roughly 45000 men so a loss of 12500 and using the standard 2 wounded for 1 killed gives us a figure of 39000 casualties not the 1600 u keep pasting from wikipedia - i prefer looking at churchills figures from the british war office-u know a slightly more credible sourece than your wiki -eh boy? a battle where almost 70% of the men involved become casulties suggest not a defeat- but a CATASTROPHE ,and when did i say it was an english phrase ?
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Oh dear, for an alleged 'accountant,' you have problems with basic maths. A typical British infantry division consisted of THREE Brigades. Each Brigade consisted of THREE infantry battalions. A WW1 battalion generally has an established strength of between 600 & 800(occassionally 900-1000) soldiers. A total of THREE infantry divs fought at Mons- 27 Battalions of infantry. Let's be generous & say ALL battalions had a strength 800 men= 21,600 infantry soldiers. Even with arty & cav NOT 45k
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH in fact in his "battle of the marne" chapter sir john french constantly cries about how few infantry he had left to exploit the gap in the german line,one reason why the allies where NEVER able to break the german line before their orderly retreat to the aisne-the remants of the BEF simply did not have the strength to do anything but blunder forward-as joffre put it: "hardly the force to entrust such a critical mission with" boy was he right LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH u again back to using the QOUTES as history eh? u got a royal thrashing form me regarding the sources and now we r back at sqaure 1 - u going with quotes and me doing the math LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH charles bean - quoting spears -" not ONE man of ours got to the german line.the german artillery DECIMATED them,watching them the frech general mangin observed remembering the crimean war - this is magnificient but it is not war"
When i surveyed the battlefield after the attack i could only see piles after piles of british dead while in the german trenches we barely found 20 bodies - since u like "quotes"-here is one from somebody DIRECTLY on the field after battle
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 What an amazing revellation! You have provided a quote that merely confirms a well known & undisputed fact! Namely that some attacking British units suffered heavy casualties-simply stunning initiative on your behalf-NOT. I do not recall disputing that! lol Now perhaps you would like to discuss the FACT that the Germans actually suffered heavier losses by insisting on counter-attacking where ever the British gained some ground- as evidenced by German Staff officer Capt Von Hentig?? ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH WOW what an einstein: the allied lost 653000 casualties to the germans 237000 and this quote somehow proves the german suffered "heavier losses" - u r one fantastic analyst my friend.first of all the british and german attacks were vastly different-the british attacked heavily entrenched germans while the german counterattackes came almost/always immediately against exhausted reminants of british survivors of the initial attack - analysis - Myth of the great war-john mosier
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH another CLASSIC example of you taking a quote off context and somehow expalining it as the norm in a battle involving millions of men that went on for over 6 months LOL.Americans had a casulaty ratio of less than 12% while the brits lost 25% in almost any engagement of size that they fought-only 2nd to the turks and the serbs - verbatim quote-niall ferguson-pity of war-it is in the FIRST PAGE of the book LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH and pelase please stop using wikipedia again for your research - it is too easy to catch u doing it LOL.so kid here is your assignment for tonight:
1)READ the books ur pulling your "qoutes and stats" from and tell me their sources or atleast the method of how they are basing their estimates on.these are simple steps even a high school kids will know-ofc which u may not be LOL-again it is the accountant talking hehh-
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 I know not why the obnoxious Americunt keeps wittering on about Wikiapedia- his own favourite fount of flawed 'knowledge.' Especially since every piece of information & quote provided has included the source title, author and page number. If you want to investigate the reference sources that various authors used, get your wallet out & buy your own books & scruntise them yourself. I am under NO obligation to justify the works of minds far superior to that of the Americunt imbecile! ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH island boy - when u read a book u must take atlast a little time to analyse what they r saying? if they are making sense? i guess it never occured to you to question how these figures came to be? i guess u never heard the word "historiograhy"? well well,just some guy quoting figures does not make it a FACT,it is rather an opiinon unless he can back it up with documents,analysis,research or experience all of which seems too alien to you or maybe even your countrymen hahaha
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 I see. So evidently the opinions of Holmes, Caver, Warner & the other authors & sources I quoted, including the opinions of GERMAN field & staff officers, are those of charletons? lol What a pompous & arrogant prick you are Americunt! lol It amuses me no end that the opinions & conclusions of authors such as Holmes are internationally highly respected within historical circles, yet the Google & Wikipedia King Americunt knows better than a Professor of military history!!! ROFL You clown!!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH where r the SOURCES - u dumb fuck!!!! quotes from german officers do not form sources - like archives,regimental records,german medical services documents,u r such a dunce! u do not even understand the meaning of sources LMFAO,u think von hertig statement PROVES german losses were higher? LOL-WOW i am faced with a gigantic taks in educationg your ass lol
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Temper temper you insignificant gimp!! For somebody who demands that every single point be backed up not only by figures, but by the inclusion of bibliographical cross references/sources, you seem extremely reluctant to actually provide any such evidence yourself. I suspect that Staff officer Kapt. Hertig had a far greater understanding of the battle of the Somme & it's impact on the German army than an American geek sat behind his PC surfing Google & Wikipedia in 2011 ever will ROFL :)
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hehh i guess the great "captain hertig" as can be seen from his title had more knowledge than von falkenhayn.hmmmm i am not providing bibliography? LOL how about the REICHARCHIVE which i have been pasting your ass with in almost every comment ? LOL
ASSIGNMENT 2 for u island boy - finish assignment 1 hahahaha
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 PROVE you have used REICHARCHIVE sources, otherwise it is just more innane Yank cretin hot air! PROVE the accuracy of the REICHARCHIVE ROFL Tonight junior, your first grade homework project is to research the battle of Mons AGAIN. Your last effort was dire & completely off the mark! You made wild & ridiculous comments about the BEF "LOSING THE BULK OF IT'S CORPS." Clearly you did not pay attention in class, you completely failed to comprehend the strategy & the British intent. E minus
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH in 2006 wilson wrote a book " churchills world history as HISTORY" in which he proved the churchills figures were entirely consistent with battlefied reports,aggregated casualty counts and was in fact in line with what the british war office and the french govermnet(including the famous andre maginot) had collected from the german archives.NONE of which is in any of the books u have quoted except QUOTES from some guy LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH PROVE the accuracy of the REICHARCHIVE - hehhh the reichsarchive is the official german equivalent of britains official history u moron- countries in their official versions do not just paste figures without THROUGHLY researhing them - they dont copy paste figures from wikipedia like u LOL.a classic example of the throughness and intrinsic consistency of the german data is the fact that someone as anti-german as churchill thought thme to be highly accurate - FOOL
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 So the German figures are beyond reproach are they? 100% accurate?! ROFL "World War One, " Warner, P 104, final paragraph:- " The German (Somme) casualty figures were 680,000, but even this maybe TOO LOW as the Germans WERE LESS CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT KEEPING A RECORD OF THEIR CASUALTIES, citing 'a shortage of clerks, & in addition did NOT USUALLY INCLUDE THE LESS SERIOUSLY WOUNDED." Clearly then, the German figures you quote as NOT reliable! You meet yet ANOTHER Waterloo my cretinous oaf!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hmmm i c,so why do you beleive the british figures are correct and the german too low? LOL the british might well have lost more than a million-so basically u r telling me that u will only beleive figures that u want to beleive LOL?
as i said before churchill-as anti german as they get himself beleives the german figures to be accurante as do a host of prominent experts including niall ferguson - accepted generally as the BEST british historian in the world today LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Please do provide a quote from Ferguson that supports your assertion that German figures are believed to be accurate. TITLE, CHAPTER, PAGE & ISBN LET'S HAVE IT!! :) Else it is merely more innane Yank hot air :) Please do list the ' host of prominent experts' who concur with this theory! WHO recognises Ferguson as the 'best' British historian in the world? Has somebody taken a poll? lol Plenty of assertions- as usual ZERO EVIDENCE to support them. Tut, tut- very poor Simple Simon!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
Niall Feguson - Piy Of War - quote on churchill - chapter 4 - dealing with ww1
Churchill's World crisis as history by Robin Prior, 1983,Croom Helm edition,
Charles Bean - australia official history ,pryor wilson-somme,john mosier-myth of the great war,dennis winter-haigs command,the BRITISH WAR OFFICE STATISTICS(1922),abel ferry/andre maginot -Revue d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 I see you have been busy on Google again.........lol How odd, ordinarily people provide book titles & author details alongside their original posts/assertions. So far, you have posted reams of stats, now, retrospectively (post Google search) you list a number of titles. Highly suspicious- why refrain from providing your sources when you made your initial posts? Taken with a pinch of salt..........
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH yeah internet soldier-since i cannto scan and paste the entire BOOK here in a video forum with limited character count this is all i got 0 -unlike your wikipedia consistent figures LOL.also i think u did not read my original posts -all with refrences but hey rnt u the same that still cannot understand the difference b/w stats and quotes to determine the result of a battle? hehhh
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH BTW churchill is no fool to beleive watever the germans showed him-he is a seasoned hisotrian u dunce-thats why he spent 1.5 years CHECKING his sources-unlike u LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH want more island boy? ohh BTW a simple google search will get u the ISBN LOL - but i guess u know how to search as most of your "out of the ass" pulled figures are from there LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Please do PROVE your continual assertion that I am utilising Google to obtain information. You continually make the allegation- PROVE it. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. EVERY quote I have posted originates from a collection of books I possess. Websites are hardly reknown for their accuracy. I was not aware that websites generally oblige with page numbers for respective quotes..... I post quotes, authors & page numbers- you proffer statistics- I suggest you know your own Google/Wiki tricks best.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH even assuming all of churchills figures wrong just look at the difference b/w yours and mine - 237000 vs 68000(even that too low for you) LOL?! that is the error margin of more than 300%! hehh so u saying that in reality the germans had 3 casualties to their every single one? u CLEARLY have a problem with numbers mate - real wonder how u maintain a bank balance or ur wife if she does it for ya hahahahaha
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 What I am stating quite simply, is that 1,600 British soldiers were killed at Mons & over 5,000 Germans were killed. Is that simple enough for you? The British did NOT lose 12,000+ men.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH it is also a well known FACT that on the somme per front/mile the british had the LOWEST number of machine guns/howitzers and they were attacknig entrenched german positions and also almost every account is consistent that most british shells-sharpnel did not burst and certainly did not destroy the german barbed wire let alone the trenches-based on what logic one can claim german losses anywhere near let alone greater is beyond me -except ofcourse a mozilla head like u
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Again, with regard to the scale of the German casualties on the Somme, your woeful lack of military tactics & history is evident.The Germans, as I highlighted with the quote from Kapt Hertig, the staff officer, adopted the tactic of launching immediate counter-attacks wherever the British seized ground. By doing so, they sustained huge casualties- their divisions were chewed up by British artillery & machine gun fire. They allowed themselves to be drawn into an ATTRITIONAL battle.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH u and ur stupid quotes again,i notice everytime u get hammered on stat u ren back to your quotes - stick to one will ya?
OK-the german counter attacks delivered against british remians of initial british attacks is not the same as the british attack on PREPARED german positions u fool-that is basic military common sense which u clearly dont have.
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Temper temper my grey suited bean counter! Allow me to continue with your massacre-" WAR WALKS- From Agincourt To Normandy," Prof Richard Holmes- Professor of Military & Security Studies-Cranfield University & the Royal Military College of Science, Brigadier(R) Rtd, Page 106 on Mons:- The British had lost 1642 men, most of them from the Royal Fusiliers, Middlesex & Royal Irish, German losses cannot have been LESS than 5000 & may easily have been MUCH MORE." Game, set & match my US fool!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH also i REPEAT : only a gigantic fool would not notice the GIGANTIC discrepancy b/w your figures and those given by the GERMAN goverment in its archives 237 vs 680(also 22 low for u) LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 You should consider contacting CARVER, WARNER, HOLMES, WINTER & BAGGETT & a myriad of other historians who adhere to the figure of 600-680,000 German casualties on the Somme. Clearly, these 'gigantic fools,' who are mere professional military historians, have it ALL wrong, compared to the OAF Asku23, whose basic knowledge is appalling Eg You DENIED that Germany suffered widespread food shortages & starvation. You argue Mons was a defeat, where 'THE BEF LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE." IDIOT.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH also i guess u dont have the brains to question? why would the german miss somehting as basic as "seriously wounded" - infact the main factor in determining the benefits which a veteran is eligible for? i REALLY REALLY am beginning to doubt your quotes and sources which i beleive are comin right out of your ass like a machine gun in ww1 lol
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 How ironic, you attempt to sneer at one who possesses a good working knowledge of WW1, when you have posted such nonsense. Need I remind you that you DENIED that Germany suffered appalling food shortages & starvation as a result of naval blockade? Staggering ignorance & stupidity on your behalf. "The Great War & Shaping Of The 20th Century," Winter & Baggett P303 "WHAT MADE GERMAN DEFEAT UNAVOIDABLE WAS THE FACT THAT MILITARY DISASTER COINCIDED WITH A FOOD CRISIS ON THE HOME FRONT." ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
in fact the german data includes accurate missing figures subtracting out POW info - those who returned after the war - it is not "chaos" - also it is funny-u STILL have not quoted your SOURCESso finish up on that assignment lol.dont waste more time on rants-do ur HW - else u only gonna get more ass hiding form me with my figures lol - also my BEF mons quote is from Sir John french-the commander of the BEF as quoted by churchill - so assignment 2 - read churchills - world crise
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 WC's literary work was written YEARS ago & it is NOT the definitive historical account! His figures are very much open to being challenged. A defeat for the BEF at Mons would have involved being outflanked, encircled & destruction in detail. In reality, the Germans charged at prepared Brit inf positions & they were shot to pieces-slaughted. They admitted it themselves, as evidenced by their adoption of the term, 'KINDERSLOSS.' WHY create such a term if they had prevailed?! IMBECILE lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH do u even read u dumbass? - i think i wrote about wilsons book which in its title itself suggest using churchills book as history,churchill spent 1.5 years researching the german archives going to-fro - his book in fact is the ONLY DEFINITIVE and complete acconuting we have of the german figures.nial ferguson in fact was soo impressed with churchills book that he contanstly refers to it as his referred source of referece assface.
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Churchill had access to inaccurate German figures, as already highlighted, they did NOT maintain highly accurate records ie they DID not record those soldiers who suffered minor wounds, & even their records of KIA cannot be entirely relied upon. Ergo, their figures are NOT beyond reproach. 1.5 years spent scrutinising inaccurate statistics does not create accurate figures. Some accountant you must be.......lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH oh they are inaccurate because U SAY SO - LOL? the germans are known for their thoroughness in almost everything,i wonder why in this category all their figures are wrong and a brit internet hero is calling them which is beleived by a host of the most prominent militarty historians in the worls LMFAO LMFAO
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 No, read my original post in relation to the dubious accuracy of German figures, I quoted Philip Warner from his book, I even obliged with the page number & paragraph. Do you have learning difficulties of special needs per chance? How stupid do you have to be to confuse a quote from Warner, with me? I did not say so- WARNER ARGUES THE POINT. :) On the flip side of the coin, the German figures are accurate because YOU say so? The figs WC studied are highly likely to be innaccurate! lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH @LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH so your great source - warner if indeed is the case does not explian the HUGE discrepancy b/w 237000 and 680000? so the germans under-reported their casulties 3 times LOL? for even a math DUNCE like you that should be obvious.BTW i still dont see how warner arrives at his estimates? churchills is based on the THOROUGH research of the reicharchives and your "Warners" figures? where they from - his ass? that is called "checking your sources" LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Warner quotes 680,000 German KIA at the Somme. How about Field Marshal Lord Carver in "Britain's Army In The 20th Century," (in association with The Imperial War Museum)? Guess what? Page 86, penultimate paragraph, " at a cost of 419,654 British & 204,253 French casualties. Estimates of German casualties over the same (4.5 month) period vary from 465,000 to 680,000." Clearly there IS discrepancy in German figures- they are NOT beyond reproach & they DID sustain HIGHER casualties.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH so where did marshall craver and get his figures? that is what i have been asking you again and again and again - the ONLY german figures are in the reicharchives,there are NO OTHER german figures available-so where did this "marshal" get his figures? his figure of 418000 brit is initself inaccurate,the britsih war office puts somme total as 445000
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH so where did marshall craver and get his figures? that is what i have been asking you again and again and again - the ONLY german figures are in the reicharchives,there are NO OTHER german figures available-so where did this "marshal" get his figures? his figure of 418000 brit is initself inaccurate,the britsih war office puts somme total as 445000,so there itself it is clear that "warner" has not checked his sources on the british side let alone his estimates of the german
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 "War Walks," Holmes- on the Somme , " Allied casualties totalled about 600,000, two-thirds of them British. DIFFERENCES IN CASUALTY REPORTING PROCEDURE MEAN THAT OFFICIAL GERMAN FIGURES ARE CERTAINLY TOO LOW, although some have accused Brigadier-General Sir James Edmonds, the official British historian, of over optimism in inflating them to 680,000. It is far safer, based on more recent research, to state German losses as being 600,000 men, many in COUNTER ATTACKS & MORE TO ARTILLERY."
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the wiki MORON is back with his usual nonsense "sources".the german goverment reports its losses as 230000 and u r saying 600000 - 3 TIMES the number - has it EVER occurred to u in that little brain of yours why there is soo large a error margin? LOL - i guess not,BTW i STILL STILL do not see how your "emininet" historians are basing theri fugures on - if they ARE indeed eminent they would provide SOURCES for their accounting-and you would know it if in fact u read them lol
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH"DIFFERENCES IN CASUALTY REPORTING PROCEDURE" - hahahahahahahaha,OK-so let me get this straight - a wounded/dead/missing is somehow different in german than it is in english LOL - as i stated earlier - the german accounting contained not just the missing but also something as detailed as casualties caused by WEAPON TYPE as stated in churchills book.in my next comment i would like a quote a really lovely phrase from john mosier - myth of the great war
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH "having suffered almost 45000 casulaties the british were under great compulsion to beleive that losses were atleast equal,although churchill,the war office,the official australian/canadian historian - bean have proved the absurdities of these claims,the attacks by BEF apologists are soo vicious so much so that EVEN today most british beleive either the hyped number is true or the matter is in some dispute," - a TEXTBOOK phrase for MORONs like u and your "sources"
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH you air filled moron - the german counterattacks were against SURVIVORS of the slughter through the initial british attack while the german attacks were against PREPARED fortified german positions protected by layer after layer of barb wire and machine guns and it is also generally accepted that british artillery was TOTALLY ineffective aganist the kind of fortifications the germans had - no wonder they thought they were walking towards empty german positions
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH final riposte to a feather head fool - since u r quoting the sources it is YOUR job to CHECK how they are ESTIMATING their figures on - german battle reports,reicharchive,medical reports, etc etc etc - do u even get the basic concept of an AUDIT you unrecoverable idiot? laso i see ALL ALL ALL of your figures are directly seem to show up in the wiki page of somme - be a little original next time LOL
PS: WIKIPIDEA IS NOT HISTORY - even morons like u can edit that page lol lol
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Considering the wild inaccuracy of most of your posts, which are completely bereft of historical knowledge, any criticism you attempt to direct at me is frankly laughable. Oh the irony of it! The ignorant moron who was unaware & even denied that Germany was largely starved into submission! The moron who argued that Mons was a defeat for the BEF, and quoted ridiculously inaccurate stats in relation to casualties! Wikipedia & Google are your reference tools empty head, NOT mine! ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@asku23 Not interested in your bullshit opinions wanker. You have ZERO credibility, you have repeatedly made a public spectacle of yourself & highlighted your stunning levels of ignorance.the EG Your denial that Germany suffered starvation as a consequence of the naval blockade. EG You assertion that Mons was a defeat & that the BEF lost, ''THE BULK OF IT'S CORE." Your opinions have much in common with, and are as interesting as, a used piece of toilet paper. Cheerio :)
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH - wiki boy wiki boy - still dont c u providin ur "sources" accounting methods - LOL i guess they dont exist? or more likely - you ran out of figures to copy paste from wikipedia-your be all/end all source of history hahahaha.u got one proper hiding me from me boy.hmm also did u notice something? ALL ALL my sources are BRITISH - some of them the greatest leaders - military/civilian - churchill,monty,niall ferguson-ALL of them accepts somme as an epic catastrophe,hh coincedence?
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 the german total at mons? - AS usual - my favorite -churchill - 9887 casulties.
PS : RETREAT IS NOT VICTORY
if that were so dunkirk,singapore,greece,crete,norway,libya would all be epic british "victories" LOL LOL
asku23 1 year ago
Comment removed
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH - hmm so we are back to mons are we? AGAIN do your sources provide from where they r pulling these figures from - or is this another of your wiki research we r dealing with here? Read the following paper from the BRITISH WAR OFFICE STATISTICIANS - "Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1920" - the mons figure are there in BLACK AND WHITE - 80000 british troops engaged - 12557 casulties - LOL LOL LOL-END OF STORY for u
asku23 1 year ago
Comment removed
asku23 1 year ago
General Fayolle - french general staff - "with russias collapse - the bread basket of europe - ukraine/romania/hungary fell into german hands" russia pre ww1 was the BIGGEST exporter in the world of foodstuffs - grain,wheat,meat etc etc - germany had the resource of ALL OF EUROPE to draw from - u stupid OAF,what did she need to import and from where? also one germanys BIGGEST losses economically was the collapse of trade relations with USA - one can hardly credit the british for that LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 I guess that is why so many Germans starved to death then-you blithering idiot. Only a complete imbecile would continue to try and deny HISTORICAL FACT. You are attempting to defend an indefensible position- an act of sheer folly & stupidity. You continue to cling onto Churchill's figures which were obtained from INACCURATE German records. The consensus amongst contemporary historians is that the German figures are far from accurate, yet the bean counting oaf refutes the opinions. ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the only "contemporary" historian disputing the german numbers is you - LOL and from your research skills i can gather how much worth your "disputing" is LOL,the german figures are accepted as highly accurate as not just by churchill but also the aussie/canadian OFFICIAL historian - charles bean not to mention the british war office - your own goverment hahahaha,totally completely childish fella
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 As already highlighted on numerous occasions, Churchill's figures are based on data that is now widely regarded by many contemporary military historians as INACCURATE. How odd that numerous respected historians I have quoted argue EXACTLY that point, yet the simian brained Americunt oaf bean counter, who regards historical FACT as a simple matter of statistics & percentages, knows better! ROFL. You DENY established facts, such as German starvation, and quote statistics!! IMBECILE! lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@asku23 Oh dear, you poor chap, you seem to struggle to assimilate the most basic logic. The German 'official' figures collated during WW1, & 'officially' accepted by the British 80 years ago- are widely disputed by contemporary historians. The fact that Churchill, utilised & endorsed those now DISPUTED figures, when he wrote his literature over 60+ years ago counts for naught. It's Simple SImon- the figures you are so reliant on are NOT infallable-their accuracy is highly questionable.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
Comment removed
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH the ONLY "contemporary" historian is you with your wikipedia influenced rants lol,so everyone- the german goverment,the british goverment,churchill are all wrong but your "prof holmes" with his still mysterious accounting techniques is the only one correct? LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 As I have already challenged you on several occasions, please do EVIDENCE your assertion that I am referring to Wikipedia & Google. Put up, or shut up clown. How odd, that ALL my comments have been supported by direct quotes from established military story authors, including page number, paragraph & in several cases the ISBN. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia & Google provided such data, there again, you are the 'expert' with regard to abstracting data from the internet! ROFL Feeble cretin!
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@asku23 Sorry old twat, you are the party that continually quotes figures derived from Google searches, frequently without ANY provenance, aside from being labelled, ' the official German/British figures.' You reinforce this by citing Churchill's figures-which are based on(now) DISPUTED stats. You make desperate attempts to undermind the quotes & sources I provide to support my arguments by dismissing them as being 'obtained from Wikipedia.' Amateur reverse psychology-piss poor effort.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@asku23 Ah yes, that must be why the HISTORY books concerning WW1 are brim full of facts about THE STARVATION OF GERMANY. It is estimated that 800K German civilians died directly as a consequence of food shortage/starvation. Just to put that into perspective for your amoeba brain, it is believed that circa 600K Germans died in WW2 as a result of the allied strategic bombing campaign. The irony is whilst it is acceptable to starve people to death, dropping copious amount of HE on them is not.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
sorry, what! it becomes totally acceptable to starve 800k people when compared to the 6 million jews were taken from their houses and forced into camps to die of starvation, disease or in some cases gassed in their thousands during the holocaust. that is not mentioning homosexuals poles communists disabled people and jehovah's witnesses. Yes the starving of 800k civilians was wrong but it brought the great war to an abrupt end.
H0GGY123 9 months ago
@H0GGY123 You miss the point entirely. I am not arguing as to whether the starvation of 800k people was right or wrong in terms of helping end the war. The point I am making is clearly OBVIOUS, IE people make a huge fuss over the aerial bombing of Germany in WW2, which killed an estimated 600k people. Yet it appears that bombing is far more unacceptable to such people than starvation which killed even more, because it rarely receives a mention.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 9 months ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH one FINAL riposte :
total british/french DEAD only in western front against germany - 1.25 million(french) + 775000(British)
total german DEAD(western,eastern,italian,rumanian,turkish,palestine,naval) - 1.98 million
ALL figures - The War Office (2006). Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914—1920. Uckfield, East Sussex: Military and Naval Press
PS:brit/france had more DEAD on one front than germany in 6 fronts chew on it - hahahaha
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Please do explain the relevance of your pointless quote of total casualties. Do these figures & the disparity between them change history?! Do they imply Germany actually prevailed in WW1? How stupid are you? A rhetorical question. All you contribute is FIGURES, your posts like any vestige of knowledge of strategy, I wonder why that might be? Could it be because de facto you are woefully ignorant? Afterall, YOU repeatedly refuted that Germany suffered starvation- AN ESTABLISHED FACT! lol
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
I thought the total figures spoke for themselves,but i seem to have forgotten that i am talking to a middle age man with the brain of a 12 year old,no worries i will eloborate,the total figures PROVE -
1)the german army was tactically FAR SUPERIOR and the british/french were no match to it.
2)your imaginary mons/somme figures of always showing/implying equal/greater brit-german losses does not add up LOL
3)the entry of the fresh american millions was DECISIVE for the defeat of germany
asku23 1 year ago
you mentally challenged moron - churchills figures as i have REPEATEDLY said is the GERMAN GOVERMENTS figures,these figures have been accepted by your own GOVERMENT so much so that they have published it in their OFFICIAL STATISTICS of the WAR.as i proved earlier your mons figures are fantasies as your OWN GOVERMENT FIGURES show 12557 british casualties.finally i STILL STILL do not see "prof holmes" sources for his imagined german numbers LOL- if in fact that is what he is quoting
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Quarterwit, the figures you cling to as the gospel truth, are anything but & MANY historians challenge the accuracy of the German figures. I will have no further truck with your innane drivel. The fact that you openly state on your channel, "ALL MUSLIMS ARE SCUM," highlights your stupidity aptly. Clearly you are so lacking in intelligence & judgement that you are willing to generalise in a negative way about hundreds of millions of human beings. STUPID, RACIST, BIGOT- potential NAZI.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH r u a parrot? tweeting the same rubbish again and again and again expecting a ifferent response LOL.IF the german figures are inaccurate i would like to know how these "great" historians that dispute the german goverments numbers are making their estimates,u have been AVOIDING answering me on this over and over again-just proves u either have not read the books u r quoting or your quoted "authors" are pulling numbers out of their asses themselves-i more likely go with the 1st
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH i have CONCLUSIVELY proven based on your OWN GOVERMENTS publicly available published figures that your Mons casualty totals are sheer rubbish-in fact EVEN your british totals for somme are too low as the british goverment admits at total of ~447000 british casualties(aggregate July - Nov based on the monthly totals in the paper i qouted numbskull) with the CORRESPONDING german totals which closely match churchills accounting.
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 You have proven NOTHING at all. You have simply argued over one set of figures against another. You have PROVEN with many of your comments that you know NOTHING about the chronology of events in WW1. You have also PROVEN that you are an ARROGANT, ENTHNOCENTRIC, ODIOUS, RACIST BIGOT-A BRAINLESS THUG- your views about Muslims are akin to those of the Nazis towards Jews, Slavs, Russians etc. You would make a fine recruit for an SS Einsatzgruppe-you FILTH, you shame your nation. DISGUSTING.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH LOL i see how u have COMPLETELY avoided stopped responding to my facts and figures given the thorough ass wiping i have given u and are retorting to cheap pro-terrorist rants to try to divert the issue,i guess u ran out of wiki figures to quote from hahaha?
ohh BTW were it nor for this "filth" u would be speaking german today u ungrateful slimy terrorist loving freedom hating sand nigger loving bastard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 The odious, imbecilic, racist content of your comment stands as testament to what you are, a moronic Nazi thug, complete SCUM. You are also irredeemably stupid. First of all, YOU had no personal involvement in WW2, so I owe you no thanks whatsoever. Secondly, the Battle Of Britain secured Britain's freedom & Maverick & Iceman had nothing to do with that. Thirdly, with your mentality, you would have been on the other side in an SS Einzgruppen murdering one racial group or another.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@asku23 You have proved NOTHING, aside from the fact that there is considerable dispute amongst historians, many of whom argue that the 'official figures' are NOT infallable. You have proved with comments such as, "THE BEF LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE AT MONS IN 1914," & your denial that Germany suffered food shortages & starvation, that you know NOTHING about WW1. Your modus operandi is to hastily Google for statistics & quibble over figures- PISS POOR PERFORMANCE FROM A RACIST NAZI.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH i still do not have ur response as 2 why the germans why there is soo large a discrepancy b/w the figures u provided and that given by the german goverment.has it ever occurred in that small brain of yours if it is logically possible to hide 368000 german casualties,error margins(if u have EVER heard the term) are never over 5% MAX - not the 300% ur total math ignorant brain estimates LMFAO
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH in 1918 germany occupied russia uptil the caspian sea and russias army had TOTALLY COLLAPSED/DEFEATED/ROUTED.99.98% of belgium was overrun,only a small sliver of barren territory with no towns/civilians remained in allied control till the armistice.Mutiny does not matter?!-hahahaha-what a stupendous fool u r - in 1917 almost 70% of the french army basically REFUSED to obey orders to fight and petains MAIN STRATEGY of restoring morale was to stress AMERICAS ENTRY
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 I will have no further dealing with odious NAZI SCUM such as yourself. Due to your incredible stupidity & racism, you are prepared to condemn many hundreds of millions of people around the world due to their religious belief, simply because a handful of cretins- BIGOTS filled with hate, just like YOU, committed an act terrorism. Where was the US 'outrage' at terrorism during thirty years of violence & murder in Northern Ireland? You twats FUNDED the terrorists- duplicious wankers.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hmm based on your rant - it is clear to me u r probably a muslim - one of those oily haired leather skin bearded bastards who MURDERED 3000 INNOCENT people a decade ago-let me tell u this if u r a mossie-we will roast u curry cocked bastards like we are doin in iraq/afghan,DONT DARE CALL ME A NAZI - u filthy motherfucker!!!!!! it was young men like me that crossed the ocean,risked their life and SAVED u TWICE,were it not for us -it would be u wh would have been a nazi-punk!!
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Congratulations you inbred, moronic NAZI SCUMBAG, on revealling your true, disgusting racist nature on a public forum. Nazis were people who generalised about entire racial groups, the Jews, the Slavs etc. Just like you generalise about hundreds of millions of Muslins. Nazis hated these groups for no good reason & launched a genocide against these people on an industrial scale. The soldiers who died in WW2 to obliterate the Nazis would regard you as a NAZI considering your odious racism.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@asku23 As I have explained countless times, the official German figures & to a lesser degree, British figures, ARE DISPUTED BY MANY HISTORIANS. Additional research in the last three decades has caused many historians to conclude that the figures are FAR from reliable. It matters NOT that British statistics published 'officially' many, many years ago were based on an acceptance of the accuracy of German figures. The bottom line is Simple Fuckin Simon- THE OFFICIAL FIGURES ARE WIDELY DISPUTED.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
Comment removed
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH hey einstein - did u do the HW i told u the last couple of days? did u EVER take the trouble of checking russias food output pre-ww1?LOL-i think not.germany biggest economic disaster in ww1 was shortage of rubber,and loss of credit - BOTH of which was ONLY due to americas suspension of its economic ties with the germans something u peanut headed ingrate island niggers NEVER thanked us for lol
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 I do like your ironic sense of humour. You make a feeble attempt to be sarcastic by using the name 'Einstein.' Yet it is YOU who has been wrong consistantly about the course of WW1. Let me remind you AGAIN- you stated that the BEF 'LOST THE BULK OF IT'S CORE AT MONS,' which is TOTALLY WRONG. You denied that Germany suffered starvation as a result of the Royal Naval blockade of the North Sea. You argued that Germany had 'Europe at it's feet & no shortage of food.' Oh the irony! ROFL
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH just calling something a fact dont make it so LOL-its like saying u got a big cock-if u gotta say it-chances are it aint true-LOL.lets re-hash some "indisputable" facts:
how many allied countries were overrun before america entry? - 4- belgium,russia,rumania,serbia
how many allied countries faced mass mutiny before america entry? - italy,france
how many CP countries overrun before america entry? - ZERO
how many allied countries faced mass mutiny before america entry? - ZERO
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 First of all, Russia was not 'overrun' in WW1. The Russian war effort collapsed as a result of the Russian Revolution in 1917. The Germans did not invade Russia to any significant degree. Why else do you think the Germans were able to launch the Spring Offensive of 1918.?Three guesses where they redeployed troops from? Belgium was not 'overrun' either. Where is Ypres? Belgium. Who held it? The British. Who NEVER captured it? The Germans. Mutiny has no relevance to US entrance to WW1.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"All you contribute is FIGURES" - hahahahahaha,that sentence alone puts your IQ in the unrecoverable category.i guess u r the kind that in his life has never done any analysis,asked questions,done research etc..? have you? LOL - it is ALWAYS about NUMBERS you putz.u r the kind i guess who does not care how 1+1 becomes 2 LOL - you r one brainwashed oaf as is perfectly clear-but i AM having 22 much fun to stop LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH well the british army according to Dennis winters book in mons consisted of 51000 soldiers - 4 divisions -some of them partally involved,it does not say anywhere how many men a single division of the british army contained - i am going with the well accepted figure - 15000 men,even taking your account the sheer difference AGAIN 12500(from churchill) vs 1600 is baffling,i mean why would the british war office say it lost 12500 when only 1600 were killed? interesting question
asku23 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH we can discount your "inaccuracy" charge of the german archives,it is hard to understand why the german goverment would miss something as simple as "wounded" out of its official documents,alo to answer your queston why these r importnat?since these same figures were used in germany to give social benefits to veterans(just like in UK),it is hard to see how german goverment would allow such a wildly inaccurate accounting of its casualties
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Warner highlights that by their OWN admission, the Germans themselves throw doubt on their own figures. They cite 'a shortage of clerks,' (to maintain accurate figures) & in addition the fact that, 'They did NOT usually include the less seriously wounded.' Add those who were atomised/buried in the mud & never recovered, and it is evident that there is certainly potential for considerable inaccuracy. I am not going to argue over which came first, chicken or egg.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH what a moron u must be to beleive that statement,germany in ww1 was the most educated society in the world-hard to see them facing a "shortage of clerks" hahahaha.also i have REPEATEDLY stated churchills figures INCLUDES missing,even assuming the german accounting was not thorough(which it WAS) it hard to see them being inaccurate as it be as low as 1/3 of the total casualties they supposedly suffered,a figure they used to give benefits to its veterans LOL
asku23 1 year ago
@asku23 Perhaps being an imbecile, the salient point evades you with regard to shortages of clerks.......The Germans were engaged in a WORLD WAR, and in 1916 during the Somme, they were fighting on TWO fronts, East & West. You do not need to be Steven Hawkinge to appreciate WHY they had a shortage of pen pushers, nealy all the men were carrying a rifle & bayonet in the front line. Education had nothing to do with it, shortage of men due to war had EVERYTHING to do with it.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH 1 year ago
@LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH buddy boy: dont u read? the german accounting was done POST WAR - u stupid ass,for 3 years from 1919-1922 LOL also since u do not know-in wartime most clerical jobs are done by WOMEN fool-not to forget the old,the disabled from a population of 70 millino i find it hard to accept there would be a shortage of pen pushers-not that it is relevant at all since churchills figures are based on post war acconuting,another hiding? island boy -i am kickng ur ass too easy now
asku23 1 year ago