Posted on 05/14/2017 11:13:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Great read, thanks!
why do the English make out that their defeats are so glorious ?
is it some bizarre homo idea ?
Thanks for this.
What defeat?
They won that war, because of men like the ones in the article.
the english lost this particular battle.
and they certainly didn’t ‘win’ the war. We did.
WW1? Check your history. We helped...
This article omits the rather large presence of French and Italian battlefleets in the Austrian breakup of the anti sub barrage. They outnumbered the Austrians in cannon weight by far.
Yes - WWI was won by Doughboys.
The English were responsible for such wonderous achievements like the multiple attempts at national suicide at the Somme, the drunkerds failure at Gallipoli, more insanity at Ypres, Paschedaele, failure after bloody failure.
Sorry but standing doggedly while one gets slaughtered like sheep isn’t heroic it’s stupid. And this English seem particularly predisposed to celebrating their defeats as some glorious event.
It’s a odd way of thinking.
We "won" because they and the French held the line all by themselves on the Western Front against the Germans, while we waited for three and half years before we decided to weigh in.
No need to get snotty about the contributions of the English.
It makes them feel good......
***No need to get snotty about the contributions of the English.****
Thank you;)
Hatred for the English correlates to incompetence with the language; grammar, spelling, factual errors, bias and jealousy. If Anglophobes are so smart, perhaps they should use a language other than English. It might help;)
The forces seem a bit more evenly matched than the story makes out.
British:
2 light cruisers
10 destroyers
47 drifters
Austro/German:
1 armored cruiser
3 light cruisers
4 destroyers
3 submarines
The “by three heavily-armed light cruisers” also seems a bit of a stretch. The Novara, Helgoland, and Saida had 3.9 inch guns, the trawlers had a 2.2 inch gun (although the support force easily outgunned the Austrian force.)
It could have been that they were more afraid of their officers than the enemy. At least the French troops had the courage to mutiny in 1917 (units of 49 divisions participated) forcing a change in tactics.
“We” didn’t win the war. By joining the Triple Entente we simply made it impossible for the Central Powers to win. Once they figured that out they pretty much collapsed.
senseless slaughter is not to be honored
Wow. Not exactly a historian OR a combat veteran, are you? Not huge on logic, either: the officers were "armed" with riding crop or swagger sticks and a whistle, while their enemies covered No-Man's-Land with sheets of continuous machine gun fire and artillery. No contest.
Pathetic. You clearly have no experience in situations requiring courage, or you would have more respect for it.
You are the one who appears to be quite ignorant of history. Maybe a Western Civ survey course as a freshman in college to supplement your high school course taught by a coach?
Maybe if you study the British class structure which didn’t really begin to break down until after World War I, you’d be able to comprehend my comment.
Marching into massed machine gun fire doesn’t show courage. It shows stupidity and programming. You’d make a good private or a dead second lieutenant in combat.
Wow - such effective and impressive retorts!
Nah, not really. My first instincts are correct: you’ve never graced us with your presence in a uniform much less faced fire. You have no idea at all what you’re talking about.
Too bad - you’ve wasted our time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.