It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Brief Russian military history

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
No Atheix, you are absolutely wrong in your assertion that French troops defeated the Germans at Marne before the British got involved.

I will quote the Longmans Chronicle of the First World War;




BRITISH TROOPS HELP TO REBUFF GERMANS

France, September 30th 1914,

Paris can Breathe again, the Germans have been stopped at the Marne and are retreating. It was a close run thing however. At one stage 600 Paris taxis were commandeered to rush troops to the front. One French General, Ferdinand Foch, under severe pressure, reported "My centre is yielding, my right wing is giving way. An excellent situation. I attack tomorrow!"

The BEF played a vital part in the battle, crossing the river into a gap between two German armies, threatening to outflank them and forcing them to abandon the battlefield. British losses have been heavy.


Does that sound like France was unassisted or that the British were not yet involved to you?

[edit on 22-5-2005 by waynos]




posted on May, 22 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Haha! Well done, I was meaning to read up on the battle of the Marne and come back later to prove him wrong but you've evidently beaten me to it. I really don't understand what point he is trying to make by lying about military history.

No disrespect to France, but you couldn't have survived in either of the two World Wars without British help, which I believe it was our moral obligation to provide as an ally.

[edit on 22-5-2005 by CiderGood_HeadacheBad]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
No Atheix, you are absolutely wrong in your assertion that French troops defeated the Germans at Marne before the British got involved.
No I'm not. No history school books say anything about British being involved at Marne. And I will quote one of the books. Written by respected historians.


(...) The German army - to omit the fortifications at the French-German border - attacked through the territory of neutral Belgium and Luxembourg. That surprised the French.
The Germans were marching towards Paris. What was going to decide about the fate of the city was what was the French army going to do. The French army was quickly being concentrated at the river Marne. In a battle in September 1914 - due to a great generosity of the French - the Germans have lost. This ended the German plans of a quick war in the West.

And in case if you were wondering this has been written by Polish historians. They're not French historians.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
No history school books say anything about British being involved at Marne.


Really? Mine did. How peculiar...



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX



(...) The German army - to omit the fortifications at the French-German border - attacked through the territory of neutral Belgium and Luxembourg. That surprised the French.
The Germans were marching towards Paris. What was going to decide about the fate of the city was what was the French army going to do. The French army was quickly being concentrated at the river Marne. In a battle in September 1914 - due to a great generosity of the French - the Germans have lost. This ended the German plans of a quick war in the West.

And in case if you were wondering this has been written by Polish historians. They're not French historians.


This quote does not state that the British were not involved. It also states - perhaps due to mistranslation? - that French "generosity" was the reason for German defeat. I'd have thought the generous thing to do would be to let them win. Not a very reliable source in my opinion.

Here's a few quotes from www.1914-1918.net.... Please note that "BEF" stands for British Expeditionary Force.


The average advance of BEF units on 6th September was 11 miles; on the 7th, 8 miles, and on the 9th, they recrossed the Marne. Tactically the battle was not fought to a finish, as the German units recovered from the initial shock of the Allied attack to begin an orderly retreat.

The BEF played only a small part in the Battle of the Marne, when compared with the titanic struggle between the very much larger French and German Armies. It was nonetheless an important part, as it struck a blow at a sensitive place in the German front. In fact, it was the British advance that caused such consternation for the German position that the enemy decided to abandon the field of battle and withdraw to the North.


A few more words on the subject from www.bbc.co.uk...


On 9 September Bülow learned that the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was advancing into the gap between his 2nd Army and Kluck. He ordered a retreat, obliging Kluck to do the same. The counterattack of the French 5th and 6th Armies and the BEF developed into the First Battle of the Marne, a general counter-attack by the French Army. By 11 September the Germans were in full retreat.


Clearly your argument that the British Army had nothing to do with the Battle of the Marne is rediculous.




[edit on 23-5-2005 by CiderGood_HeadacheBad]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad


This quote does not state that the British were not involved.
It does. It says that what was going to decide about the fate of Paris was what the French army was going to do. And what the French army did was a harsh action against the German army.

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
It also states - perhaps due to mistranslation? - that French "generosity" was the reason for German defeat. I'd have thought the generous thing to do would be to let them win. Not a very reliable source in my opinion.
This book has been written in Polish. The person who translated that was me. So if there's any mistake it is my mistake and it's a translational mistake. But I can be forgiven since I was using a dictionary.
When I said generosity I meant sacrifying the lives for the cause. The cause of course was to repel the German attack.

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad

Clearly your argument that the British Army had nothing to do with the Battle of the Marne is rediculous.
No. And I have already said why.


Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
No disrespect to France, but you couldn't have survived in either of the two World Wars without British help
I am not French. I am German.
It maybe is strange for me to admit that my own country wouldn't be able to achieve something but it is true. And if we would be able to defeat the French if they would be fighting alone then we would be able to defeat the British too if they fought alone.


[edit on 23-5-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
atheix ?

do you even know why world war 1 srated....would you like me to tell you?....this way we can quickly eradicate the drivel you are typing and pay homage to the brave british soldiers that helped the french take back their country from the germans.

What point were you trying to make ?

it has been lost as would have france have been without british intervention.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   


TextOn 9 September Bülow learned that the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was advancing into the gap between his 2nd Army and Kluck. He ordered a retreat, obliging Kluck to do the same. The counterattack of the French 5th and 6th Armies and the BEF developed into the First Battle of the Marne, a general counter-attack by the French Army. By 11 September the Germans were in full retreat.


oh and by the way...the battle of the marne.....with the british.

how do you like those apples?...admit your defeat like a gentleman.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Atheix, isn't it funny how the other quotes back up the one I posted yesterday.

Now tell me, where does it specifically say in your source that there was no British involvement? Of course, it doesn't say that at all. It is merely an interpretation that you have chosen to place upon what that book tells you. It mentions great French sacrifice, OK, no-one in this debate has said that there wasn't any such sacrifice, only that the British were there too which defeats the crux of your original argument.

Have you ever heard the saying "there is none so blind as a man who will not see"



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad

Clearly your argument that the British Army had nothing to do with the Battle of the Marne is rediculous.
No. And I have already said why.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by AtheiX]


Have you now? It must have escaped me. Would you care to reiterate, providing absolute proof which contradicts the multitude of sources we have provided, which shows the British Army was not involved in the Battle of the Marne? All you have done is provide an extract from a source which simply doesn't mention the British contribution, which every history book on World War I documents extensively.

Not only do you not have a point to make, but you are trying to back up this non-point with lies.

As I understand it from previous posts, you are trying to prove France has a glorious military history by making light of other countries defeats. I understand that French military history is wrongly mocked and misrepresented by those who wish to discredit France, but nobody on this thread had tried to do that.

What you are doing is lying about British military history, denying the loyal support for their allies given from start to finish by British soldiers, for what appears to be no good reason. Given that almost 1 million British soldiers died, and many more were wounded, fighting to defend France and Belgium, and my great grandfather himself fought throughout the war, serving at the Somme, I find what you are asserting deeply offensive.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Atheix, isn't it funny how the other quotes back up the one I posted yesterday.
No it doesn't.

Originally posted by waynos
Now tell me, where does it specifically say in your source that there was no British involvement?
If there was any it would say that what was going to decide about the fate of Paris was were the French and the British going to do. It doesn't say that. It says that the fate of Paris depended upon what were the French going to do.


Originally posted by waynos
It is merely an interpretation that you have chosen to place upon what that book tells you.
It's not an interpetation of mine. It's a translation.


providing absolute proof which contradicts the multitude of sources we have provided, which shows the British Army was not involved in the Battle of the Marne?
I have done that already. It has been said that the French won on their own:
"What was going to decide about the fate of Paris was what was the French army going to do."
"The French army was being quickly concentrated at the river Marne."
Apart from that if there was any British involvement - especially if it was a great involvement and you're trying to prove that there was - it would be mentioned.


an extract from a source
which simply doesn't mention the British contribution, which every history book on World War I documents extensively.
The source I have quoted is a history book. Written - as I have previously said - by respected historians. This book is large. It is a history book about the history of the 20th century with a lot of attention paid to WWI and WWII.
And as I have already said if there was any British involvement - especially if it was a great involvement and you're trying to prove that there was - it would be mentioned. Especially since the authors are respected historians.


As I understand it from previous posts, you are trying to prove France has a glorious military history by making light of other countries defeats.
France has a glorious military history. At least in comparison to British military history and Russian military history.


I understand that French military history is wrongly mocked and misrepresented by those who wish to discredit France, but nobody on this thread had tried to do that.

But a lot of people on this discussion board have tried to do that. Even when I was presenting the French military history in the right way. So I have to present the military history of other countries.


What you are doing is lying about British military history, denying the loyal support for their allies given from start to finish by British soldiers, for what appears to be no good reason.
As I have already proven I am not.


I find what you are asserting deeply offensive.
Actually it is you and waynos who is acting offensive by not wanting to admit that you are wrong although the evidence is against you and by trying to present yourselves - the British - as heroes who saved France during WWI (while you are NOT such heroes).

And since a quote from a history book is not enough I will quote the Polish PWN Encyclopedia. This encyclopedia describes WWI extensively.

Military actions in 1914. The western front.
On 1-2 August the German army started the occupation of Luxembourg. On 4th August the German army attacked Belgium. After crossing the river Moze it defeated the weak Belgian army at Tienen (Tirlemont) and started the manuever of evading the French army from the north. The French army first attacked at Lorraine but without sucess. Facing the danger from the north the French army started to regroup towards Belgium. This lead to a so-called boundary battle in which the French army and the British expeditional corps have been defeated. The Commander-in-Chief of the French army Gen. J. Joffre ordered a retreat to the south in order to regroup his forces. The Germans thought that meant their full victory and started to follow the French. The counteroffensive of the French led to the Battle of Marne (6-13 September) which they have won and threw the Germans back to river Aisne where a stabilization of the front has occured.

This encyclopedia does mention a British presence on French soil before the battle of Marne and after the battle of Marne but it says that the French have won the battle of Marne on their own. Pay attention to this:


The counteroffensive of the French led to the Battle of Marne (6-13 September) which they have won
It says THEY. That means the French.


[edit on 24-5-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 24-5-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX



providing absolute proof which contradicts the multitude of sources we have provided, which shows the British Army was not involved in the Battle of the Marne?
I have done that already. It has been said that the French won on their own:
"What was going to decide about the fate of Paris was what was the French army going to do."
"The French army was being quickly concentrated at the river Marne."
Apart from that if there was any British involvement - especially if it was a great involvement and you're trying to prove that there was - it would be mentioned.


Did you even bother to read the two sources I provided above? The mention explicitly the British presence and contribution at the Marne, more specifically, the movement of the BEF into a gap in the German lines. You are ignoring the facts.





an extract from a source
which simply doesn't mention the British contribution, which every history book on World War I documents extensively.
The source I have quoted is a history book. Written - as I have previously said - by respected historians. This book is large. It is a history book about the history of the 20th century with a lot of attention paid to WWI and WWII.
And as I have already said if there was any British involvement - especially if it was a great involvement and you're trying to prove that there was - it would be mentioned. Especially since the authors are respected historians.


I am not trying to prove there was a great involvement, I am proving that there was a significant involvement. You, on the other hand, are denying the extensively documented fact that the British Army was involved to some extent in the Battle of the Marne. And for what reason, I have no idea, as I have never tried to deny or undermine the role of the French Army in World War I, nor has anyone else on this thread.





As I understand it from previous posts, you are trying to prove France has a glorious military history by making light of other countries defeats.
France has a glorious military history. At least in comparison to British military history and Russian military history.


As regards your comment on British military history, that is a misinformed, downright lie. As for Russian military history, I don't know enough on the subject to comment. So I will overlook these comments as I understand you are only trying to make light of the "glorious military history" of France, which I have never tried to deny or undermine.





I understand that French military history is wrongly mocked and misrepresented by those who wish to discredit France, but nobody on this thread had tried to do that.

But a lot of people on this discussion board have tried to do that. Even when I was presenting the French military history in the right way. So I have to present the military history of other countries.


You are presenting the military history of other countries falsely. You are doing exactly what the people whose behaviour infuriates you have doing. That makes you just as bad as them. I would, in fact, go so far as to say that what you are doing is worse, as you are ignoring the comprehensive evidence waynos and I have provided, and lying to us shamelessly.



What you are doing is lying about British military history, denying the loyal support for their allies given from start to finish by British soldiers, for what appears to be no good reason.
As I have already proven I am not.


You are a liar. You have stated that the British Army was not involved in the battle of the Marne, despite the evidence I have provided which states it was, alongside the French Army, it's ally, and indeed played an important role in exploiting a gap in the German line.



I find what you are asserting deeply offensive.
Actually it is you and waynos who is acting offensive by not wanting to admit that you are wrong although the evidence is against you and by trying to present yourselves - the British - as heroes who saved France during WWI (while you are NOT such heroes).


"Casualties

The total British casualties amounted to 1,701 of all ranks, killed, wounded and missing between 6th and 10th September."

www.1914-1918.net...

Every time you make these assertions you spit on 1,701 graves.

The eveidence is not against us, go and read some history books, besides the half page of your Polish text which does not appear to mention (although I'm sure the book will at some point) the British contribution at the Marne.

We are not trying to portray the British army as the heroes who "saved" France, merely as the loyal allies who fought alongside the French, a loyal contribution which you are denying, even though you are undeniably wrong. As far as I'm concerned, any man who endured the hellish conditions in the trenches of the First World War is a hero, and deserves recognition. Anyone who tries to deny the contribution, the sacrifice and the suffering of these human beings to promote some sort of nationalist agenda is a selfish, ignorant fool, and has obviously learned no lessons from the terrible mistake that was World War I. This is what you have done throughout this thread. We, on the other hand, have never denied the heroic contribution of any nation's soldiers.




And since a quote from a history book is not enough I will quote the Polish PWN Encyclopedia. This encyclopedia describes WWI extensively.

Military actions in 1914. The western front.
On 1-2 August the German army started the occupation of Luxembourg. On 4th August the German army attacked Belgium. After crossing the river Moze it defeated the weak Belgian army at Tienen (Tirlemont) and started the manuever of evading the French army from the north. The French army first attacked at Lorraine but without sucess. Facing the danger from the north the French army started to regroup towards Belgium. This lead to a so-called boundary battle in which the French army and the British expeditional corps have been defeated. The Commander-in-Chief of the French army Gen. J. Joffre ordered a retreat to the south in order to regroup his forces. The Germans thought that meant their full victory and started to follow the French. The counteroffensive of the French led to the Battle of Marne (6-13 September) which they have won and threw the Germans back to river Aisne where a stabilization of the front has occured.

This encyclopedia does mention a British presence on French soil before the battle of Marne and after the battle of Marne but it says that the French have won the battle of Marne on their own. Pay attention to this:


The counteroffensive of the French led to the Battle of Marne (6-13 September) which they have won
It says THEY. That means the French.


They, alongside British soldiers. You are doing nothing but trying to use your own bad English grammar to you advantage. Where in that source does it say that the British were not present? It does not. All you have provided is an extract which solely documents the French Army's actions. It most likely mentions the British contribution at some other point, you have just chosen to ignore it, as you have ignored wvery fact we have given you. In my sources, and in the ones waynos has provided, the presence and contribution of British soldiers is extensively documented.

You are a biased, ignorant liar.







[edit on 24-5-2005 by CiderGood_HeadacheBad]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Very strong reply there, but oh so correct! Excellent link you have provided there.

Atheix, do you think the British Army claims to have fought in battles that it was not present at?

Also, stop twisitng what I say for your own agenda. I have NEVER stated that the British saved France, if you read my earlier post properly you will see that I categorically said that the British would NOT have beated Germany without the French ( and Americans from 1917). That is a plain and simple fact, it was the ALLIANCE that won the war, not any one part of it.

Also your claim that France could have won the war alone just because of Verdun etc is just plain idiotic. What about the Battles that took place in France between British and German forces, Ypres, Somme etc. Where would those German troops have been without the Bitish Army to fight? Easy answer, they would have reinforcing German forces elsewhere that were fighting the French, possibly causing a French victory to be turned into a defeat by weight of numbers. Of course it works the other way too as the British would have faced a stronger enemy without the French fighting them elsewhere, but I am not making silly claims about how great the British were and I recognizes the importance of ALL the allied efforts.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by waynos]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by waynos
Atheix, isn't it funny how the other quotes back up the one I posted yesterday.
No it doesn't.


Now you're being silly. I posted a quote where the British army moved into a gap between the German armies, forcing them to abandon the battlefield, if you look at the quotes after this posted by ciderhead it says the same, that means it backs it up. You just saying 'no it doesn't' doesn't change that.



Originally posted by waynos
Now tell me, where does it specifically say in your source that there was no British involvement?
If there was any it would say that what was going to decide about the fate of Paris was were the French and the British going to do. It doesn't say that. It says that the fate of Paris depended upon what were the French going to do.


Not necessarily, if it is giving an account of the French action then it will report on the French action, merely not mentioning that there were British troops present is not the same as saying there weren't any. Its like a report on how British pilots fared in the Battle of Britain, just because it might not also mention Poles, Czechs etc does not mean that there wren't any, only that this report is not about that. I suggest that the piece you are quoting is looking at the French aspect rather than trying to be a complete overview. Similarly the link provided above tells the story from the British perspective but it isn't trying to pretend that the French weren't there.





providing absolute proof which contradicts the multitude of sources we have provided, which shows the British Army was not involved in the Battle of the Marne?
I have done that already. It has been said that the French won on their own:

No it hasn't, like I said before that is only how you have interpreted the piece but you are too blinkere to notice it.

Actually it is you and waynos who is acting offensive by not wanting to admit that you are wrong


that takes the biscuit, despite the evidence presented to you it is still us who are wrong, how closed minded is that?

Your reasoning is entirely warped. You have claimed that the French won the Battle of the Marne unaided and also that France could have won WW1 unaided too.

However by merely pointing out that the British were also present at the Marne (not that we won it or that we had more soldiers there than France) and that France was not able to win WW1 on its own you say WE are making exaggerated claims!

Incidentally, about the other battle you mentioned, Verdun. Do you know what the German aim was with Verdun? The aim was to try and deliver a crushing blow on the French so that the British would be persuaded to withdraw from the mainland and leave them to their fate, thus (in the German view) ensuring a complete German victory over France as the British were seen as being the main obstacle in the way of an overall German victory. Read up about it, from several sources. It seems they understimated Britain and France in much the same way that you are underestimating Britain now.

Do you imagine that the First World War started because Germany decided to invade France and the British just butted in (as your other posts seem to suggest) or do you actually know something of how the war really began and that, at first, it did not involve Germany France or Britain until all three 'butted in'?

[edit on 24-5-2005 by waynos]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
there was a significant involvement.

What is the difference?





As regards your comment on British military history, that is a misinformed, downright lie.

No it's not. It's a fact that I have proven (in another thread) by mentioning wars that Great Britain has fought - both won wars and lost wars.


I understand you are only trying to make light of the "glorious military history" of France, which I have never tried to deny or undermine.
As I have already said , other people on this discussion board have tried to do so.



You are presenting the military history of other countries falsely.
No I'm not. You just don't want to admit that I am right.




You are a liar. You have stated that the British Army was not involved in the battle of the Marne, despite the evidence I have provided which states it was, alongside the French Army, it's ally, and indeed played an important role in exploiting a gap in the German line.
What you are doing is lying about the Battle of Marne, trying to prove that there was a British presence involved in this battle ( which is of course not truth) and trying to present your soldiers as heroes who played a significant role in defeating the German army at Marne




go and read some history books, besides the half page of your Polish text which does not appear to mention (although I'm sure the book will at some point) the British contribution at the Marne.
The book doesn't mention any British contribution at Marne at all. And the PWN encyclopedia doesn't mention any British contribution at Marne too.



They, alongside British soldiers.
It is nowhere said in that encyclopedia.


You are doing nothing but trying to use your own bad English grammar to you advantage.

No I'm not. I'm only translating. Translating no matter what is written.


Where in that source does it say that the British were not present? It does not.

Do you expect history books to mention not only everything that HAS happened but also everything that HASN'T happened?
Do you expect history books to be written like this?
"The German army crossed the French border and headed towards Paris. What was going to decide about the city's fate was what the French army was going to do. The French army was quickly being concentrated at the river Marne where they have defeated the German army. The British did not take part in that battle."



All you have provided is an extract which solely documents the French Army's actions. It most likely mentions the British contribution at some other point, you have just chosen to ignore it,

This encyclopedia does not mention any British involvement in the battle of Marne at all.



The truth is that you and waynos do not want to admit that you are wrong although there is decent evidence against you.



Not necessarily, if it is giving an account of the French action then it will report on the French action, merely not mentioning that there were British troops present is not the same as saying there weren't any.
It gives the account of actions of not only the French action but also the British action. And action of other allies.


Do you imagine that the First World War started because Germany decided to invade France
World War I started because a Serbian nationalist assasinated the Austro-Hungarian throne successor. The German Reich wanted to use this opportunity to extend its influence by defeating other countries. The first country that was going to be attacked was Belgium. The point of this was to be able to attack France via Belgium to evade the fortifications on the French-German border. The next country that was going to be attacked was France. Simoultaneously the German Reich was going to attack Russia.


I suggest that the piece you are quoting is looking at the French aspect rather than trying to be a complete overview.
It's not. It's a complete overview that documents the involvement of not only France but also other allies.


I have NEVER stated that the British saved France
You did. Exact quote from a post of yours:


without the British, France would have been overrun by the German army.



Even with the British it was a stalemate
You say that with the British it was a stalemate, not a loss.


with neither side making much ground and then the intervention of America in 1917 finally tipped the balance.
You say that the Americans tipped the balance. That means causing the Allies to win while there already was a stalemate.


[edit on 25-5-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

The truth is that you and waynos do not want to admit that you are wrong although there is decent evidence against you.


Please pay attention to the bold text and note, again, that BEF stands for British Expeditionary Force. I have provided ample evidence with links to my sources below.

"The First Battle of the Marne was fought in September 1914. By September 12th, the end of the Battle of the Marne, the war of movement seen since August 1914 had gone and the trench warfare associated with World War One had come into being.

When Germany invaded Belgium on August 3rd 1914, their movement across Western Europe was swift and in accordance with the Schlieffen Plan. The Belgium army was swept aside with relative ease and the British Expeditionary Army (BEF) had retreated at the Battle of Mons. General French had wanted the BEF to withdraw to the coast but this had been forbidden by Lord Kitchener who ordered that the BEF should not separate itself from the French army. The French army retreated towards the River Marne and it was here that both German and French armies fought out the first major battle on the Western Front."


"The Battle of the Marne was very costly in terms of casualties. In fact, it was a precursor of what was to come. Some 250,000 French soldiers were lost and the Germans suffered about the same casualties. The BEF lost just under 13,000 men. However, Paris was saved and the Germans expected outcome of the Schlieffen Plan had faltered. Now years of trench warfare was to dominate the Western Front."

www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

"The Allies were prompt in exploiting the break in the German lines, despatching troops from the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to join the French Fifth Army in pouring through the gap between the two German armies, the right wing of Fifth Army simultaneously attacking the German Second Army."

www.firstworldwar.com...

"One of the key battles of the First World War. The chance for an allied victory was set up by poor communications between the various German commanders, and poor scouting. General Kluck, in command of the German First Army, thought that he had knocked the BEF out of the war, and that the French troops he encountered on his right were merely scattered survivors. Neither was true - the French troops were the newly formed French Sixth Army under General Maunoury, being assembled in the fortifications of Paris, while the BEF under Sir John French was still intact and facing him to the south east of Paris. "

www.historyofwar.org...

"On 9 September Bülow learned that the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was advancing into the gap between his 2nd Army and Kluck. He ordered a retreat, obliging Kluck to do the same. The counterattack of the French 5th and 6th Armies and the BEF developed into the First Battle of the Marne, a general counter-attack by the French Army. By 11 September the Germans were in full retreat."

www.bbc.co.uk...

I hope this is sufficient evidence to show that Britain was involved in the Battle of the Marne.

It is not my intention to undermine the French actions at the Marne, as I know the French presence was much larger and more significant than that of the BEF. All I want to prove is that you are wrong in saying the British Army was not involved at all. I feel the British presence deserves recognition as Britain stood by France as an ally.

I understand your reasons for trying to prove me wrong. When I see threads such as "A Brief French Military History", they infuriate me too. They misconstrue the facts to make France look week, simply because it would not participate in the moronic "War on Terror". I sympathise with your anger towards such attitudes.

The fact is that neither myself nor waynos has ever posted such a thread.

As for the German attack on Belgium:
Britain had an agreement with Belgium which stated that it would come to its aid if Belgian neutrality was violated. The invasion of Belgium brought Britain into the war immediately in 1914, before the German army had crossed the border into France.

The British Army was at the Marne. My sources clearly illustrate this fact, and I do hope you take the time to read them. If you wish to produce a decent counter-argument I would appreciate sources, with links to websites, which explicitly state that the British Army was not involved at the Marne. We cannot see your sources to validate them. For all we know they might not even exist. So some sources which we can access online would be useful.

I cannot understand why you are trying to deny a fact about British military history to people who have never said anything detrimental about France's military achievements, when the people you have a problem with are right-wing Americans. Here you are arguing with a left-wing, pro-European Scotsman. I have often defended France's reputation against these people on this forum. Take it up with them.

All I want to do is prove that you have got the facts wrong, which my evidence clearly shows you have.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Please answer these questions;

Do you think the British Army tells lies about which battles it has fought in?

Also why do you think the link and the map below are false?

www.1914-1918.net...



How come you accuse us of ignoring 'evidence' (which has NOT been posted, you have not yet provided anything with says either 'The British were not there' or 'France fought aone'. All you have provided is sources which say 'the French army achieved so and so' which neither of us are arguing with anyway.

You on the other hand appear blissfully capable of ignoring every single piece of evidence put before you. Why?

[edit on 25-5-2005 by waynos]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad

I understand your reasons for trying to prove me wrong. When I see threads such as "A Brief French Military History", they infuriate me too. They misconstrue the facts to make France look week, simply because it would not participate in the moronic "War on Terror". I sympathise with your anger towards such attitudes.
If you sympathise then show your sympathy by posting in such a thread. By doing so you may teach them a lesson.

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
The fact is that neither myself nor waynos has ever posted such a thread.
I never said that you or waynos have posted such a thread.


I do hope you take the time to read them.
I have read them and have a few questions about them but I will ask those questions later.


I cannot understand why you are trying to deny a fact about British military history to people who have never said anything detrimental about France's military achievements,
I didn't say that you have done so.


when the people you have a problem with are right-wing Americans.
Are all of them Americans?


Here you are arguing with a left-wing, pro-European Scotsman. I have often defended France's reputation against these people on this forum. Take it up with them.
Then defend France's reputation once more. By posting in the "A brief French military history" thread.







[edit on 25-5-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Can you answer my questions above? Also, seeing as you brought it up again, why are you taking the 'French military history' thread so seriously? It was a joke. You may well have found it to be in bad taste but it was nevertheless NOT a potted history of the French Military but a satirical piece which was not even invented by the original poster but was lifted from a newspaper. A simple rebuff on that thread is all that was required for you to register your displeasure, I think the many threads you have posted since, where the humour or satire appears to have been replaced by spite, was a bit of an overreaction if I may say so.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
If you acknowledge the fact that the British Army was involved in the Battle of the Marne, I will offer my full support by posting on "A Brief French Military History" to defend the French reputation. If, however, you continue to ignore the facts, I will ignore the thread, as it is after all, only a joke. You, on the other hand, are posting false information in a serious context.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join