COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

How To Ruin Your Story Pdq

F

FEELINGLUCKYPUNK

Loves Spam
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Posts
668
I came across it last night while previewing two books about World War One. The authors were prominent writers most people know. One book comes in 9 volumes, the other is in 6 volumes. I read both Introductions then deleted the books. Both authors dropped the ball with their theses of what caused the war.

GEORGE V AND Winston Churchill were the villains not WILHELM ii. It was obvious to me the book authors failed to do their homework and endeavored to be politically safe.

Bad facts kill reader interest.
 
I found another one.

Captain Sir Richard Bruton was an important British explorer the Queen Knighted. He published a ton books and was fluent with 25 languages. A Brit publisher made an anthology of Burtons books.

The editor is so PC he seems hysterical about Burtons comments about the races he encountered. The man's hair is on fire. I cant fathom why they published the anthology. I suppose Brit notables are rare since the 1860s.
 
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK said:
I found another one.

Captain Sir Richard Bruton was an important British explorer the Queen Knighted. He published a ton books and was fluent with 25 languages. A Brit publisher made an anthology of Burtons books.

The editor is so PC he seems hysterical about Burtons comments about the races he encountered. The man's hair is on fire. I cant fathom why they published the anthology. I suppose Brit notables are rare since the 1860s.
Click to expand...

Sir Richard Burton translated the Arabian Nights and the Kama Sutra into English. He was the first person to get away with publishing pornography in the UK possibly because the censor couldn't read through the massive tomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Francis_Burton
 
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK said:
I came across it last night while previewing two books about World War One. The authors were prominent writers most people know. One book comes in 9 volumes, the other is in 6 volumes. I read both Introductions then deleted the books. Both authors dropped the ball with their theses of what caused the war.

GEORGE V AND Winston Churchill were the villains not WILHELM ii. It was obvious to me the book authors failed to do their homework and endeavored to be politically safe.

Bad facts kill reader interest.
Click to expand...

That's an odd version of history. Britain wasn't involved in the events leading up to the start of the First World War. Austria-Hungary, backed by Germany, were seen as overreacting to the Sarajevo assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Britain wasn't involved at all until Germany invaded Belgium.
 
oggbashan said:
That's an odd version of history. Britain wasn't involved in the events leading up to the start of the First World War. Austria-Hungary, backed by Germany, were seen as overreacting to the Sarajevo assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Britain wasn't involved at all until Germany invaded Belgium.
Click to expand...

Oh, please! Every socially-responsible person knows for a fact that Great Britain caused WW 1 retroactively, by declaring war a week after Germany declared war on Russia and France, then invaded those arch-aggressors Belgium and Luxembourg in self-defence - a full week after Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.

Retroactive responsibility. Get with the modern view...
 
TarnishedPenny said:
Oh, please! Every socially-responsible person knows for a fact that Great Britain caused WW 1 retroactively, by declaring war a week after Germany declared war on Russia and France, then invaded those arch-aggressors Belgium and Luxembourg in self-defence - a full week after Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.

Retroactive responsibility. Get with the modern view...
Click to expand...

A very sensible thing to do when the UK had the smallest army in Europe and needed its troops to be spread across the Empire.

Public confidence in our Army was really high after nearly losing the Boer War to a bunch of Dutch-speaking farmers.
 
oggbashan said:
A very sensible thing to do when the UK had the smallest army in Europe and needed its troops to be spread across the Empire.

Public confidence in our Army was really high after nearly losing the Boer War to a bunch of Dutch-speaking farmers.
Click to expand...

Or defending a curious bridge against a load of Zulus
 
That's the spirit! Tiny army, lack of public confidence, far-flung Empire - everything leads inexorably to George V and Winston Churchill retroactively causing the war, with poor misunderstood Wilhelm invading half of Europe only to defend himself before you sad, sorry lot had the chance to get involved.

Glad that's settled...
 
TarnishedPenny said:
That's the spirit! Tiny army, lack of public confidence, far-flung Empire - everything leads inexorably to George V and Winston Churchill retroactively causing the war, with poor misunderstood Wilhelm invading half of Europe only to defend himself before you sad, sorry lot had the chance to get involved.

Glad that's settled...
Click to expand...

They all had nice collections of boats, tin whistles and smart, white uniforms.

History 101. "It wasn't me, sir."
 
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK said:
Plenty of Brits left records about Churchill and GEORGE v
Click to expand...

Of course they did. They were recorded on 78 rpm records.

But not the sort of records you claim.

By the way in your second post, it was Sir Richard BURTON the explorer, not Bruton. He was also the translator of the Kama Sutra and other erotic books had a nickname from his contemporaries.

He was known as "Dirty Dick"!

He was a character in the Riverworld SF books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverworld
 
FEELINGLUCKYPUNK said:
Plenty of Brits left records about Churchill and GEORGE v
Click to expand...

So, howsabout you cite some specific ones? Ones showing that the First Lord and HM caused the war. (As opposed to general shite-flinging that is.) We won't even expect you to do the research needed for the 15 volumes you are so lightly waving off, just enough well-founded, well-researched history to show that the two men in question were the 'villains' and that the Kaiser was an innocent party.

Balls in your court.
 
The immediate cause of war was Austria's rejection of Serbia's response to their ultimatum. Though Serbia accepted 9 out of ten of the conditions, Austria was not satisfied. Austria in fact wanted war and had already liaised with Germany as to how Serbia might be knocked out quickly - before Serbia's ally Russia could come to her aid.

It was a cock up: Russia mobilised quicker than expected, Serbia wasn't quite the lightning pushover the Austro/German axis thought. 10 days before the war started in the west Asquith the British PM wrote that he thought a war unlikely. Serbia was the crucial factor in the East, the invasion of Belgium by Germany on 4th August the crucial factor in the West.

The dominant figures in the British cabinet with respect to declaring war were Asquith and Grey, not Churchill. American opinion makers frequently over rate Churchills importance based on the lens of his later reputation in WW2.

George V is widely credited with being one of the least intelligent of British Monarchs and that is not a stiff competition, and in any case the monarch held negligible real power.
 
George V's last words are reported to be:

Instead, he retired for three months to Craigweil House, Aldwick, in the seaside resort of Bognor, Sussex. As a result of his stay, the town acquired the suffix "Regis", which is Latin for "of the King". A myth later grew that his last words, upon being told that he would soon be well enough to revisit the town, were "Bugger Bognor!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V
 
ishtat said:
...
The dominant figures in the British cabinet with respect to declaring war were Asquith and Grey, not Churchill. American opinion makers frequently over rate Churchills importance based on the lens of his later reputation in WW2.

...
Click to expand...

Churchill's role in the First World War has been overstated frequently because of Gallipoli.

What he proposed and what was done were very different.

Churchill's suggestion was that the Royal Navy and the French Navy should use their numerous ancient pre-dreadnought battleships to force their way through the Dardanelles. Those old ships would be useless in a battle with modern battleships and too slow and inefficient for chasing commerce raiders but their guns were amply powerful to destroy the Turkish shore guns and then go on to threaten to bombard Constantinople.

If one, two or more of those old ships were to be lost or damaged they would not diminish the power of the modern fleets. The potential loss of sailors would be small compared with the daily losses on the Western Front. A threatened bombardment of Constantinope would have forced the Ottoman Empire out of the war.

Churchill was proposing a gamble using otherwise worthless assets. Surprise would be a key factor.

BUT - the professional naval leaders changed Churchill's plan. Instead of old worthless battleships they sent modern ones. Instead of surprise and fast action they dithered and gave the Turkish forces ample time to prepare. It could have succeeded even without those flaws IF they had continued. One Turkish fort had fired its last shell but the ships withdrew. They lost several modern ships to the world's most effective tiny minefield placed exactly where the ships turned. At that point, almost at the point of success, they withdrew and proposed a landing of troops which was NEVER part of Churchill's proposal.

Churchill took the blame and resigned. But the question remains - his idea was sound, the execution didn't follow what he suggested, but what if it had been done as he asked? The war might have been shortened by a year or so, saving millions of lives.

The old ships he had wanted to use? Most of them sat in ports throughout the war and were scrapped immediately afterwards.
 
Omitted from the PC narrative are facts about espionage by the Brits, French, and Russians. The Alloies knew what WILHELM II and FRANCIS J OSEPH had in mind for Serbia. WILHELM ii vetoed world War. The Allies knew Austria intended to bloody Serbia's nose and little else.

But France wanted Alcace and Lorraine back, Churchill wanted Constnople and the canal, and Russia wanted all the Slavic states controlled by the Ottoman Empire. There were secret agreements between the Allies.

Old treaties existed, too. Germany had a treaty with Belgium to roll thru Belgium when at war with France.
 
oggbashan said:
Churchill's role in the First World War has been overstated frequently because of Gallipoli.

What he proposed and what was done were very different.

Churchill's suggestion was that the Royal Navy and the French Navy should use their numerous ancient pre-dreadnought battleships to force their way through the Dardanelles. Those old ships would be useless in a battle with modern battleships and too slow and inefficient for chasing commerce raiders but their guns were amply powerful to destroy the Turkish shore guns and then go on to threaten to bombard Constantinople.

If one, two or more of those old ships were to be lost or damaged they would not diminish the power of the modern fleets. The potential loss of sailors would be small compared with the daily losses on the Western Front. A threatened bombardment of Constantinope would have forced the Ottoman Empire out of the war.

Churchill was proposing a gamble using otherwise worthless assets. Surprise would be a key factor.

BUT - the professional naval leaders changed Churchill's plan. Instead of old worthless battleships they sent modern ones. Instead of surprise and fast action they dithered and gave the Turkish forces ample time to prepare. It could have succeeded even without those flaws IF they had continued. One Turkish fort had fired its last shell but the ships withdrew. They lost several modern ships to the world's most effective tiny minefield placed exactly where the ships turned. At that point, almost at the point of success, they withdrew and proposed a landing of troops which was NEVER part of Churchill's proposal.

Churchill took the blame and resigned. But the question remains - his idea was sound, the execution didn't follow what he suggested, but what if it had been done as he asked? The war might have been shortened by a year or so, saving millions of lives.

The old ships he had wanted to use? Most of them sat in ports throughout the war and were scrapped immediately afterwards.
Click to expand...

O0O0O0O0O0O0O0

I agree. This is the best explanation of it I have read.
Thank you.
 
Folks, we have a troll here.

Folks, you're feeding the damn troll.

I'd put him on iggy but he's almost funny.

But I'm not throwing him any rotten fruit or cabbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Formatting for Online Reading
Replies
11
Views
1K
Bramblethorn
Bramblethorn
Emirus
Please make your comment easy to read
Replies
1
Views
450
Omenainen
Omenainen
D
Why it took me 3,094 days to publish a chapter (Long story)
Replies
9
Views
5K
Bramblethorn
Bramblethorn
P
When a leading Republican called for world government — and Einstein and Gandhi backed him
Replies
8
Views
256
anarchoMando
A
I
Sex Slave to my Lecturer (open to male character RPer))
Replies
13
Views
2K
bdt147
B
Back
Top