BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:43 AM

"What exactly is it that you have against Cook"
Nothing whatever Cookie - where would we be without the good ones?
It's just those who pretend to be something else in order to bluff us into believing unacceptable and obsolete arguments that get up my nose (now there's shame in one's calling, if you like) .
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM

Ah Jom prattling on about something he has no knowledge about yet again.

What exactly is it that you have against Cooks Christmas, that causes you to sneer at them and hold them in so much contempt? Not very egalitarian of you and it certainly does not embrace "working class" solidarity.

Was I ever a soldier? No I was not sailor yes, soldier no. Was I a cook - no I was not, my job involved things that go whoosh and bang.

Don't really know why I bothered to expound on any of that as HiLo has pointed out Jom simply does not listen to anything Jom doesn't want to hear on account of Jom being a racist, biased, bigoted pillock whose greatest burden in life seems to be the fact that we was born in England. This hatred and self-loathing of the land of his birth has gained him a Masters degree with honours in tooth-sucking that defies the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM

their lack of originality and complete and utter inability when it comes to independent and original thought beggars belief.

Ah, OK. I presume that is in reference to anyone who quotes what 'the historians' say and parrots their texts ad nauseam as well does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM

GUEST - 07 Dec 15 - 03:29 AM

Military anything is a sign of political and diplomatic failure.

Hence we gloss over how traditional military thinking, as taught at Sandhurst is as useless as it is increasingly irrelevant. It begins with admission of failure and has done ever since we were told Jesus wants us to exploit natives of far and distant lands.

That said, when you are called up as opposed to living the dream, your real life perspective can help. Hence so many Gung Ho officers in WW1 killed in action going over the top had bullet entries in their back.

Many WW2 memoirs mention that one reason that war was better planned and executed overall was that the top brass had been junior officers in the previous war and wished to ensure they didn't make the mistakes their leaders did. Mainly by ignoring what they were taught."

Hello Musktwat all of the above you have mentioned before in exactly the same words, more or less. You were wrong then you are equally wrong now.

Some facts for you to digest:

1: Percentage casualties in the British armed forces for the First and Second World Wars were almost identical

2: WWII was kept as a war of manoeuvre WWI was static - on the occasions during WWII where the fighting was static (El Alamein; Stalingrad; Normandy Landings) where no outflanking movement could be made the casualties were similar, or worse than those encountered during WWI.

3: It took the British in WWI two years to build an army and train it to fight the Germans on equal terms. The same thing took the British three years in WWII

So it looks as though your junior WWI commanders didn't really learn that much did they.

On the subject of military competence - down through the last couple of centuries very very few enemies have ever got the better of our allegedly "incompetent" military leaders - wish the same could not be said about their political masters.

Musktwat and the "usual suspects" are great believers in stereotypes which is natural I suppose they after all seem to be judging by what they write knuckle dragging union thugs who can only repeat ad nauseam what is written on the Party Sheet on any given day - their lack of originality and complete and utter inability when it comes to independent and original thought beggars belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM

"I like how the creature called Woodcock accuses people of being anonymous whilst hiding under the unfortunate "
He also pretended he was a servicemen when he was in fact a bad cooker up of fry-ups - (possibly on a ferryboat, judging be the reliability of his other claims)
Little point of continuing with Keith, who is now resorting to openly lying about what people say and even what his own historians have said - all good ammunition for the future though (along with his cultural implants theory) - make sure of no more free lunches.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 06:36 AM

Winning points Dave? Why do you so accuse?

Errrr, does the phrase 'you lose' ring any bells?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 05:42 AM

Winning points Dave? Why do you so accuse?
I merely state my views based on reading history, and point out that Jim's views are not based on history.

Keith doesn't care about how many were killed.
Keith does. Keith has made respectful pilgrimages to the cemeteries in Belgium and France. Keith joins acts of Remembrance and observes the silences every November. keith defends the dead by refuting the Comrades claims that they were all dupes not knowing or understanding their cause.

Many WW2 memoirs mention that one reason that war was better planned and executed overall was that the top brass had been junior officers in the previous war and wished to ensure they didn't make the mistakes their leaders did. Mainly by ignoring what they were taught.

Can you give us an example, or are you just making shit up again?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 03:29 AM

Military anything is a sign of political and diplomatic failure.

Hence we gloss over how traditional military thinking, as taught at Sandhurst is as useless as it is increasingly irrelevant. It begins with admission of failure and has done ever since we were told Jesus wants us to exploit natives of far and distant lands.

That said, when you are called up as opposed to living the dream, your real life perspective can help. Hence so many Gung Ho officers in WW1 killed in action going over the top had bullet entries in their back.

Many WW2 memoirs mention that one reason that war was better planned and executed overall was that the top brass had been junior officers in the previous war and wished to ensure they didn't make the mistakes their leaders did. Mainly by ignoring what they were taught.

Apparently the historians said so. Can't you hear them? There you go, they just said it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 03:36 PM

Keith doesn't care about how many were killed. Keith cares that WE won.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 03:10 PM

Who are 'the comrades' then, Keith?
Jim and Dave, who both reject the findings of all the historians, choosing to believe myths based on their hard left politics instead.

So, there is one regular member who disagrees with your views and one guest, presuming you mean 'Guest: Dave' and not me. So this bunch of 'comrades' is actualy 2 people? Is that right?

I still cannot believe that anyone wants to 'win' points in a stupid argument about the deaths of almost 40 million people. But we are talking about Keith so anything is possible I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:50 PM

Are you claiming that no military commander has ever been competent?

Politics aside
Good idea. Consult the historians instead of political activists.
You will find they all agree that the British Army was generally well and competently led in WW1.
Sheffield says of the British Generals, "Some were incompetent. Most were not."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:01 PM

Politics aside. Who in their right mind can believe militarily leaders suddenly became competent for four years? Is it a coincidence that fucking millions were slaughtered by their "competence" during that period?

No.

Sanisting bloody fools is a rather repugnant hobby. Try painting toy soldiers instead. You'd do less harm and embarrass yourself less.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 12:16 PM

The EFFECT being that Keith appears to be AFFECTed..

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 11:24 AM

Comic affect?

Yes. Klopp was a German historian who died in 1903, and there are no historians called Shankly at all.

Keith and Teribus are providing the comedy around here.
We refer to actual historical knowledge instead of political myths. Where is the comedy in that?

Who are 'the comrades' then, Keith?
Jim and Dave, who both reject the findings of all the historians, choosing to believe myths based on their hard left politics instead.
That is why we can never agree.
Unless and until you can produce someone with actual knowledge who still believes your old hard left myths there is no point in continuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM

Comic affect?

???

In any case, Keith and Teribus are providing the comedy around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 05:51 AM

Who are 'the comrades' then, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:58 AM

Jim,
I don't need less than half-a-dozen historians to make my argument, as you apparently do.

I have carefully laid out my attitude to the war based on what I believe I have learned throughout my life

Dave,
I cannot name an historian who carries out his research in a scientific manner,

The comrades reject all the history books, and the objective research of the historians who write them, preferring political dogma instead.

Fine, but normal intelligent people do learn history from the history books.

That is why we can never agree.
Unless and until you can produce someone with actual knowledge who still believes your old hard left myths there is no point in continuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:48 AM

Jim,
You've
been given them Keith -

No I have not.
Not one from recent time who still believes what you do.

You've rejected them or ignored them

You reject and ignore the historians. I do not. Certainly not Hastings.
Hastings' book is only about the outbreak, and he rejects the interpretation made by your reviewer.
I have given you numerous Hastings quotes refuting every single one of your beliefs. He does not endorse anything you believe.
Your reviewer even states, "but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head,"
Even in that review nothing supports your views. On the contrary.

You haven't read the history books
I have. That is where my views are from. You have read nothing written for at least twenty years!

No historian claims that it was not a war of attrition
That is because it largely was.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:33 AM

Ferguson does not endorse Jim's view that people did not really support the war, or that the army was badly led.
He does believe that Britain's imperial legacy might have been preserved if we had not made a stand agaisnt German aggression, assuming that a Germany controlling the whole of Europe would have allowed us to do that.
He is on his own with his far right views of Empire, and I doubt Jim would align himself there. Do you Jim?
If so you can count one historian who supports one of Jim's views.
Otherwise there is a consensus against.
(Klopp and Shankley are not WW1 historians and included for comic affect.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 09:44 PM

"Ferguson"

Klopp.

Shankly.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 06:23 PM

Perhaps he wasn't able to spell "terrible"?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 05:54 PM

I like how the creature called Woodcock accuses people of being anonymous whilst hiding under the unfortunate sobriquet "Teribus."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 03:10 PM

"Jim, you have not found one single historian who still believes that shit you cling to."
You've
been given them Keith - even from your ow miniscule selection
You've rejected them or ignored them - Hasting is a classic example he writes something you don't agree with he acknowledge it as fair and doesn't dispute it, you produce quotes that do not relate in any way top the review and claim he can't have said it.
"I say what is in the history books."
You haven't read the history books- you have selected about two pages worth from less than six authors and you have refused to respond to what they have really said when it has been put up to you.
"Give us a name!"
No historian claims that it was not a war of attrition - every single one of them do - Sheffield, McMillan, Hastings.... every one you have mentioned and more - it was a war where men were sent to kill each other and die in mud - it was simple butchery
Hastings aid
A summary of what Hastings said runs thus.
""Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading" was to describe it as "generous" and say about the suggestion that he hated the British military - "on the contrary, I have loved it all my life, but want its reputation to rest on its achievements, not on jingo legends."
I have no problem with that.
The only sign of disgreemant was the conclusion that he hated the Miltary NOTHING MORE - HE AGREED WITH THE REST
You are not intending to address my points - I didn't think you would, despite your "lifelong study" claims
I realise it is pointless asking you to provide answers to them from any historian - you haven't and they wouldn't - all common knowledge.
You are basing your argument on selected cuttings from historians you haven't read and even then, you haven't read what the ones you have selected say properly - you have been told what they say but you refuse to respond.
If am a fool then so is every other contributor to this thread exept the bullying deckhand.
We're all "Muppets" again Keith and you pair of eejits are the only ones right - nothing changes
You really have shit in your own nest this time with your idiocy - your fame spreads!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 02:44 PM

Hastings, like most historians, tailors his presentation and interpretation of facts to suit his prejudices. I cannot name an historian who carries out his research in a scientific manner, thats probably a consequence of C.P. Snow's "two cultures". A scientist, at least a good one, assembles and presents their evidence, and although they may then go on to interpret it, leaves the evidence in the open for someone else to analyse and maybe reach different conclusions. Unfortunately the culture of the humanities is beginning to impinge on science. Many large collaborations (thinking things like PLANCK here) won't even give you access to their data unless they are absolutely sure that what you publish will be in agreement with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 02:06 PM

Ferguson

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 01:17 PM

I don't go in for "my historian is bigger than your historian" arguments

Jim, you have not found one single historian who still believes that shit you cling to.
Quote one now!
Give us a name!

I have carefully laid out my attitude to the war based on what I believe I have learned throughout my life

I say what is in the history books.
Where does your shit come from?

You have been given a list of acttual cock ups that cost many thousands of young lives

No. Not from WW1.

other than to claim that historians you haven't read said it was a well led,

I have quoted historians making exactly that point!
You can not quote a single one who believes different.

HE WELCOMED THE REVIEW WAS FAIR AND GENEROUS -

Yes, except the bit that he got totally wrong! "ON THE CONTRARY...."

I don't need less than half-a-dozen historians to make my argument, as you apparently do.

Let everyone read that statement from Jim.
He can not find one single historian to make his argument.
He acknowledges that I have found six quoted just on this thread endorsing my views.
On previous threads, many more.
I am just saying what the history books say.
Jim truly believes that his silly politics give him better knowledge.
Only a fool with a vastly inflated ego would imagine such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 11:48 AM

"I have mostly quoted articles and essays available on line."
Every single argument is lifted off line - every one.
"You Jim can not quote anything written by any historian for decades!!"
I don't go in for "my historian is bigger than your historian" arguments - you have shown by your own behaviour that that is pointlessly dishonest.
I have carefully laid out my attitude to the war based on what I believe I have learned throughout my life - not from "Blackadder" as you and your historical quotes dishonestly claim, but the sum total of my life.
You have shown no understanding of the War whatever but come with the attitude that 'My country is never wrong'
You have not responded to one of the points I have made, of how the war was conducted, how a war for territory that took away many millions of lives, how the recruits were persuaded to join, what the British people got out of the war - HOW A WAR CONDUCTED BY SENDING YOUNG MEN TO THEIR DEATHS IN THE MANNER THEY WERE CAN BE DESCRIBED AS ANYTHING BUT SIMPLE BUTCHERY
You have been given a list of acttual cock ups that cost many thousands of young lives - you refuse to respond to them and cointinue with your mantra
You have not responded to one of these points other than to claim that historians you haven't read said it was a well led, just war so it must be true DO YOU NOT REALISE HOW MINDLESS THAT IS? you haven't even read the people you quote.
You even suggest one of your own historians is a liar because his honest response to a critical review doesn't suit your case HE WELCOMED THE REVIEW WAS FAIR AND GENEROUS - IF THAT IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGING ITS ACCURACY WHAT IS IT?
You go out of your way to take quotes from Hastings that contradicts his stated views making him a shoddy historian or a hypocritical liar in his response to the review - either way, not fit to be considered as the historian you have claimed him to be.
You will ignore all this and continue your grotesque version of The Lords Prayer - fine - all the more reason why you should never be taken seriously again.
I don't need less than half-a-dozen historians to make my argument, as you apparently do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM

"You people .. have read nothing about WW1 in the last 20 years.."

Proof?

Define "you people"

Name your books, including the ones you haven't coloured in yet

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 09:55 AM

Jim, I have mostly quoted articles and essays available on line.
It saves me transcribing long passages, and anyone can verify the accuracy and see it in context.

I have transcribed from books in my possession too.
You Jim can not quote anything written by any historian for decades!!

You reject even what Hastings (your prize historian) says when it doesn't suit your case

Completely untrue! Show me an actual quote I have ever rejected.

Hastings himself rejected the quote from Crane's review. "On the contrary" he said. That means "the opposite is true."

Hasting's book is only about the start of the war.
The army was given no time to prepare for war, and was sent into the path of an army vastly superior in men and weapons.
Of course its "achievements" were limited, and made worse because it was commanded by French who was indeed incompetent and soon sacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 08:31 AM

"How did I manage to quote him repeatedly then?"
You have never at any time quoted anything that you haven't lifted directly from the internet - not ever!
You reject even what Hastings (your prize historian) says when it doesn't suit your case
His only response to a review of Hastings' book which said:
"Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading" was to describe it as "generous" and say about the suggestion that he hated the British military - "on the contrary, I have loved it all my life, but want its reputation to rest on its achievements, not on jingo legends."
This is a total acceptance of everything else the review said - nothing you have put up contradicts the review - which you described as "crap" and your tabloid historian describes as "generous".
You have never at any time shown eny evidence of ever having read a book on anything - your interest in all these subjects extends only to carefully extracted bits which you claim back up your pre-conceived jingoism.
You had to admit that you'd never read a book on Ireland and that the subject didn't interest you - 'bout time you did the same here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 05:29 AM

Oh I think he has studied the period in question and read a great deal more about it that you unnamed GHOST - after all as far as detail goes or counter argument you have produced absolutely nothing - nor will you - now too cowardly even to put your names to your posts the game still seems to be let's bully and mob in an attempt to silence - you guys must have been "union activists" that after all was their tactics if any "voice from the floor" ever chirped up and started exposing the bully boys for what they were. Really don't know why you try, it must the evident even to the most mentally challenged of you that you are not going to succeed, your target is made of far sterner stuff than any of you, and in damn near every case where you attack him he argues with real knowledge on his side.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 04:09 AM

And it becomes ever more apparent that he hasn't actually read very much at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 03:47 AM

So on the basis of Hastings thinking in his condescending way that the great unwashed can't differentiate between satire and reality, Keith's confused rhetoric was born.

All becomes clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 03:43 AM

Posted by me over 2 years ago.
Many more subsequent quotes.

11 Nov 13

Historian Sir Max Hastings,
"I never stop being amazed by the number of people I meet - who are educated, thoughtful people – who say to me "I have never understood why the whole of Europe when to war just because some Austrian big wig was shot in Sarajevo"."
In Blackadder Goes Forth, Baldrick said the war began when "Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry", reflecting confusion the popular opinion that the issues we were fighting over were not worth the huge loss of life.
"We think we know the story of World War II because Hitler was evil, we can get our heads around that," Sir Max said.
"But the modern British view of the First World War is dominated by the Blackadder attitude which is believed even by school teachers.
"The Germany of 1914 might not have been as evil as Hitler's Germany, but it was still bent on dominating Europe, and the idea that it didn't matter who won is ridiculous.
"The politicians are frightened of saying that we fought a great evil and they are afraid of saying who started WWI."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10110657/Germany-and-Austria-started-WWI-seeking-European-domination-historian-says.html

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 03:24 AM

How did I manage to quote him repeatedly then?

You people by contrast have read nothing written about WW1 in the last twenty years at least!
If you had, you would not be so stupid as to argue against the history books.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 06:01 PM

Hastings is just one of the historians you have never actually read until forced into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 11:56 AM

Hastings is an historian, acclaimed by other historians, and heading the BBC list of "leading WW1 historians."
He was just one of the many historians I quoted rubbishing Jim's old myths.
His book does too, but is mostly about other things.
His many articles and essays did the job much more effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 11:51 AM

Hastings was his pin up boy till he actually got around to reading him. He assumed Hastings would be a tame establishment man and is back pedalling now he realises he isn't.

On other threads, Keith calls him a historian. On this one he doesn't.

No matter, the more he insists on showing us his arse the more we applaud.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 11:46 AM

Guest, I quoted the many articles and essays he has written about WW1 that are available on line. His book has little relevance to this debate because it is mostly about other armies and theatres of war, and only covers the first four months of the war anyway.

Greg, all histories of WW1 written in recent decades.
I remind you that none of you, in three years of debate, have found one that supports Jim's debunked and discredited historical myths.

Unless and until you do, there is no point in continuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 10:50 AM

the history books.

WHICH history books, Professor? The ones available in real bookshops written by live historians who work for the tabloid press?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 10:04 AM

Keith, you have been citing Hastings for almost a year, yet you have said only two days ago that you actually got the book and started reading it. Is it any wonder that people pull you up about things you've pulled off quickly sought out websites.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 09:19 AM

...there is no point continuing

...as long as you let Keith have the last word of course :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 09:00 AM

This is a debate about history.
I got my views by reading the history books.
That is what normal, intelligent people do, and it means I can quote numerous historian supporting my views.
Nothing written in the last twenty plus years supports your views Jim, because they are just discredited myths.
You have not been able to name or quote a single one.

Your views are determined by your class war politics, and not based on any actual knowledge at all.
You have none.
You are arguing about history, against the historians!

Unless and until you can find anything to support your views, there is no point continuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM

"is it a sort of last man standing debate? "
Not really Alme - no point in a last man standing debate with a dead man who won't lie down.
Just happy to let him strut his stuff in public - makes it so much easier next time - rewriting what his own historian says just about does it I think - don't thing even he could top that
Done here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 06:32 AM

you guys are still going on this -well done, i salute your indefatigability. is it a sort of last man standing debate? no matter the number of victims who have been irritated or bored to death by this argument, just lasting the pace is the important thing. doesn't look like it will be all over by christmas!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM

You don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 09:03 AM

Hastings is not an historian I would choose to read, and nor would I usually bother with a book restricted to the build up to the war and the outbreak, but I have acquired a copy and have been reading it for three days now.
The quotes are transposed not "scanned down."

There is nothing in the book that supports your view of an army led by incompetents.
None of your views are supported by any historian, so why do you cling to them?

The opinion about how the war had to be fought is the opinion of all the military historians.
In what way are you qualified to imagine that you know better Jim?!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 07:10 AM

"In clashes such as those of 1914-18, it was almost inevitable that a vast amount of dying had to be done before a decisive outcome became obtainable"
That is opinion - not history - and the opinion of a right-wing tabloid journalist at that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 07:08 AM

"Jim, there is nothing in Hastings' book that supports your view of incompetent leadership or any of your views."
Sigh - you haven't read his book Keith - you haven't even read the bits you scanned down - of any of your less than six historians
His acceptance of the review as "generous" shows that without any doubt.
What he actually said about the review
David Crane wrote generously in last week's books pages about my 1914 history, Catastrophe. I was dismayed that he should think I 'hate' the British army. On the contrary, I have loved it all my life, but want its reputation to rest on its achievements, not on jingo legends."
Nothing in the out of context quotes you have put up contradicts what Hastings has acknowledged as "generous" in the book - he did not reject it, as claimed and he actually makes a point of referring to the "jingoism" surrounding this subject - directed at people like you.
Your attitude to this review is little short of insane.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM

Jim, there is nothing in Hastings' book that supports your view of incompetent leadership or any of your views.
No historian does, so why do you cling to them?

Sheffield said of British generals, "Some were incompetent. Most were not"
We can all agree that French was, and Hastings does.
He makes no general charge of incompetence against the army he loves.
No support for you Jim.

p551
"In clashes such as those of 1914-18, it was almost inevitable that a vast amount of dying had to be done before a decisive outcome became obtainable. The same was true in 1939-45: much-diminished Western allied losses reflected not better leadership.....but the fact that... the Russians bore the overwhelming burden"