BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM

"" I was dismayed that he should think I 'hate' the British army. On the contrary,""
That is not dismissing the review - it was disagreeing with his conclusions of what he wrote which was
"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."
All fully accepted as "generous"
Your manic attempts to dismiss this from your own historian are jingoism in the extreme.
Sorry 'bout that Keith - that's what the man said and you damn well know it.
"Secondly, there was no sign of that subservience just before the war."
WHAT
Two years before the war broke out the Titanic sank and the steerage passengers were locked below-decks until the wealthier passengers were able to escape.
Britain was a sharply divided society with subservience to "your btters" was taught in schools and preached in churches.
For an overview of the class divisions and subservience expected see - 'The Deferential Worker', by Howard Newby
It is equally insane to suggest that our politicians then were any less corrupt then than they are now - the only difference was that corruption and privilege was a built in feature of society, where now, they have to work a little harder to milk us dry.
'The good of the country' was the protection of a class divided society - nothing to do with the good of the people as a whole, who were there when they were needed to make money and fight wars.
Politics was a calling for the privileged pretty much as the Church was - if they failed to make the church, they went into politics.
To put down the atrocious nature of WW1 to "that's the way it was in those days" - and attitude that would let the horrors of the inquisition and the horrors of the Reformation - it was like that because all of these things were barbaric displays of privilege - whether in protection of the Church or protection of the Empire - primitive power struggles that slaughtered many millions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 03:14 AM

Not guilty Terribums

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 03:06 AM

No seance required Raggy - as their actions speak for themselves - no guessing required on my part at all - information you could look up if you could arsed (But of course we all now know that can't be) include:

1: Hansard - Parliamentary record
2: Newspaper archives -give the detail relating to how the news was reported and the dissection of that news in editorials
3: What the people themselves did.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 02:45 AM

They this they that.

Been to a fucking seance have we Terribleviews?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 02:35 AM

Guest Dave, I would challenge this,
. People believed what they were told not because they were religious but because they were stuck in a mindset of subservience to the upper classes.

Firstly, the "upper classes" too went willingly to war and suffered such disproportionate losses that it finished them.

Secondly, there was no sign of that subservience just before the war.
Britain was riven with strikes and industrial disputes, and there were mass demonstrations against involvement in a European war.
All that stopped when Belgium was invaded.

The people were told that by their independent press, and by the streams of refugees.
They believed what they were told because they knew it to be the truth.
Modern historians say they were right.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 07:25 PM

The language, the style, the spacing - GUEST - 02 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM - Hello Raggy.

What was this "system" our forefathers back in 1914 wouldn't question? Whatever you do Raggy don't make the mistake of transposing the political system we have today and our greedy, self-serving, professional politicians and tar their predecessors of 1914 with the same brush. The big differences:

1: No professional politicians for a start

2: The party in power that formed the Government acted in what they saw as being in the best interest of the Country, Country came first, putting Party first and clinging on to power at all cost did not enter the equation. Those in Parliament had principles, integrity and a sense of duty that went beyond themselves and their party.

3: They realised and recognised that Great Britain's place and position on the international stage imposed duties, obligations and responsibilities - honouring Treaties being one of those obligations

4: Newspapers were the only means of disseminating news and editorials examined and discussed the important issues of the day - those newspapers were widely read - The population as a whole was far more engaged than our "dumbed down" citizenry of today.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 06:58 PM

Guest , you underestimate your grandparents and display a profound ignorance of social history!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 04:34 PM

I have now officially given up waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 07:55 AM

I wouldn't worry too much about the misreading and misrepresentation, Guest. It is pretty endemic here on the Mudcat. Particularly in the BS section.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM

Typical misreading and misrepresentation. I never made any link whatsoever to religion.

I said many were religious which indicates believing what they are told and not questioning the system.

The anti war lobby and protests right now are testament to seeing through jingoism in a way our grandparents would never have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM

"Haig's thinking was powerfully influenced by his experience at Ypres in October 1914"
"Only with the exhaustion of Germany, American entry into the war and a remarkable improvement in the operational methods of the British Army - for which Haig can claim significant credit- did victory become attainable."

p552, Catastrophe by Hastings.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 06:03 AM

Jim, He said that, did he - must have missed it?

You quoted it Jim!
" I was dismayed that he should think I 'hate' the British army. On the contrary,"

So far everyone who disagrees with you pair is wrong, a liar or a fool

No historian does disagree on those issues Jim.
Anyone who believes he knows more than them is a liar or a fool or both.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 04:22 AM

Thank you Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 04:04 AM

Guest, lots of religious people do not believe what they are told. Quakers for example are avowed pacifists, they would never fight though they might serve of stretcher bearers. People believed what they were told not because they were religious but because they were stuck in a mindset of subservience to the upper classes. One good thing about WWI was that it ended this, at least for half a century though it is returning.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 03:56 AM

"He liked the review except for that bit. He put it on his own site, but not that bit because it was wrong."
He said that, did he - must have missed it?
So far everyone who disagrees with you pair is wrong, a liar or a fool -Even Hastings the Historian Hero is lying when praises a review of his book,
Gets betterer and betterer!!!
Pity the scriptwriters of Blackadder didn't know about you two - you merit w whole series to yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 03:24 AM

I have found none that refer to any faith on their websites, but I will retract and restate my last post.

Guest,
I mean, they were religious so of course they believed what they were told

They were just told that German armies were sweeping into Belgium and France.
It was the truth.
No-one tells historians what to do, but they think it was the right to resist as well.
You imagine that you know more about history than the historians.
That makes you a fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:42 PM

Raggytash has raised the level of missing the point to new and in imagined heights. Astounding really. Makes despair for any hope of "reasoned" discussion! How DOES he manage it ?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:38 PM

G'nite KIPPER

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:19 PM

Isn't it time for your cocoa and biscuit teribums. Night night, sleep tight, mind the bugs don't bite.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:09 PM

GUEST - 01 Dec 15 - 02:11 PM

Raggy if you haven't got the guts to put your own name to your own posts then please STFU. You should actually reselect your cookie to "Kipper" - Yellow, two faced and gutless. BECAUSE THAT IS INDEED WHAT YOIU ARE.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 05:38 PM

OK I've got to ask the question.

Now then professor tell us all you know about the religious proclivites of historians.

I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting with baited breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:16 PM

That's two of us who know more than "the historians" then

We might start a club for rational non revisionist thinking. We'd invite you Keith but what would the neighbours say?

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 02:39 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 11:56 AM

If you meant something else you should apologise for expressing yourself so badly.

Fine, I apologise for expressing myself so badly.

Had you said who on the thread it was aimed at, I would of course apologise.

Ahhh, but that is not what you said. Will you apologise for expressing yourself so badly?

I will not hold my breath

Glad I didn't...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 02:11 PM

"Historians are not a religious bunch, but they think it was the right thing to do as well."

Amazing, the professor can even tell us whether historians are religious or not. Is there no START to this man's talents.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 02:01 PM

Guest,
. I mean, they were religious so of course they believed what they were told

They were told that German armies were sweeping into Belgium and France.
It was the truth.
Historians are not a religious bunch, but they think it was the right thing to do as well.
You imagine that you know more about history than the historians.
That makes you a fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 01:41 PM

He liked the review except for that bit.
He put it on his own site, but not that bit because it was wrong.
HE DOES NOT AGREE YOUR VIEWS JIM.
NO HISTORIAN DOES.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 01:26 PM

It would be nice but we oiks are generally better read and sceptical than our grandparents. I mean, they were religious so of course they believed what they were told without thinking for themselves.

In 2014, as now in 2015 you cannot put old values on present thinking. All this talk of Kaiser is totally irrelevant. If Caeser didn't kick the fuck out of Boudicca, we would never have invented Yorkshire pudding.

If that's the best you can up with..

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 01:21 PM

"From that same Spectator piece, by Hastings himself, that you found and quoted Jim."
You have been given exactly what Hastings said - he acknowledges that the review was fair ("generous" even) yet sill you persist.
This is an indication of two things:
1. You cannot get the full picture of what a historian is saying from selected 'cut-'n-pastes - you need to read everything he wrote on the subject.
2. Your manic obsession with being "right" is an indication something serious.
The statement again:
""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."

Is he being hypocritical when he says it was a "generous review" - he only takes the writer up on his hatred of the military?
Is he such a poor historian that we writes contradictory statements on the same subject?

Yu couldn't explain the review other than to call it crap - how do you explain Hastings' response to it - is that "crap too"?
Replies on a plain postcard please.
This is exactly what you have done throughout all this - ignored things that have been put in front of you as if they don't exist because ithey don't suit your jingoism
You will probably ignore this and press on with your claims - which will make my point perfectly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 12:50 PM

From that same Spectator piece, by Hastings himself, that you found and quoted Jim.
He rubbishes all of you views, and agrees mine.
So does every other historian of recent decades.
I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.


"The looming centenary of the outbreak of the first world war offers an opportunity to break away from the Blackadder/Oh! What a Lovely War vision (incompetence), which dominates popular perceptions. Nobody sane suggests a celebration. But, in place of the government's professed 'non-judgmental' approach to commemoration, ministers could assert that although the war was assuredly ghastly, it was not futile. Whatever the shortcomings of the Treaty of Versailles, a peace imposed by a victorious Germany would have been much worse. David Cameron often mentions with pride Britain's role in resisting Hitler. In 2014, it would be good to hear him acknowledge that Britain, and those who died in her name, were also right to resist the Kaiser's generals."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 12:45 PM

Crane did and Hastings praised his review saying it was "generous"
Yes, except for the bit you seized on which Hastings says Crane misread or misunderstood.
He said it was wrong. Untrue. He said he "loves the British Army."

No historian has found your beliefs to be true.
Nothing written for decades supports them, so why do you still believe them Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM

Teribus was correct in his statement above. Greg, I do wish you would contribute something..you don't have to know much.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:46 AM

With punctuation corrected:

I don't think that some here know the difference between history and myth: Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:41 AM

"Jim, Hastings does not agree with any of those things you claim."
I don't claim anything Keith Crane did and Hastings praised his review saying it was "generous"- read what he ***** wrote - it made you shit a brick when I put it up.
Did he e-mail you saying he was only kidding?
Surely you're not going to contradict your favourite historian!!
Jay ****** sus - this gets curiouser and curiouser the longer you post your inanities
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM

I don't think that some here know the difference between history and myth. Teribus is correct on the facts above.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:23 AM

"he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories" - your reviewers opinion?

Corunna 1809 - Sir John Moore's fighting retreat over 250 miles in appalling weather from Sahagun to the port of Corunna saved the only army that Great Britain had. Hopelessly outnumbered it managed to escape mauling the French vanguard under Soult's command on a number of occasions. It diverted Napoleon's attention from Madrid which allowed three Spanish Armies to escape to fight another day. It also allowed the British Army to return to Portugal under the command of Sir Arthur Wellesley - the rest they say is history.

Mons 1914 - BEF 80,000 strong held off, delayed and inflicted damage on an enemy that outnumbered them by two, sometimes three, to one. Three things from the side of the "Entente Powers" contributed to the failure of the Germans plans for the conquest of Belgium and France:

1: Initial Belgian resistance delayed the German advance for days

2: When the Germans hit the British at Mons the fight that ensued was a fighting retreat of fire and manoeuvre and the British Army of 1914 was better at that than any other army in the world bar none, and although heavily outnumbered in terms of men and artillery the Germans were further delayed, and at the end of 1914 the BEF still existed as a fighting formation when all the odds would have predicted that it would have been wiped out completely.

3: The Germans pursuit of the British opened up their flank leaving it exposed to a massed French attack. With the resulting French and British victory on the Marne in 1914 the Schlieffen Plan died a death - the German plan for conquest in the west had been thwarted.

Dunkirk By the close of the German Blitzkrieg through the Netherlands, Belgium and France in 1940 the British Army should have been wiped out. What evacuation plans that were hastily cobbled together by Admiral Ramsay in the days he was given to make them put the largest number of men they thought could be rescued at 30,000 maximum - by the time it was over 338,226 soldiers had been rescued. Britain's Army lived to fight another day.

None of them were victories, yet all of them were significant and each had an immense bearing on what happened afterwards.

"the old saw of lions led by donkeys" - Ehmmm Jom there was no such old saw - Alan Clark, ex-Tory Cabinet Minister and flawed Historian admitted that he made that up. Oh and just to correct another of your great misunderstandings Clark's book "Donkeys" was about Sir John French NOT Sir Douglas Haig.

As for the "Dodgy" Battalions at Ypres three times the Germans made concerted attempts to take the place and on each and every occasion the British Army stood firm. That is yet another one of those well researched facts that you are so keen on Jom.

Keep flinging up your poorly researched myths, misrepresentations and unsubstantiated crap - I'll continue to knock them flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM

What a lot of gratuitous personal abuse from all the comrades.

Who are all the comrades?

I still cannot find that apology for some reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 09:32 AM

Jim, Hastings does not agree with any of those things you claim.
No historian does, because your beliefs are now just discredited and debunked myths.

What a lot of gratuitous personal abuse from all the comrades.
No actual arguments or history obviously.
You would need some knowledge for that.
Leave that to Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 08:25 AM

And you do the same Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM

Oh come on Jim, they do make us giggle at their inanity and willingness to be led by the nose by their "betters"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM

"What's up Jom - no shots left in your locker?"
Nothing changes
You pair are ignoramus no- nothings who bully bluster and wheedle your way through these topics and turn everything you turn to shit.
Your thuggish bullying has convinced nobody
Keith has been given this analysis of Hastings (his star witness for his case) who has acknowledged its accuracy - his first instinct was to hysterically dismiss it as being a crap review by an unknown writer, and since Hastings' own acknowledgement of its accuracy, has ignored it and insisted that we have prodiuced nothing:

"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."

That just about sums up the veracity fof both of your contributions.
He will no probably say he never agreed with Hastings anyway - that seems to be the level he works at.
These forums should be about exchanging ideas and opinions and maybe learning something new - you pair make them nasty, point-scoring competitions and displays of arrogance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:37 AM

"This is about the First World War"

Correct. Although it is really about saluting war memorials and why we do it."

All ears Musktwat let's hear from you why we lay wreaths and salute war memorials. Won't be holding my breath though.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:34 AM

Good idea Musket, I'll even pay for a copy of the Bunty or the Judy for him. Wonder if they still do those cut-out figures you could dress up. Maybe they do WREN and WAAF uniforms.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM

Don't confuse being a joke with the ability to spot one and laugh.

Rupert The Bear had a very similar outlook on life. It must be lovely in your little world Terribulus. Do try getting more or at least widen your range of comic subscriptions eh?

🙈🙉🙊

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:09 AM

Aw I was missing you Terrytunes, cos you said you were cross with me and weren't going to reply to ANYTHING I posted.












I could live in hope I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM

Musktwat - you are a joke.

GUEST - 01 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM

Awww Raggy you really do need to change your posting style it is a dead give away.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:01 AM

What's up Jom - no shots left in your locker?

Keith A gives you direct quotes from the historians that prove conclusively that you have completely misrepresented what they have said in order to bend the truth to fit your biased, bigoted, class-warrior, anti-English agenda.

By all means come back to me, it will be the same old crap and either Keith A, myself or someone else will show your myths, lies and misrepresentations to be exactly what they are, time and time and time again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM

Teribus knows the truth.













He read it in the Victor, the Eagle and the Hotspur circa 1960.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:48 AM

Terribulus. "This is about the First World War"

Correct. Although it is really about saluting war memorials and why we do it.

My point was addressed at those intelligent enough to understand it and reply. If I was addressing you, I'd use the easy read format with notes for your carer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:18 AM

Terri
If you continue to address your postings in the arrogant terms that you do you can go **** yourself.
You are a jumped up little know-nothing that wished he was a tin soldier but didn't make it.
Will deal with your latest inanities when you learn a few manners
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:08 AM

The discussion has moved on Jim.
Time to draw a line.
You have been arguing all these years that the WW1 was futile, the people somehow duped into support, and the army badly led.

On this thread I have quoted Catriona Pennel, Margaret Macmillan, Max Boot, Gary Sheffield, Dan Todman and, because you referred to them, Paxman and Hastings all quite unequivocally and unambiguously denying all your claims.
Many more on previous threads.
You have found nothing written for decades that supports you.

That is because you are wrong.