 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Teribus Date: 01 Dec 15 - 05:52 AM "ten million young soldiers and eight million civilian deaths (1.92% of the total population of those involved) all over a family squabble for land." Ehmmm Jom I asked for examples where as you claim "historians" made moral judgements? That above is a quote from Jom isn't it. Leaving me to draw the conclusion that "historians" do not make moral judgements but Jom does and then attempts to attribute them to "historians" - i.e more Made Up Shit. "THe Soviet Union and Britain were allies in the war - Britain did not come to its assistance" Belgium and Britain were allies in the both the First and Second World Wars - As for Britain not coming to the assistance of the Soviet Union? - Could you explain Jom old son how Soviet losses of thousands of tanks and aircraft during the summer and autumn of 1941 along with the loss of hundreds of thousands of men could be made good to such an extent that 75% of the Soviet armour that faced Hitlers forces as they stood outside Moscow was British? If that isn't assistance I do not know what is. Perhaps you could also explain what it was that all those Arctic Convoys carried to Murmansk and Archangel - each convoy carried enough in terms of arms, equipment, explosives and raw materials to equip an army of 50,000 men? If that is not assistance I do not know what is. The Soviets recognised the contribution but Jom doesn't. Oh Jom there was never going to be conscription in Ireland - the rumour that it was going to be introduced was one of the many lies Pearse told the volunteers in order to trick them into taking up arms in 1916 and sending them off to certain defeat and possible death - what was it he said? The cause needed a blood sacrifice or something to that effect. Ah Musktwat - The vote tomorrow on Syria will in all probability vote that action should be taken now that Corbyn has been forced by his own Shadow Cabinet to allow a free vote, the four replacement submarines to replace our existing SSBNs will be built and work to extend the operational life of the Trident II D-5 missiles until 2040 will go ahead. Care to give any examples of people on this thread gloryfying anything - I honestly do not think we'll hear anything on that from Musktwat. "Military techniques and equipment mean three fifths of fuck all in today's issues." If you are looking at Ukraine and the situation in IS held parts of Syria and Iraq those issues very much count on military techniques and equipment - unless of course, you Musktwat are going to bore them into submission. Besides what we are discussing here and what you keep butting into albeit against your better judgement (Primarily as every time you do you make a complete and utter TC of yourself) is the First World War - nothing whatsoever to do with today's issues. On one side we have people trying to defend a load of myths, half-truths and lies and on the other side people providing substantive fact and detail that destroys those myths, half-truths and lies. The following statements relating to Great Britain's participation in the First World War are 100% correct: 1: For Great Britain the was was one of necessity not choice. 2: That the population of Great Britain understood why the nation had to go war and for the entire period of the war they supported the Governments decision. 3: That in general (i.e. overall) compared to the armies of the other combatant nations of 1914 the British Army was well led. All the facts currently known based on what we do know about that conflict now support those conclusions and not one single thing that has been stated on this thread or in any of the other WWI threads can alter that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 01 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM Piss off Keith - neither can you -(find no historian who still believes that old shit you cling to) You can not. I can. Examples just from this thread, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. " http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/25/margaret-macmillan-just-dont-ask-me-who-started-war "Soldiers did not fight just because they were afraid of their officers. The toughest discipline was in the Italian army, which had the highest rate of desertion among the Allies. Soldiers fought for something. Indian soldiers, as their letters reveal, for honour, the British for king and country. As one French soldier said simply, 'I do not want to become a Boche.' " "Stevenson argues persuasively that we must believe that men and women meant what they said when they talked about duty and sacrifice, that they accepted the war, even willingly." " A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case." Whilst enthusiastic crowds certainly existed in August 1914, the new research suggests that this didn't reflect the whole picture. "Other gatherings around late July and early August opposed the war," Dr Pennell explains, "and many more people were shocked and disbelieving that such an event could happen." "Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."" Dr. Catriona Pennel http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html American military historian Max Boot. "World War I continues to be misunderstood by most ordinary people who have not yet caught up with the evolving consensus of historians. Three big myths, in particular, dominate the popular perception. First, that it was an accident, a war nobody wanted — a view immortalized in Barbara Tuchman's beautifully written if factually questionable 1962 book "The Guns of August." Second, that it didn't really matter who won — that there was scant difference between the Central and Entente Powers. And third, that soldiers were needlessly sent to slaughter by unfeeling and cloddish generals Paxman/Open University "Britain now had a tactically smarter, better organised army, capable of deploying men and machines to devastating effect" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 01 Dec 15 - 04:49 AM The lack of apology for poor phraseology and lack of explanation for what I am supposed to have made seems to be missing. Was it deleted I wonder? :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST,Dave Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:40 AM Mind you, Germany declared war in the USA in 1941, not the other way round. Who knows whether that would still have happened, apparently it was Hitler's decision alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST,Dave Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:34 AM Its true that the Soviet Union sustained by far the largest losses, made by far the largest sacrifice, and by far the largest contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany, at least in the west. Without Operation Barbarossa the war in Europe would certainly have been lost. Probably without the involvement of the Soviet union, in December 1941 the USA would have declared war only on Japan, and, seeing the cause lost, not on Germany. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST,Musket Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:20 AM The forthcoming commons debate on Syria, not to mention the evergreen Trident debate are where a certain truth comes out. All this glorifying military blunders and lack of welfare for those in their charge comes to nothing. Military techniques and equipment mean three fifths of fuck all in today's issues. So really, there is no point in sanitising something that isn't fit for purpose in the first place. You can stand down now, Pte TC and Reduced to the Ranks Terribleblunders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:09 AM "25.3 million Soviet citizens died during WW2 " Should of course read 27.3 million Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 15 - 08:39 PM "but no doubt you will give us all examples of such moral judgements being applied " You already have been given them but one more time for the less literate ten million young soldiers and eight million civilian deaths (1.92% of the total population of those involved) all over a family squabble for land. Anybody who can't draw a moral judgement from that is less than human - and I thought commemorating the war dead (liars) was a Christian thing! Sorry - can't get your extremely badly link to work - but moral judgements on the war was far from "the only historians guilty of this despicable practice happen to be extremist right wingers" The left, liberals, pacifists, Quakers, Christians, Communists Humanists, Fabians...... every shape and size of political thought have condemned the war on moral grounds - apart from the extreme right who justified it then and are still justifying it - the only ones refusing to do so are the extreme right - you pair being prime examples. "Now where and when did either Keith A or myself say there was nothing wrong with sacrificing millions of young lives? " Like now - you have always justified the war as being a fight for freedom against the tyry of those nasty Huns! - a crusade, in fact " do believe that in 1839 when the Treaty of London was signed guaranteeing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Belgium they did not have an Empire." So what - did a piece of paper signed by politicians suddenly negate the the deaths of ten million human beings and miraculously turn th killers into "poor little Belgium" worth sending our young man to die for? The war was fought for Empire and Belgium typified the nature of Empire at its very worst. "I take it that you object equally to British assistance given to the Soviet Union in 1941 " THe Soviet Union and Britain were allies in the war - Britain did not come to its assistance - it fought on the same side - 25.3 million Soviet citizens died during WW2 - by far the largest losses in the whole of the war. Russia was opposing the rise of Fascism three years before the outbreak of war while Britain was chumming up to Hitler and trying to do a deal with him. What are you on? "Well that one worked out well for the Russians didn't it." Doesn't matter how it worked out in hindsight - the Russian people said NO to the war, it transpired from the aftermath, that the German people would have also said no - Germany was plunged into revolution immediately the war ended. Russia was not ready for revolution - it was forced on it by the soldiers refusing to fight and the combination of them and the workers and peasants refusing to accept the conditions brought about by a colonial war. You want to discuss the Russian revolution - and its consequences - always happy to oblige. Easter week helped prevent compulsory conscription and saved countless lives. At least they tried to stop the slaughter. "More complete and utter nonsense – we learned from our cock-ups" - like **** we did, Gallipoli 1916, the wrong shells fiasco, the Soome offensive... how many lives did it take before enough men were sacrificed to finally win? They were treated like hamsters in a wheel - well led my arse. You are still bullying and blustering and saying fuck all - somewhat insecure childishness eh what. Are you that unsure of your ground -good job you weren't a general (or a soldier for that matter) At ease corporal Oakhampton!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:41 PM AND DON'T FORGET WE WON !!!!!!! YIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! Millions dead ............................. keep your voice down son! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Teribus Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:02 PM Taking into account that the British Army hardly had any artillery at the start of the war and that the country was not on a war footing in August 1914, the design and production as stated was remarkable - not so the quality control as pointed out by Edmonds. Yet despite all that Edmonds stated in his report at the end of the Battle of the Somme the "Entente Powers" had taken more ground than at any time since the First Battle of the Marne in 1914. By the end of 1916 the Germans replaced Kalkenhayn their commander, they had been defeated at Verdun and on the Somme, their losses could not be replaced, ours and the French could - Falkenhayn's attempt to bleed the British and the French white had backfired spectacularly, in September the Germans started construction of the Hindenburg line and by January of 1917 the withdrawal of forces to occupy it was well under way. The Germans now knew that they had to defeat the Russians in the east to have any hope of gaining any victory in the west. As I have stated previously the British did tend to learn from their mistakes. From the end of the Somme Battle onward the "Entente Powers" continued to "bite and hold" at the German lines. By 1917 all of the concerns detailed by Edmonds had been rectified. When the Russians signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and Germans transferred ~1.5 million men to the western front and launched them against the British in Northern France and Belgium - Their tactics were the same and their logistics had not improved one whit since 1914. Twenty-one days after the German attack reached as far as it was going to get, the British Army fully re-equipped launched the 100 days offensive that ended the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 30 Nov 15 - 04:52 PM You are quite correct Hilo. It's quite amazing really, the more I learn about a subject the more I find my knowledge is lacking. If I learn a little bit more I find yet again there is more to learn and again the more I learn the greater degree of my lack of knowledge of the given subject. I have found that knowledge is like a vector, the more you know the more you realise you don't know. There's a lesson to be learned here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM The history all of you combined know would not fill a thimble. I, for one, would accept that description, HiLO, and have always said I know nothing about it. I suspect some of our resident 'experts' may be upset at being tarred with the same brush though. Who do you mean when you say 'all of you combined'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:12 PM Here's a quote from Brig. Gen. James Edmonds "Military Operations France And Belgium" Despite improvisation and inexperience, in 1916 British war industry produced 33,507 machine-guns, 5,192 trench mortars with 6,500,000 rounds, 127,000 long tons (129,000,000 kg) of explosives and 84,000 long tons (85,000,000 kg) of propellants. Mills bomb production rose to 1,400,000 per week and the output of shells rose from 4,336,800 in the first quarter of 1916 to 20,888,400 in the final quarter, for an annual total of more than fifty million 148,000 long tons (150,000,000 kg) of ammunition were expended on the Somme from 24 June – 23 July and 101,771 long tons (103,404,000 kg) were landed in France. SO FAR SO GOOD Heavy guns and howitzers burst on firing, due to defective shells made from inferior steel, which had hairline cracks, through which the propellant discharge detonated the shell. 8-inch howitzer fuzes failed so often, that the battlefield was littered with duds and an attempted remedy made the fuzes fall out. Many shells failed to explode, due to deterioration of the explosive filling; defective fuzes in all heavy guns caused premature detonations, while many guns misfired due to poor quality barrels. 60-pounder guns averaged a premature every 500 shrapnel rounds and 4.5-inch howitzer shells exploded in the barrel or 4–5 yards (3.7–4.6 m) beyond the muzzle, the crews becoming known as "suicide clubs". Some propellants were not fully consumed on firing, requiring the barrel to be cleaned after each shot, which slowed the rate of fire. Some copper driving bands on 18-pounder field gun shells were too hard, which reduced the accuracy of the gun; when H.E. ammunition was introduced late in 1915, premature detonations and bulges occurred, with a burst barrel every thousand shots. There was a shortage of buffer springs, replacements were sometimes worse than worn ones and spare parts for every mechanical device in the army were lacking. Some shells exuded explosive in the summer heat, flare fillings decomposed, phosphorus bombs went off spontaneously, the firing mechanism of the heavy trench mortars failed on 1 July, Stokes mortar ammunition was chronically unreliable until replaced by improved designs, many Mills bombs went off early, rifle grenades were either premature detonations or duds and a make of rifle cartridge jammed after firing and had to be scrapped. NO TO CLEVER BY THE SOUND OF IT Sounds like Dud ammo to me. And this from someone who attained the rank of Brigadier General. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Teribus Date: 30 Nov 15 - 02:49 PM "he or she will take the facts available and apply their own moral judgements to them - extremist right wingers" Don't think so Jom, but no doubt you will give us all examples of such moral judgements being applied – It must be a singular delight http://mudcat.org/blickifier.cfmto you Jom that the only historians guilty of this despicable practice happen to be extremist right wingers Now where and when did either Keith A or myself say there was nothing wrong with sacrificing millions of young lives? And it is not the job of any historian to make moral judgements, if they do they are extremely poor historians. I do believe that in 1839 when the Treaty of London was signed guaranteeing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Belgium they did not have an Empire. I take it that you object equally to British assistance given to the Soviet Union in 1941 after they had been invaded – as far an evil empire went they 'd knock Belgium's atrocities in the Congo into a cocked hat after all King Leopold killed 10 million, Stalin's tally amounted to five times that number. In August 1914 young men did not have to be persuaded to join up – you like undisputed historical facts don't you Jom – Well here's one, between the outbreak of war and the end of the year over 1.2 million men volunteered to serve in the British Armed Forces – no persuasion required. "What was happening in the Belgian Congo was well known through Mark Twain's book and was ignored by the "civilised" world - massacres on that scale are indefensible." Ignored?? Ever heard of Roger Casement (Mark Twain was the only one to write reports about what was happening in the Congo) he was the British Consul in the Congo: "The Casement Report was a document of 1904 written by the British diplomat Roger Casement (1864–1916), detailing abuses in the Congo Free State which was under the private ownership of King Leopold II of Belgium. This report was instrumental in Leopold finally relinquishing his private holdings in Africa. Liked this bit of nonsense Jom: "Actually there was an alternative - that which the Russian people took and the 1916 revolutionaries in Ireland aimed for and partially achieved - for the people who were forced to do the fighting to refuse to do so - that's what the Communist International called for when they declared the war an Imperial one." Well that one worked out well for the Russians didn't it. How many were killed in the First World War? How many were murdered by Lenin and Stalin? Irish aims only partially achieved? The men called to take part in the Easter Rising were deliberately lied to and sacrificed like lambs to the slaughter – but oddly enough you find nothing wrong with any of that – makes you a bit of a hypocrite doesn't it? You might be discussing the rights and wrongs of the First World War today – Don't think anyone else is – after to do that would be absolutely pointless and stupid, besides the thread happens to be about a concert. "You are saying TODAY that the war was well led and justified - I am saying that it was not." Not wishing to point out the obvious Jom but I can only state today that I think in general that during the First World War the British Army was well led as I could hardly have done it at the time as I hadn't been born. By the way Jom who is justifying "atrocities"? In the past things happened, today I can do absolutely nothing about them and as I had no part in them I am not going to spend a lifetime in sack-cloth and ashes, as for: < i>"We judge these things by today's standards - at least us non-jingoists do." In which case you're a f**kin idiot. "fortunately for us the Germans on the western front made most of them." Yes and guess what Jom if Falkenhayn had been as incompetent as Haig in 1916 then the Germans might have won the war. Why do you keep banging on about the first day of the Battle of the Somme what about the other 1,560 days. Ah "wrong ammo being sent" back to that myth Jom - by all means go into it and you will be made a complete and utter fool of again. "As long as the Germans sacrificed more young men our cock-ups don't count - is that what you're saying?" More complete and utter nonsense – we learned from our cock-ups – the Germans didn't learn from theirs. As far as a grip on reality and knowledge related to the First World War I think that I am streets ahead of you. You honestly do not have a f**kin clue what you are yammering on about,and you prove it with every post to this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Nov 15 - 02:15 PM No apology required, Raggy. Well, not from you anyway ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 30 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM Having met Dave the Gnome I can honestly say he is vertically challenged. HOWEVER he is a far BIGGER man than you could ever wish be Terribums. Apologies to you Dave. I really shouldn't react like this but SOME people (i.e. a bully) actually deserve to be kicked when they're down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 30 Nov 15 - 01:54 PM What a sorry lot you are. The history all of you combined know would not fill a thimble. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM It is no better than the last bit of abuse, I'm afraid, teribums. How about a bit of original thought? Too difficult I expect for someone who gets all his ideas from history books... :D tG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Teribus Date: 30 Nov 15 - 01:05 PM "had better watch it, my Dad's bigger than yours..." Runt of the litter were you Gnome? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST Date: 30 Nov 15 - 12:33 PM Name one! You can't! Not even a space between the two absurd childish pieces of arse gravy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM "You can find no historian who still believes that old shit you cling to" Piss off Keith - neither can you - your made up agendas (by missing ommiting (now obviously deliberately) what historians really have to say doesn't even begin to scratch the surface making a case and your demented repetition of your dishonest claims make you wahat you are - a right wing jingoistic fanatic. Have you learned nothing from your Hastings/Kineally balls ups - obviously not? By the way - the attempted justification of over ten million young soldiers and eight million civilian deaths (1.92% of the total population of those involved) is as sabre rattling as it gets. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM BTW - You are still saying I made something up and have not yet provided any evidence. Don't you sort of get your knickers in a twist if someone does that? You must be spinning at the moment... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 15 - 11:51 AM It did not touch a nerve at all. Our posts could not be described as sabre rattling. That was made up. That is what we object to. Your meaning could not be clearer. If you meant something else you should apologise for expressing yourself so badly. It did not occur to me that you would actually deny your comment had anything to do with the thread! Had you said who on the thread it was aimed at, I would of course apologise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Nov 15 - 11:38 AM It certainly wasn't directed any anyone specific, Teribums. It was directed at all sabre-rattlers in general. If it touches a nerve amongst some of the brethren, that is not my problem. You are still talking to white noise I see. Is it like tinnitus? I believe that can come across as auditory hallucinations. You certainly seem dafter than I thought if you can get so worked up about someone who does not add anything to the discussion. Now, go and have a lie down in a darkened room before you burst a blood vessel :-) BTW Devious, weasel tongued, little shit aren't you Gnome. Is that your best shot? Hehehe. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. You had better watch it, my Dad's bigger than yours... Child. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Teribus Date: 30 Nov 15 - 11:00 AM Dave the Gnome - 30 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM - on the "sabre" rattling thing says that when he originally brought it up said the following and denies the remark was aimed at anybody: "I am happy to tell you that it refers to ALL the sabre rattling (as in making threatening noises) that goes on both in Mudcat and the real world at the moment." Well judge for yourself Dave the Gnome - 28 Nov 15 - 10:36 AM What I find sad in the extreme is that amidst all this sabre rattling there still seems to be no concept of the human tragedy behind the statistics. As I said before, I have no reason to doubt anyone's statistics, backed up by historians or god himself if you like. But it still does not detract one iota from the war being a bloody catastrophe. OK, going to war may have been the lesser of the two evils. But that still makes it an evil. Nothing will ever change an evil to something good, no matter how many statistics you throw at it. Now does that actually sound like the Gnome is talking about the world today in general or is he talking specifically about the First World War – I would say the mention of "statistics"; "Historians"; the "war" and that war being regarded by some as representing the lesser of two evils – all relate to events in the past. Then we got this: "Dave the Gnome - 28 Nov 15 - 11:11 AM "What sabre rattling Gnome?" – [Question asked by Teribus] There's one. Rattle, rattle. Mind you don't cut yourself." Still claim that your sabre rattling comment wasn't directed at anyone Gnome? Devious, weasel tongued, little shit aren't you Gnome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM For the benefit of those who missed it Keith: If you say you were not, I will have to apologise. Me: I was not. One apology expected. I am happy to tell you that it refers to ALL the sabre rattling (as in making threatening noises) that goes on both in Mudcat and the real world at the moment. Keith: Whatever you say now, that clearly refers to this thread, and equally clearly to T and me. Denying it makes you look deceitful and stupid Dave. Quite clear and unequivocal evidence of Mr A's twisting of the English language don't you think? And he wonders why people take the piss... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Nov 15 - 09:55 AM What is deceitful and stupid, Keith is saying that you would apologise if I was to say I was not referring to you and when I confirm I was not, you try to wriggle out of it. Par for the course though and I did not really expect much else. And you still have not come up with anything that I have made up. Why is that I wonder? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 15 - 09:43 AM Dave, you said, ""What I find sad in the extreme is that amidst all this sabre rattling there still seems to be no concept of the human tragedy behind the statistics." Whatever you say now, that clearly refers to this thread, and equally clearly to T and me. Denying it makes you look deceitful and stupid Dave. Jim, You can find no historian who still believes that old shit you cling to.You imagine yourself qualified to reject every history book written for at least tweny years! You base your views on political dogma not historical evidence. Unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1, you are exposed as a fraud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Nov 15 - 09:36 AM BTW Keith. You have still not pointed to anything I have made up. As in... Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up. Did you make that up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 15 - 09:35 AM "Well not exactly" Yes exactly - he or she will take the facts available and apply their own moral judgements to them - extremist right wingers such as you and Keith will see nothing wrong with sacrificing millions of young lives for territory, wealth and political power whereas a humanitarian or left wing historian will make different moral judgements. You know this because both of you have dismissed arguments as being "leftie" as if holding left wing views was illegal or immoral enough not to be considered. " Yes it was a war of empires" Simple as that - defence of one of those imperial powers that massacred 10 million of its colonials and making that power a poly to persuade young men to join up cannot be regarded as "just" by any standards - today's or yesterdays. What was happening in the Belgian Congo was well known through Mark Twain's book and was ignored by the "civilised" world - massacres on that scale are indefensible. The "no alternative" bit came the action of politicians and who made the war a fait accompli Actually there was an alternative - that which the Russian people took and the 1916 revolutionaries in Ireland aimed for and partially achieved - for the people who were forced to do the fighting to refuse to do so - that's what the Communist International called for when they declared the war an Imperial one. The fact that all this was based on the situation of the time is exactly the point - we are discussing the rights and wrongs of the war today - not in the second decade of the twentieth century. You are saying TODAY that the war was well led and justified - I am saying that it was not. If you7 are going to defend the atrocities of the past on the basis that it was in the past , you may as well justify the horrors of the Inquisition or the persecution that took place during The Reformation. We judge these things by today's standards - at least us non-jingoists do. "fortunately for us the Germans on the western front made most of them." Oh - that's all right then - after all, they were only young British lives that were being sacrificed!!! Fist day of the Somme "By the end of the day, the British had suffered 60,000 casualties, of whom 20,000 were dead: their largest single loss. Sixty per cent of all officers involved on the first day were killed". I can't be arsed to look up how many died at Loos, or Gallipoli, or through wrong ammo being sent, or all the other cock-ups that took place. As long as the Germans sacrificed more young men out cock-ups don't count - is that what you're saying? "Not true. Name one! Quote one!" Have done so and am tired of doing so. Your last outburst was when I quoted a summary of Hastings' actual attitude - you threw a wobbler and still haven't had the grace to acknowledge it. I really am not interested in discussing history with someone who appears to have no knowledge of the subject nor the interest to acquire some. You want to discuss thew war in the terms I set out, feel free - you want to discuss historians you haven't read - go and find smeone who wants to talk to a disinterested no-nothing. At last your belligerent mate has made some roads into discussing his somewhat quaintly outdated views - now all he has to do is stop strutting around like a peacock with piles and we might have a reasonable discussion on our hands - otherwise he can join you and sling his hook - I left bullies behind at Birchfield Road infant school way- way back. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Teribus Date: 30 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM The latest example of Jom-inese: "A historian is ot a god he/she provides to things - researched facts and opinions. If the facts are well researched - they are unchangeable - without having read any historian, you have challenged enough of them (stupidly arrogant) I have no problem with researched facts - I have a great problem with opinions - they are not the domain of historians - not their specialty. The war was fought as one of attrition - throwing young men at each other until one or the other gave up. Historians who say it was a well led war accept that this is a good, acceptable thing to do to use men as numerical cannon fodder are, in my mind wrong and by today's standard - wrong - it is both inhuman and immoral to treat young men that way, especially as they were given no choice in the matter. No war is fought like that today - and claiming it was well led is applying a morality dating to the beginning of the twentieth century to today. By today's standards it was wrong and utterly evil to sacrifice lives in that way. " 1: Well not exactly Jom, they put in the time study the available evidence, they research and examine it to verify it and then present their work and draw their conclusions based upon the verified facts. The better the information, the wider the research the more pertinent the conclusions - so it is not just opinion. As for opinions there are some of your pals on this forum who proudly boast that their opinions are held on the basis of information that they themselves know to be wrong. 2: "If the facts are well researched - they are unchangeable - without having read any historian, you have challenged enough of them." Now what facts have either Keith A or myself challenged Jom? You on the other hand have challenged plenty, not surprising really as for you WWI seems to have gone into a perpetual state of hibernation in 1915. 3: "I have no problem with researched facts - I have a great problem with opinions - they are not the domain of historians - not their specialty." Great pity then that you do no research - up above you incorrectly stated that one of the two things provided by historians are opinions, you now seem to state that they don't or shouldn't - which one is it - as stated above historians in their own works tend to give their conclusions along with justification for drawing those conclusions - very different to a mere opinion. 4: "The war was fought as one of attrition - throwing young men at each other until one or the other gave up. Historians who say it was a well led war accept that this is a good, acceptable thing to do to use men as numerical cannon fodder are, in my mind wrong and by today's standard - wrong - it is both inhuman and immoral to treat young men that way, especially as they were given no choice in the matter." Yes it was a war of attrition, it became such a war because there was no other alternative available - As far as the "entente" powers were concerned this was not a matter of choice it was forced upon them as a reality by the Germans under Falkenhayn in 1916. With an unbroken line of trenches stretching from the Swiss Alps to the North Sea coast of Belgium any attack was restricted to a frontal assault. A frontal assault Jom can only be made by throwing young men at one another until one side or the other prevails, it has been that way since the dawn of time. The Commander who can do that and devise means of doing that while keeping his casualties to a minimum is leading his men well. By this metric alone on the western front of the combatant powers of 1914, the British were undoubtedly the best led. The period we are discussing Jom is 1914 to 1918 and those who were directing the war effort and those who were commanding armies were faced with dealing with the realities of war in 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. That being the case whatever standards you think exist in 2015 are totally irrelevant in this discussion. To introduce modern day thinking and behaviour and apply it to events in history is idiotic. 5: "No war is fought like that today - and claiming it was well led is applying a morality dating to the beginning of the twentieth century to today." Are you sure about that Jom?? If things really go pear-shaped in Eastern Ukraine you will find the occasions when frontal assaults will have to be made by one side or the other. Rather mystified about the next bit - claiming WHAT is well led? If you are looking at something that happened at the beginning of the twentieth century then apply the morals and the accepted mores of the beginning of the twentieth century (Sometime you seem incapable of doing Jom) 6: "By today's standards it was wrong and utterly evil to sacrifice lives in that way." Irrelevant today's standards did not apply in the period 1914 to 1918 - get your head round that and live with it- utterly ludicrous of you to suggest that they could or should. 7: "Even by yesterday's standards, there were horrific undeniable cock ups which indicate it was poorly led" Completely agree, there were horrific undeniable cock-ups, fortunately for us the Germans on the western front made most of them. 8: "The same applies to the justification of the war. The war was about controlling and retaining colonies - it was an Imperial war in name and nature - and it was WRONG - then and now and it is not the job of any historian to claim otherwise." What complete and utter tosh. Yes it was a war of empires: - The Germans wanted to acquire one both in Europe and overseas by aggression and force of arms - The Austro-Hungarians wanted to hold onto theirs and destroy Serbia - The Russians wanted to save Serbia and destabilise and further weaken the Austro-Hungarian Empire - The British wanted to safeguard their empire - The French wanted to safeguard theirs All perfectly good examples of those nations looking after their own interests as they saw them back in 1914 - the fact that YOU think imperial interests are wrong does not make that the case back in 1914. And it is precisely the job of a historian to lay out and explain where each of the combatants were coming from and what their motivations were. Jom - if you were interested in history, you would read it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 30 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM 1. I did assume you were referring to Teribus and me. If you say you were not, I will have to apologise. Please tell us who it WAS aimed at Dave. I was not. One apology expected. I am happy to tell you that it refers to ALL the sabre rattling (as in making threatening noises) that goes on both in Mudcat and the real world at the moment. 2. " We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you. " That was Dave's bit. But I never said anything remotely similar to that. Second apology in order? Teribums. Now it would appear that the Gnome and Raggytash are reduced, like the anonymous GUEST posts, to merely contributing "white noise" – So many posts so little said, but par for the course as that comic duo are concerned, It is all that that they are capable of. I have consistently said I have nothing to contribute to any discussion about WW1. I do not know enough about it. I do know more about human nature and my comments have consistently been about the attitude of some posters on here. If you believe it to be white noise, fine, tune it out. Nothing simpler. You just look like an idiot responding to what you believe is white noise anyway. As to being all I am capable of? No, I am capable of lots of things. But I keep those for discussions with real people, in real life. Not an inconsequential forum with pointless threads and completely insignificant contributors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 15 - 07:53 AM You've been given them - even from your own unread historians - you ignore them Not true. Name one! Quote one! You can't. I have. You can find no historian who still believes that old shit you cling to.You imagine yourself qualified to reject everything written for at least tweny years! You base your views on political dogma not historical evidence. Unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1, you are exposed as a fraud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 15 - 06:44 AM "You can find no hjistorian who still believes that old shit you cling to." You've been given them - even from your own unread historians - you ignore them - you are lying. A historian is ot a god he/she provides to things - researched facts and opinions. If the facts are well researched - they are unchangeable - without having read any historian, you have challenged enough of them (stupidly arrogant) I have no problem with researched facts - I have a great problem with opinions - they are not the domain of historians - not their specialty. The war was fought as one of attrition - throwing young men at each other until one or the other gave up. Historians who say it was a well led war accept that this is a good, acceptable thing to do to use men as numerical cannon fodder are, in my mind wrong and by today's standard - wrong - it is both inhuman and immoral to treat young men that way, especially as they were given no choice in the matter. No war is fought like that today - and claiming it was well led is applying a morality dating to the beginning of the twentieth century to today. By today's standards it was wrong and utterly evil to sacrifice lives in that way. Even by yesterday's standards, there were horrific undeniable cock ups which indicate it was poorly led - men being told the war was a forgone conclusion and being defeated in battles like Loos - the Gallipoli fiasco, the murderous miscalculation at the opening of the Somme offensive, wrong ammunition - and many others which led to the unnecessary slaughter of many young men. That is not good leadership by any standards. The same applies to the justification of the war. The war was about controlling and retaining colonies - it was an Imperial war in name and nature - and it was WRONG - then and now and it is not the job of any historian to claim otherwise. You have largely either lied or misquoted your historians - how could you do otherwise - you haven't read any of them - just selected the juicy bits. That is an extremely stupid thing to do - both Hastings and Kineally blew up in your face, and the extent you were prepared to use two writers (one a historian proper - on a right wing tabloid journalist) has shown you to be stupid, dishonest and entirely lacking in humanity or morality. You are a mess. You will not respond to any of this in any depth - not your style, and you will continue to use historians whom you haven't read - to back views that have nothing whatever to do with history - most certainly your style. Yours is an extremist, right-wing jingoist campaign - if you were interested in history, you would read it. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 30 Nov 15 - 06:22 AM Thank You. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:54 AM Guest, " We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you. " That was Dave's bit. "We have never suggested that any life is worth more or less than another We have just compared armies using indicators like casualties, mutinies and successes. On such indicators, ours emerges as the best led army in the field" That was Rag's bit. I assumed they would both remember what they said. Silly me. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:48 AM KAOH 29 Nov 04.02AM "Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up. We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you. We have never suggested that any life is worth more or less than another We have just compared armies using indicators like casualties, mutinies and successes. On such indicators, ours emerges as the best led army in the field" KAOH 30 Nov 03.47AM "Guest 29 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM , I did not equate them. I addressed my post to them both, then referred separately to what they had each said" Perhaps you could demonstrate using the actual post(above)where you do not equate us as one and where you referred separately to us both. Will an acknowledgement that you were wrong be forthcoming. Snowballs in hells chance because you NEVER admit you have made a mistake do you Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:44 AM Yet he accepts that Crane's review was a fair one Yes, except for the bit you seized on which he says Crane misread or misunderstood. You can find no hjistorian who still believes that old shit you cling to. Hastings certainly does not. I get my history from history books. That is what normal, intelligent people do. You imagine yourself qualified to reject everything written for at least tweny years! You base your views on political dogma not historical evidence. Unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1, there is nothing else to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:37 AM it's one thing to be called something. it's another to then type out a few posts removing all possible doubt. Teams being routed? Perhaps someone should get out more. Is anybody who doesn't share your personality disorder a team member then? Talk about paranoid narcissism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:27 AM "He rubbishes all of you views, and agrees mine" Yet he accepts that Crane's review was a fair one - which is proof that what you are putting as proof is only a small part of his ideas. I have no brief for Hastings - he is an extremist right winger with a right-wing political agenda - but he is also critical of how the war was led and conduced and as is indicated by his acceptance of the review. He is not the historian you claim is necessary for the ones we have produced an you have rejected and - as I said - you have either been very selective or very stupid in your use of him. He didn't think it was "a crap review" as you claimed (not having read the ***** book) How stupidly arrogant can you get? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM From that same Spectator piece by Hastings himself. 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: 30 Nov 15 - 03:59 AM Jim, The crap review was written by historian David Crane - ONE OF THE "REAL" HISTORIANS YOU PUT UP IN DEFENCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT WAY BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS That WAS a lie and a blatant one. Google searching Mudcat proves that I never used him to defend my views. He has never written anything on WW1. You did lie Jim, and you should retract in the same font. You now know that Crane had got it wrong about Hastings. He "loves" the army because of its "achievements." You reject current historical knowledge Jim. Your views are not based on evidence, just political dogma. Unless and until any of you can find any historian who still believes that shit, this discussion is stalled. Can you Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Jim Carroll Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:50 AM "Jim, you shouted this in red capitals." I don't "shout" Keith I emphasise for the idiotic. Nor do I lie - I have no need to the idiots usually make it unecessary for me to do so even if I wanted to. I certainly make mistakes, and unlike some, try to acknowledge them and apoloogise for them - you have yet to reach that stage of discussion. Want me to provide a list of all the times you have denied saying something and have bee shown that you have, and on occasion, go on to repeat what you have just denied? One veteran doesn't make a summer Keith - what is being denied and ignored here is not what veterans said, but the process in making some people believe what they believed.You claim "all historins support what you say, having read none and having cut-'n-pasted out of context quotes from less than half a dozen. When someone has said something that goes against your jingoism, you leap on the chair and squeal "liar", and when it is shown clearly that one of your historians obviously doesn't back your case it becomes necessary to drag out the defibrillator. You still haven't responded to my points, though you have both (lyingly) claimed you have. Nor have you explained why respectable journals like The Spectator should publish all those nasty lies about Max Hastings Hastings responded to the review, by the way - and did not deny what crane had written; just that he had misunderstood one point. (From the Spectator) "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." A lesson to be learned by you pair in that last sentence. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM Guest 29 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM , I did not equate them. I addressed my post to them both, then referred separately to what they had each said. Has anyone yet found a single historian of recent decades who contradicts T or me? No. Has anyone yet found an historian who rubbishes the old myths Jim still clings to? Yes! We have quoted lots! Jim rejects current historical knowledge. Jim's views are not based on evidence, just political dogma. Unless and until any of you can find any historian who still believes that shit, this discussion is stalled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:40 AM Dave your post 28 Nov 15 - 10:36 AM "What I find sad in the extreme is that amidst all this sabre rattling there still seems to be no concept of the human tragedy behind the statistics. As I said before, I have no reason to doubt anyone's statistics, backed up by historians or god himself if you like. I did assume you were referring to Teribus and me. If you say you were not, I will have to apologise. Please tell us who it WAS aimed at Dave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Teribus Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:35 AM Whats the matter Musktwat? On threads/subjects where your second team are being routed right, left and centre, can't they get them closed down quick enough for you? Your last post sums you up perfectly, and serves to make you look the biggest and thickest cnut {Anag} ever to post on this forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Teribus Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:17 AM Now it would appear that the Gnome and Raggytash are reduced, like the anonymous GUEST posts, to merely contributing "white noise" – So many posts so little said, but par for the course as that comic duo are concerned, It is all that that they are capable of. As to "sabre" rattling? Well someone who is "obviously interested in the subject [i.e. The First World War] and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum. Wouldn't have to rattle any sabres when discussing "the subject" would they Raggytash? It must really get to you that Keith A is so immune to your constant mobbing and bullying – how long is it now that you have been trying to drive him from this forum without the slightest indication of success? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: Dave the Gnome Date: 29 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM Thanks, Raggy. It doesn't really matter though, does it. Keith suggests that I have done something and I am instantly on the back foot, denying it. Whether I did something or not does not matter. People who are on Keith's 'side' will instantly believe it. It is the way things work, sadly. If I was to say, for instance, that Keith dresses in Bishop's robes and ladies knickers while riding a unicycle, some people would believe it. The damage is done. Sorry Keith. Well, not really... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 29 Nov 15 - 03:26 PM 1. Don't worry Dave, he will deny he's ever said that you and I are as one, as in: "Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up" 2. The mere fact it has been copied here twice will not count. He will deny he's ever accused you of saying he said you accused him of "sabre rattling". 3. The mere fact that it is here for all to see will not register in his febrile mind. 4. Why do we bother. |