BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:31 AM

What's the matter Gnome can't you answer a direct question?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM

"You bully, bluster and bullshit with pronouncements you don't qualify with proof,"

Really? What pronouncements?
That Great Britain was on the side that won the war? That is bluster and bullshit? What planet do you live on Jom?

That the British Army suffered roughly half the casualties suffered by either the French or the Germans? Simple matter of record Jom - Do us all a favour and look that up for yourself.

As to qualifying statements with proof:

1: Provide proof that Kitchener was forced to resign - that was one of your myths wasn't it Jom - Floors yours Jom now what was the date of his resignation and who succeeded him and when?

2: Provide proof that the Thomas Kenny you interviewed ever served in the British Army.

3: Provide proof backed by substantive evidence that British Troops were summarily executed by the Military Police, Special Groups of Military Policemen or by their own officers. I ask Jom because I have searched long and hard to find any mention of any such incident and have come up with nothing - you on the otherhand wanted to believe it and did no checking whatsoever.

If there is anyone blustering its you Jom - who was that stretcher-bearer historian who served during the Great War again?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:11 AM

What sabre rattling Gnome?

There's one. Rattle, rattle. Mind you don't cut yourself. Luckily I have a thick skin and petty little jibes don't worry me. Glad you agree that the war was a tragedy though. Maybe if more people remembered that there would be fewer volunteers to be cannon fodder in politicians disagreements. We can but live in hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:10 AM

Back to this year's Royal British Legion's Festival of Remembrance and a couple of things I found out about it.

Megan L (10 Nov 15 - 08:29 AM) posted her disappointment and mentioned "what a fiasco some Italian warbling away" Presumably that was Andrea Bocelli who throughout the rehearsals and both matinee and evening performances was extremely ill, if he wasn't at the Royal Albert Hall rehearsing or performing he was in hospital - when asked if he wished to cancel he said that performing at this festival of remembrance was too great an honour to pass up.

The programme is not broadcast live and the BBC records both matinee and evening performances then cobbles together the programme that is broadcast at 9 o'clock on the Saturday evening. The one bit they have to take from the evening performance is the drumhead service as for the matinee performance the floor of the Royal Albert Hall where the drumhead service is held is given over to seating for the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 10:58 AM

"Thought I covered the points you raised rather comprehensively - at least both Keith and myself are a damned sight better at answering questions than you and your pals"
No you didn't - not one.
You bully, bluster and bullshit with pronouncements you don't qualify with proof, and Keith scurries behind historians he has neither read nor understands.
I couldn't count the number of times you've stonewalled questions with silence - both of you - rather like the Billy Connolly suggestion - "If you wan't to confuse a policeman, ask him a question" .
You appear to regard your own utterances as some soet of divine gospel.
"I think Jim a more telling statement would be comparing death of a generation with death of a generation is still death of a generation."
Right on!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 10:43 AM

What sabre rattling Gnome? Otherwise I'd agree with everything that you state about the war being a tragedy it undoubtedly was, but that does not detract one iota from the fact that it did have to be fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 10:38 AM

Thought I covered the points you raised rather comprehensively - at least both Keith and myself are a damned sight better at answering questions than you and your pals, who have all gone very quiet.

If you still hold to your ancient and long discredited myths then I challenge you to put a bit of meat on the bones of those preposterous stories you cling to so dearly. All part and parcel of your bigotry and your hatred and loathing of having been born in England.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 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.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 10:26 AM

GUEST - 28 Nov 15 - 07:36 AM, Hello Raggy any reason you no longer want to post to this thread under your usual Mudcat ID?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 09:54 AM

I think Jim a more telling statement would be comparing death of a generation with death of a generation is still death of a generation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

By the way - the fact that, in the long run we were more successful butchers than those we fought doesn't make it any less butchery
Comparing like with like still makes it like
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 09:23 AM

"We have not remained silent."
Yes you have - you have explained none of them
You denied the war was an Imperial one and since you inadvertently put up a cut-'n-paste declaring it was you have refused to respond
Where have you ever mentioned what the British or anybody got out of the massive sacrifice they made - nowhere!!
Where have you ever shown where the defence of an Empire which massacred ten million of its colonials was just - nowhere!!
Where have you shown that a war based on throwing one group of young men against the other until one side out-slaughtered the other was "well led" and not simple butchery - nowhere!!
You have centered your arguments totally on opinions of historians you have not read and, if truth be known, have no interest in.
Your only interest has been a jingoist "we won the war", just as your involvement here has always been "I won the argument".
"Why do you reject the findings of the historians Jim?"
I do not - I reject your persistent dishonest misuse of them and your total ignorance of what they are actually saying.
I also reject your dishonesty in claiming that nobody has piut up a counter argument to your cut-'n-pastes when you have been bombarded with responses you have ignored - your own historians, when you read what they actually say, prove you wrong.
Why do you pair call the soldiers who fought the war gullible or liars?
Captain Pugwash
I have no idea how your mass of unqualified verbiage is supposed to address the points I made - more bullying bullshit as one would expect from a self-confessed Empire Loyalist who has so much respect for the men who fought the war (not the Generals of course) as "gullible" or "liars" if their experiences didn't fit in with your own jingoism.
You have not addressed one point I have made and you have yet to answer a single question raised by anyone here other than to swamp these this thread with belligerent bullshit.
You are right about one thing - the war was not a matter of choice - it was the result of actions taken by politicians to preserve an Empire - the people who actually fought and died to preserve that Empire had no choice in the matter.
There - I'm sure there are enough typos in that lot to keep you happy for weeks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 07:55 AM

If the war was "well led" - how was it well led?
If it was a "just war" - why was it just?
If we, the ordinary British, German, French, Belgian.... people, actually gained anything from the massive sacrifice that was made what did we get?
If the world became a better place after the slaughter of so many young man - how did it?
All these points have been raised over and over again and you pair have remained silent on them

We have not remained silent.
As you know I have expressed my views on those things, just as you have.

The difference is that we formed our views from reading history.
They are the views of the people who research and write the history books.

You have either not read, or you have rejected, everything written in the last twenty or thirty years.

Why do you reject the findings of the historians Jim?
Do you think you somehow know more about it than them?

You are entitled to think that, but it makes you a fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 07:36 AM

Casualties WW1
So overall the allies suffered more casualties, but that's OK because most of them weren't British.

OK Teribus, just how many Germans did the British manage to kill or maim when they suffered a lessor loss than their allies. Lies, damned lies and statistics spring to mind.

The English, the English, the English are best so up with the English and down with the rest!!!

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

Ah Jom - so good at asking questions - so poor at providing answers.

Now we have three armies A, B & C. They are engaged in a massive conflict involving millions of men for a period of over four years. It is a desperate struggle that quickly establishes itself as a static war in which the normal tactic of manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre are rendered impossible, leaving frontal assault as the only means of engaging and attacking your enemy. At the end of this war taking into account all the men mobilised, all the men who fought the percentage of casualties (killed & wounded) for each Army is as follows:

Army A 35%'
Army B 75%
Army C 70%

Taking into account that all three armies fought in the same theatre of operations and all fought under similar conditions which Army would appear to have been the best led?

"If I am wrong - show how "good leadership" was anything more than sending wave after wave of young men to go out and kill other young men who they didn't know or have a particular gripe with?"

Ehmmm Jom every conflict since the beginning of time has involved "sending wave after wave of young men to go out and kill other young men who they didn't know or have a particular gripe with"

Liked this though as it reveals the greatest weakness in your argument and your total lack of reality:

"It wasn't warfare, even as we know it to day, it was war by force of numbers."

Sorry Jom but that is exactly what warfare was all about, it is war by force of numbers, and in terms of conventional war fought between two armies today, or the conventional conflicts of recent times, those have been fought by and large exactly in accordance with the tactics thought out and developed by the British Army during the First World War - the concept of a closely co-ordinated all arms integrated attack. Neither the French or the Germans developed that, Haig and his Divisional Commanders did.

"If the war was well led, show us how"

(a) We ended up on the side that won?
(b) Our casualties were roughly half those of the other combatant nations
(c) Our first ever citizen army built from scratch in time of war took on and defeated what was considered to be the most powerful army on the planet at the time
(d) Throughout the course of the war the armed forces fighting in the various theatres of war and the populations at home and throughout the Empire and the Dominions backed the Government and the war effort to the hilt.

"show us that the picture most people have of how the war was conducted is wrong"

I have no idea what "most people" think - and neither have you Jom.

"that it was not a matter of a military acting on behalf of politicians defending an Imperial system that was long overdue for demolition and which was to disappear within a few decades, largely due to the excessive carnage that took place during that war.
It was an Imperial War - Imperialism was based on the exploitation of poorer nations and was one of the great evils - that was what we were defending."

Ah Jom, you're ranting now, I can almost see you frothing at the mouth in frustration and indignation. Yes the military were ordered by their duly elected Government to defend the country which in 1914 did happen to be an Imperial power. That you think sat on your arse out there in the west of Ireland in 2015 that that Imperial system was long overdue for demolition in 1914 is merely your opinion - please do not try to present it as a fact. Yes it was an Imperial War started by the rulers of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Emperor, it was fought in an attempt to hold the Austro-Hungarian Empire together and was seized on by the Kaiser as a way of extending German power in Europe and overseas through aggression and conquest. What the British were doing can be summed up as follows:
1: Meeting our solemnly given Treaty Obligations to Belgium
2: Looking after our own best national interest
3: Preserving our way of life

"The ordinary British person - the cannon fodder of the war and their families got S.F.A. from the massive sacrifice they made - they were no freer, no better off, no more secure than they were before the war began"

Really? Not the picture painted by studying the political, social and economic history of the period 1914 to the present day. And if as you say it was the same for everybody how then is that the fault of the British Government or the British Generals of the First World War?

"A decade later the world was plunged into a recession; thanks to right-wing policies fascism (largely appeased by our leaders) got a grip and we were plunged into yet another world conflict"

Frothing again Jom, but I suppose by the time you got to writing this idiotic left-wing drivel you were well into your stride. What right-wing policies, how on earth did fascism create or spark off the Great Depression of 1929 - I thought that it was the other way about. And we were plunged into yet another world conflict due a German desire for domination through force of arms.

"If the war was "well led" - how was it well led?" - Answered above.

"If it was a "just war" - why was it just?" - Answered above:

"If we, the ordinary British, German, French, Belgian.... people, actually gained anything from the massive sacrifice that was made what did we get?" - For the people of Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine and Northern France - they got their freedom and liberty Jom. As far as the British go the entire nature of the country, politically, socially and economically was pointed in a new direction, the pre-war days were never going to return, the rate of change might have been described as evolutionary rather than revolutionary but the desire for change was there and people in general were better off in 1939 than they had been in 1914.

"All these points have been raised over and over again and you pair have remained silent on them"

Nope, the bullying and mobbing of Keith A on threads relating to the Great War started when Keith A put up three conclusions reached by modern day historians who specialised in the study of the First World War:

1: That it was through necessity that Great Britain got involved, it was not simply a matter of choice.
2: That in general the population of Great Britain knew and understood why Great Britain had to get involved and that in general they supported and backed the Governments decision.
3: That in General the British Army was well led in comparison to the armies of other combatant nations.

It must be almost two years now that we have argued back and forth. In the main where Keith A, myself and others have put forward factual arguments that can be checked and verified, you and others have put forward rumour, myth, fiction and fairytales which when pressed to provide any substantive evidence to support your claims has resulted in personal insult, bluster and a silence that is deafening - but at no time have any of you ever managed to produce anything of any substance to support your wildly inaccurate and ill-informed claims or beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 05:57 AM

Been here before as you say Mike
Colonialism was based on the exploitation of poor and weaker nations.
What replaced colonialism, better or worse, is immaterial and doesn't alter the definition in one way or another.
Every nation is entitled to self determination in order to realise its own capabilities and make its own way in the world - including its own mistakes, and the idea that they are incapable of doing so without the guiding hand of Britain (or anywhere) is right-wing patronising in the extreme.
If they choose to remain with the system that was foisted on them by the Empire they are hardly likely to make a go of it right away, and should they be unwise enough to choose one that didn't suit their old masters, the lads were always ready to make sure they didn't step too far out of line, as was shown by the murder of Patrice Lumumba and the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah.
Nice to be reliving my schooldays again with you and Terrytoon telling us what a good thing the Empire was though - thanks for the blast from the (never to return) past though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 05:38 AM

"Imperialism was based on the exploitation of poorer nations"
.,,.,.

Hohum Jim. Earwig-o again. Haven't we had this converasation before, just! Don't know how much experience of post-imperialism you have actually had. But I state as an absolute fact that when I spent a couple of months working as British Council Lecturer in English Folksong at Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, 1990-91, not a single one of my SL-ian colleagues failed to express constant regret at the withdrawal of the British and the granting of Independence in 1961. They had been gone 30 years; and there wasn't a single metalled road really fit to drive on left in the whole country by then, and the railway system had ceased to exist -- a previous prime minister having pulled up all the rails and sold them as scrap metal and kept the money for himself. It was a few months after I left that the civil war, with those notorious hundreds of wanton and sadistic amputations, broke out; my late wife Valerie, having stayed on behind me, only just contrived to get out in time.

I repeat: not a single one of my SL-ian colleagues did not regret the withdrawal of the British and the granting of Independence in 1961.

Count them -- NONE!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 04:34 AM

" Could of course be "a battle of attrition" but even there you've got it wrong."
Typos again shipmate and yet more talking down to -that short of argument again?
If you can't understand the sentence, you shouldn't be here - you should be at literacy classes - it was a typo that, for the literate, in no way obscured the meaning.
If I am wrong - show how "good leadership" was anything more than sending wave after wave of young men to go out and kill other young men who they didn't know or have a particular gripe with?
It wasn't warfare, even as we know it to day, it was war by force of numbers.
Enough of arguing with a pair of semi-literate eejits who appear not to have read anything on the subject (certainly one of them -the other doesn't disclose what he might have read but just makes bullying pronouncements)
What it boils down to is this - If the war was well led, show us how - show us that the picture most people have of how the war was conducted is wrong - that it was not a matter of a military acting on behalf of politicians defending an Imperial system that was long overdue for demolition and which was to disappear within a few decades, largely due to the excessive carnage that took place during that war.
It was an Imperial War - Imperialism was based on the exploitation of poorer nations and was one of the great evils - that was what we were defending.
The ordinary British person - the cannon fodder of the war and their families got S.F.A. from the massive sacrifice they made - they were no freer, no better off, no more secure than they were before the war began - that was the case in Britain, Germany, Belgium, France...... anywhere.
The German people tried and failed to change things for the better and Russia at least grasped at a straw of a chance to actually make things better for the working people, but that was whipped away from the people eventually by corruption and callous incompetence)
A decade later the world was plunged into a recession; thanks to right-wing policies fascism (largely appeased by our leaders) got a grip and we were plunged into yet another world conflict - what was it all about Alfie?
What do you pair think - was that not what happened?
I'm not interested in out-of context fragmentary quotes (largely of opinions) from historians none of us have read - neither am I interested in the usual three Bs - (bullying, bluster and bullshit) from the usual suspect.
If the war was "well led" - how was it well led?
If it was a "just war" - why was it just?
If we, the ordinary British, German, French, Belgian.... people, actually gained anything from the massive sacrifice that was made what did we get?
If the world became a better place after the slaughter of so many young man - how did it?
All these points have been raised over and over again and you pair have remained silent on them - (no - fair's fair - Captain Pugwash did say colonising the poorer nations was a good thing)
Your starter for ten.....!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:44 AM

You haven';t read Hastings, nor from the quality and content of your postings, any other historian,
Reminder Jim, you can find no single historian who still believes your shit, but I have quoted and continue to quote many.

Hastings has only written one book on WW1, which only deals with the lead up to it and the outbreak, so of limited interest to me personally.
I can obtain a copy if you want to discuss it.

Hastings has written numerous articles and essays about WW1. They make clear his findings, in line with the other historians, debunking those old myths you cling to.
I have quoted his actual words many times doing just that.
You yourself Jim know well that he does because you have been arguing against him for years now.

You are arguing against the professionals who research and write the history books.
They do not need my help to expose your idiocy.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 06:05 PM

...so now, GUESTIE-BUMS, let's see what other spiteful & ill-natured insult you can think to come up with to throw at me — just because you can, from behind your self-assumed cloak of anonymity.

Hate to say it, but you really do come over as rather a despicable little entity you know, Mr GUEST...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 05:22 PM

Reviewers and critics are often shocked to find how much they are dismissed as irrelevant so no wonder nobody had heard of you.

Another somewhat facile and desperate post, anon Guest. Many members of Mudcat have 'heard of me', as has been demonstrated time & again on threads on the forum. Moreover, as well as being a critic, I was also an active performing member of the folk scene: as eg

-- Member of the Easy Riders skiffle group way back in those far-off 1950s skiffle days [before your time I daresay]; ran the Sawston, Cambs, Folk Club for several years in 1970s, and sang regularly at all other local folk clubs (Cambridge Folk Club, Crofters, Linton FC &c), as well as gigging further afield thru E Anglia, Midlands, London &c -- I had a Midlands agent called Tony Savage in the 1970s-80s who got me a lot of paid professional gigs around there -- remember doing FCs at Lutterworth, Leicester, Peterboro &c.

My record Butter·&·Cheese·&·All (BH8904) was issued by the (alas-now defunct as its owner Eric Cowell died a few years ago) Brewhouse label of Cambridgeshire.

You will find 40 or so videos of mine on my YouTube channel which received mainly kind comments on this forum when posted about 5 years ago --

http://www.youtube.com/user/mgmyer

I quote that line from Milton's Paradise Lost yet again —

Not to know me argues yourself unknown

Regards
≈Michael·GM≈

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:58 PM

Ahhhh - Just read the mod post. It mentions 'Muskets', which as anyone with half a brain knows, are at least three people who post from the same proxy and cannot, to all intents are purposes, be told apart. I can make even less sense of your ramblings now.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:54 PM

You seem to follow it though Dave.
You used to be a player until a few days ago.

I see that a mod has confirmed that Harry Forest was really just Musket lying. (See free speech thread)

What the fuck is that supposed to mean and are the two events related?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:55 PM

" the skill of the generals was to send more men over the top to get slaughtered than the Germans did - battled of attrition."

Really?? Is that what you think a "battled of attrition" is (Whatever the F**k it means) Could of course be "a battle of attrition" but even there you've got it wrong.

Ehmm a battle of attrition is when you keep fighting until one side can fight no more or it becomes obvious that one side's losses cannot be sustained so they withdraw. Remember you banging on about that first day on the Somme? Well in 1916 a German General adopted the tactic of attrition and vowed to bleed the allied armies on the western front white - Falkenhayn fought and poured men into the fight at Verdun and on the Somme where he had to defend against British and French attacks. By the end of November 1916 the Germans knew that they could not possibly win on the western front with the forces they had available - i.e attrition had worked against them it had become obvious to the Germans that their losses could not be sustained so they withdrew to a defensive line. Thereafter the Germans bemoaned the fact that it was the allies who selected where to attack and that each attack bit lumps out of their line and the allies held onto that ground and on each occasion the Germans lost men that they knew they could not replace. They had to finish off Russia first so that they could transfer the 1.5 million men from the eastern to the western front. Unfortunately for the Germans the allies were getting stronger and the Germans logistical problems remained the same as they had been in 1914. The launched their last gasp attack in the Spring of 1918 and it failed for exactly the same reasons it failed in 1914 - they lost their war of attrition because they lost more than we did - and yet you clowns say it was OUR leadership that was bad??? 9 out of every 10 men who fought in the British Forces came home from the First World War - approximately the same as came home from the Second World War.

Harry Foster = Musket, thought so, dare say he has appeared as anonymous GUEST as well - you can tell by the style, the language, the stance taken and give away phrases or the mention of little things that tick him off. Talking of which I have yet to discover why Jom holds Cooks in such contempt - he has obviously never worked away in his life - If he had he'd know Rule One: Never piss off the Cook - Reasoning behind Rule One: You have to eat what he Cooks. Strange though thinking how such a champion of the working man looks down and sneers at folks working in what he obviously sees as being menial and degrading positions - some bloody communist/socialist, but there again as any good socialist knows "some animals are more equal than others" eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:38 PM

"Hastings does not support you.
NO HISTORIAN DOES!"
You haven';t read Hastings, nor from the quality and content of your postings, any other historian, so you would be the last to know what they support.
"You are arguing against the historians about history, and making yourself ridiculous.
You have been given accounts of what the historians you have trawled up - you choose to ignore them
Tou don't read historians - you were actually forced to admit that on Ireland and have half admitted it here - matter of time before you tell us you are not interested as you have done before.
Ghost historians you haven't read don't hack it - your attitude to WW1 is si#ted squarely in the first half of the 20th century.You once calaimed that WW1 was ot an Imperial war (then inadvertently put up a cut-'n- paste stating it was - noticeably, you have steered clear of the causes of the war.
You say irt was well led, yet when it is pointed out that "good leadership" amounted to nothing more than sending as many young men as possible to their deaths, again, you remain silent.
You have been given what Hastings said about the leadership, particularly in reference to ield Marshall French, you remain silent.
You are asked to justify your claims on the review of Hastings' book - you remain silent.
Silence seems to be your main ploy in these arguments - had you adopted the tactic earlier, you might not be held in the contempt you now are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

Just the same old Professor & Terribyte (or is that trilobite?) show.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:23 PM

You seem to follow it though Dave.
You used to be a player until a few days ago.

I see that a mod has confirmed that Harry Forest was really just Musket lying. (See free speech thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

I was going to ask if someone could just make this nonsense go away but I was reminded of the famous Eagles song. They can stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill thebeast.

If this argument were to go away some fuckwit would just resurrect it in a different thread later.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:38 PM

Jim, you are claiming that Hastings supports you because of what Crane said, even though Hastings himself says your beliefs are myths.

Hastings does not support you Jim.
I quoted him rubbishing your views.
Did you read the quotes?
Did you understand the quotes?
Hastings does not support you.
NO HISTORIAN DOES!

Those delusions you cling to have been debunked.
You are arguing against the historians about history, and making yourself ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:03 PM

"It shows how tenuous is his grasp of reality, never mind history."
No Keith - it shows the dangers of multi-tasking - you don't honestly think I spend the time waiting for your next missive -do you?
You - who refuse to apologise for anything, seem incapable of accepting one when it is made
Why not - the pair of you are that sort of people.
Still no explanation of why the "shit" review was published and why nobody responded?
Didn't expect one really
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 12:14 PM

You can't resist being unpleasant - can you?
"It is David Crane, who is no historian of WW1."
He is as much a Historian of WW1 than your tabloid journalist is.
Still missing the point - there has to be a point that it becomes deliberate.
I'm not the slightest bit interested in defending who won what in whatever battle - the skill of the generals was to send more men over the top to get slaughtered than the Germans did - battled of attrition.
One more time - I didn't comment on Ypres, Crane did and the Spectator ran it.
As far as I know, nobody has ever disputed what he wrote, not even Hastings.
Had he been misrepresented to the extent you pair of eejits claim he has, then there would have been blood and snot flying all over the place - certainly as prominent a Journal as 'The Spectator' would never have run it for fear of repercussions from their fellow right-wingers.
The pair of you have backed a horse that has run away with all your money -
Keith has a habit of coming with pre-set ideas then scrambling round the ether for out of context quotes to back them up, you, in your turn rushed to help this particular lame dog over his stile - both of you have ended in the clarts.
Elswhere, Hastings view of the war leadership has been described as "trenchant", he particularly targetted French for criticism.
I have not the slightest interest in the conduct of this shitty war - it was an obscenity that decimated a generation - all for political power and economic supremacy.
One Empire was as bad as the other, and the War produced cracks that led to its end - and good ****** riddance.
I don't share your Empire Loyalism and you contempt for foreigners who couldn't make their own way without our guiding hand - we were still singing hymns about being foreighn was to be "in error's chain" into the fifties, for Christ's sake!
Like Capital Punishment - all gone - no more tomorrow.
Stop avoiding the point - and stop spitting at people - you really aren't bright enough.
Just as well you didn't make the armed forces - your superiority complex would have lasted about five minutes among real soldiers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

Jim does get confused on many subjects but on this, even his little mistakes

Claiming that a current writer of reviews saw active service in WW1 is more than a little mistake.
It shows how tenuous is his grasp of reality, never mind history.

Something else that was more than a little mistake.
He said I had referred to David Crane as one of the historians agreeing my views.
Entirely made up. A blatant lie.
How could I quote him when he has written nothing on WW!!?

Google shows his only previous mention was a year ago when Jim last produced that same shit review.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 11:49 AM

What quaint use of language - How do you "thwart a mistake"?

You can point out a mistake and you can correct a mistake but thwart one??

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 11:45 AM

"'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."

Och aye ma wee tooth-sucking scouser, as a've said before even taking that all at face value we still were on the winning side at the end o' it a' - After the hightide mark of the German advance in the summer of 1918 was reached (No further than they had managed to get in 1914 for exactly the same reasons) It was those "Dodgy" Battalions of the British, Commonwealth and Empire Army under the command of Douglas Haig freshly replenished with stores, ammunition, provisions and equipment that went over onto the offensive and hey presto Jom 100 days later the war was over.

Never pointed out any of your mistakes Jom - I thought that I just had with regard to David Crane. Then there was that other one regarding Max Hastings "learning his trade at the Daily Mail" - he only started writing his column for the Daily Mail in retirement FFS - If that is not a "Howler" then I do not know what is:

That prompts a question - what happened to that GUEST who was asked to point out all the "howlers" made by Keith and myself - He's gone kinda quiet hasn't he Jom? - in fact we never did hear back from him, don't think we will either do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM

Jim,
Let me remind you of the summing up:

That is not Hastings summing up.
It is not a Hastings quote.
It is David Crane, who is no historian of WW1.

The historian reviewers, like Jones and Boot, are quite clear that the book rubbishes all your myths.
The review on Hastings' site, probably by Hastings, says the same.
I have given you actual quotes of Hastings rubbishing all your myths.

Hastings is not your saviour Jim.
Like all the others, he knows that your claims are worthless, debunked and discredited myths.

I agree with the historians.
You are arguing against the history books and the people who research and write them.
You have lost.
Continuing just makes you more and more ridiculous.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 11:06 AM

Keep going. It's the little things that help the rest of us through the day.

Jim does get confused on many subjects but on this, even his little mistakes can't even be thwarted by the combined brains of Britain we call Keith A of Hertford and Teribus. I'd give it a rest myself, but do carry on.

Ha Ha Ha!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:57 AM

"Your mistake on his war record is just one in a long line of mistakes, "
Of which you have been unable to point out one
Never been able to make my mind up which is the worst - someone who never apologises or someone who is unable to accept one graciously - both apply with you pair.
You really do miss the point with Hastings, don't you?
It's not his scholarship that's at question hre, but what he has written in 'Catastrophe'
Let me remind you of the summing up:
'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.
I would also remind you that you attributed that summing up to me.
"One last point I would like to make Jom. As far as this bit of your last "multi-coloured rant" goes:"
Don't remember your having retracting that accusation - let alone apologising for it - but then again, you pair don't go there, do you?
Why are you pair so ***** unpleasantly arrogant in the way to take part in what the restr of us regard as an exchange of ideas - Im sure Freud would have had an explanation for your behaviour.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:35 AM

Your mistake on his war record is just one in a long line of mistakes, but it does highlight the slapdash approach you always seem to take with regard to research - tends to loss of credibility:

Why should Hastings sue someone over a review, as previously stated, it is only one person's opinion. Otherwise Hastings work tends to receive fairly good peer review in academic circles.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 08:29 AM

Oh - anything more on why Max Hastings hasn't sued the Spectator over that review yet?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 08:27 AM

David Crane has every bit as much credibility as a historian as has Max Hastings
He has written extensively on historical subjects - noticeably not included in your list.
He read history and English at Oxford University before becoming a lecturer at universities in the Netherlands, Japan, and Africa.
His highly commended work on locating and researching war graves makes him a hands on expert on the subject rather than a desk-bound one - though, unfortunately, he didn't make the Fascist bumwipe, the Daily Mail, which disqualifies him being a "real historian" by your criterion.
I apologise for mistaking his war record - you can't win them all (but at least it gives you a chance to ease up on the typos as a substitute for argument).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 07:28 AM

Just when I thought we'd finished Jom comes up with yet another "Foot-in-mouth" moment in this exchange:

""I did not. He is not an historian of WW1." - (says Keith A quite rightly)

Yes he is - not only an expert on the subject but a stretcher bearer during that war.

Stop this stupidity - you've lost - the plot, it would appear." - (says Jom)

I take it we are talking about the David Crane who is still alive and well and living up in the Scottish Highlands, who wrote:

- Lord Byron's Jackal: A Life of Trelawny (1999)
- The Kindness of Sisters: Annabella Milbanke and the Destruction of the Byrons (2002)
- Scott of the Antarctic: A Life of Courage and Tragedy(2006)
- Empires of the Dead: How One Man's Vision led to the Creation of WWI's World Graves (2013)

Here is a photograph of the man Jom:

David Crane

So according to your extensive researches this man was a Stretcher Bearer during the First World War was he?

So Harry Patch was not the last surviving Tommy who saw service in the Great War - David Crane must be. Mind you he appears to be in damn good nick for someone who must be over 115 years old - worn well has he Jom or have I caught you out just making up more shit.

Reality must indeed be a different planet to you old son - stick to writing about "what is folk music". Take your own advice:

Stop this stupidity - you've lost - the plot

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 06:41 AM

"I did not. He is not an historian of WW1."
Yes he is - not only an expert on the subject but a stretcher bearer during that war
Stop this stupidity - you've lost - the plot, it would appear.
Your stupidity and viciousness have made you a laughing stock - another day made for me.
You are a pair of vicious jingoists who have been given your comeuppance
"You still have found no historian who still believes those old myths you cling to."
Plenty - but Max Hastings will do til a "real" one comes along.
Have a good day now - d'ye hear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 06:31 AM

ONE OF THE "REAL" HISTORIANS YOU PUT UP IN DEFENCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT WAY BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS

I did not. He is not an historian of WW1.
As I just told you he has written nothing about WW1 except something about monuments.

You still have found no historian who still believes those old myths you cling to.
I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 05:10 AM

"I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1."
I'm sure you do!!
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
Yup - I must have lost it.
Game, set and match, I think (using your own logic for participating in these discussions)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

The Spectator review was shite, as all the other reviews of the same book show.

If you are claiming that Hastings supports your views you realy have lost it.
He rubbishes those myths of yours with almost every word.

Have you found any historian that does not?
No!

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM

Keith
There was a time I used to get embarrassed for you and hoped you would stop - now I hope you will go on and on with this
You'll never get a free lunch in this town again - the pair of you. THE SPECTATOR REVIEW???
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:39 AM

Guest,
If 8 of them were shite reviews but 2 were good which would you put on your website.

I would put up the one that most accurately described the message of the book.
I would probably write it myself.

Jim claimed on the basis of one review by some right wing non historian that Hastings meant something else.
He did not.
The reviews I posted were all by other military historians and make clear that the book, like all the others written in recent decades, find that Jim's view's are just discredited myths.

I have been telling you all that for years now.
I was right.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:28 AM

Jim, Boot explains more eloquently than I could why you can't find an historian who agrees with you.
There aren't any.

He speaks of the "consensus of historians" that your views are "myths" that have been "put paid to" by all the historians including Hastings.

Historians have the knowledge Jim.
You just have outmoded political dogma.

I have not won. I just agree with the historians.
You are arguing against the history books and the people who research and write them.
You have lost.
That was always the only possible outcome, and continuing just makes you more and more ridiculous.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:37 AM

"Im a fellow of the Royal bed wetters and y front soiling society"

Wouldn't doubt your word on that for a second Ghost. About the most credible statement you've made on this thread thus far.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:14 AM

Im a fellow of the Royal bed wetters and y front soiling society but I don't expect you to take my views on dampness as gospel.

Wonderful cap doffing Mr Teribus. Do keep it up. We expect it from the oiks dontcha know?