BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:03 AM

"Foot-in-mouth" time for you again Jom:

"You and Keith supported Hastings as a credible historian"

Well if he was considered good enough to become a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society then who am I to argue?

C'mon Jom go for another - tell us all again how Max cut his teeth and learned his trade as a journalist at the Daily Mail - really shows how much of a grip you have on factual detail and reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:51 PM

"Jim, here is a review of that book FROM HASTINGS' OWN WEBSITE"

Just suggest Mr A that you wrote a book. Lets suggest that book got 10 reviews. If 8 of them were shite reviews but 2 were good which would you put on your website.

Duh

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:39 PM

"Wouldn't know Jom - you prove to us that you actually talked to an ex-soldier and maybe I'd start to believe you"
Do you honestly believe I give a shit whether a half arsed right wing wannabe squaddie believes me or not
You've dismissed and tried to denigrate harry Patch, you dismissed reports of summary executions told by an old soldier to his grandson - christ only knows what you are dismissing now from the quagmire your mate has dropped you in.
You and Keith supported Hastings as a credible historian even though your mate wouldn't accept other historians who he claimed were not "rel" or didn't sell their books in "rel bookshops" or hadn't been to "real universities" or were dead or unpublished or unknown.
Now you see
m to be claiming that modern historians are invunerable "their studies are more comprehensively researched and provide us all with a far better picture as to what actually happened and why.".
Your beligerent contempt for anybody who disagrees with you makes you what you are - the least you can to is calm your mate down before he combusts - how do explain the review - another lie, perhaps.
Have you actually read a book or do you trawl the net for the miniscule number of actual quotes
"Jim, here is a review of that book FROM HASTINGS' OWN WEBSITE."
Really don't care Keith - you have had a copy of the review - do you think the spectator was lying - if so, why didn't Hastings sue?
You've really done it again - you've carefully selected the bits you think make your case without knowing what the author intended - the ghost of Christine Kinealy bites your bum again.
Sleep well, the pair of you, d'you hear now?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 03:23 PM

Don't wet your knickers Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 03:18 PM

Review of the same book by 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 — "lions led by donkeys" in the popular parlance.

In "Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War," the prolific British military historian Max Hastings does an excellent job of assembling a chronicle of the war's first few months, from August to December 1914, that puts paid to all three perceptions"

"Hastings also argues that it is unfair to blame the ineptitude of these generals for the horrible stalemate that took hold during the fall of 1914. This deadlock was almost inevitable given that the armies fighting one another were so closely matched in size and capabilities. Only after four years of war, by which time Germany had been exhausted and America had joined with Britain and France, would it be possible to end the impasse.

"There was never a credible shortcut," Hastings concludes. For all the glamour associated with peripheral struggles in Africa and the Middle East, which produced heroes like Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and T. E. Lawrence, the war's outcome could be decided only in Western Europe and only after a prolonged period of mutual battering. "

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:57 PM

Faint praise indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:48 PM

Jim, here is a review of that book FROM HASTINGS' OWN WEBSITE.

"His narrative of the early battles will astonish those whose images of the war are simply of mud, wire, trenches and steel helmets. Hastings describes how the French Army marched into action amid virgin rural landscapes, in uniforms of red and blue, led by mounted officers, with flags flying and bands playing. The bloodiest day of the entire Western war fell on 22 August 1914, when the French lost 27,000 dead. Four days later, at Le Cateau the British fought an extraordinary action against the oncoming Germans, one of the last of its kind in history. In October, at terrible cost they held the allied line against massive German assaults in the first battle of Ypres."

"His narrative pricks myths and offers some striking and controversial judgements. For a host of readers gripped by the author's last international best-seller 'All Hell Let Loose', this will seem a worthy successor."
http://www.maxhastings.com/2015/catastrophe/


Guest, yes they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:33 PM

Take it the Americans played no part then.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:28 PM

Jim, you are arguing against the historians about history.
You can not find one who still believes the shit you cling to.
Ask yourself why Jim!

Will you name one now who still believes those old myths?
No.
You can't.
Ask yourself why Jim!

Will you produce a quote from someone with an actual name who agrees with you?
No.
You can't.
Ask yourself why Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:00 PM

Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

A recycled multi-coloured rant

1: Soldiers are liars - Wouldn't know Jom - you prove to us that you actually talked to an ex-soldier and maybe I'd start to believe you - Oh but your and your "interview team" didn't bother to check anything did you, this ex-serviceman did not tell you where he served, he did not tell you what regiment he served in, he told you some cock-and-bull story about first military police, which then became special squads of military police executing British soldiers, unfortunately he never specified any time, or place and although those being shot would have been in the same platoon or company "your soldier" couldn't put a name to any of his friends he saw being shot for not getting out of the trench quick enough. Hundreds of memoirs and autobiographies of soldiers who served and fought during the Great War exist and no mention of these summary executions exist - I believe them, they most certainly were not liars.

2: historians are liars - No historians who wrote about the Great War in the period 1919 and 1970 did not have access to the information that historians who wrote about the same period post 1970 to the present. As the latter day historians have more information from more varied sources (Primarily foreign sources) their studies are more comprehensively researched and provide us all with a far better picture as to what actually happened and why. Obviously such work "discredits" views and conclusions reached in the pre-1970 works.

3: Spectator reviewers are liars - Spectator reviewers are only giving their opinion on what they have read, they are most likely riding to the instructions given by their editor who has told them what "slant" to put on it. The opinion of a reviewer is as valid as the opinion of anyone else.

4: "Max Hastings" - As far as I am concerned, he is a right wing tabloid journalist who learned his trade in a fascist supporting bumwipe of a newspaper - one of your own, in fact.

Now talking about feet being in mouth Jom old boy:

Taking them in reverse order
(a) I do not, nor have I ever, owned a newspaper.
(b) I believe the newspaper in question ceased to support fascists about five years before Max Hastings was born - Before the death of the first Viscount Rothermere in fact.
(c) Max Hastings learned his trade as you put it working for the Evening Standard.

All a matter of record you prat - all you have to do is look it up. Oh but I forgot your style of doing "research".

5: "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."

Taking all of the above at face value, care to explain how it was that in November 1918 the victory celebrations took place in London and in Paris - NOT in Berlin or in Vienna Jom? It is a simple enough question, if the answer to it was because the British learned from their mistakes and put in place the changes necessary to come out of the greatest conflict mankind had ever experienced on the side that was victorious then poor leadership and a reluctant populace would not explain it - good leadership and a country four square behind it would.

Rant on Jom - it must be playing absolute hell with your blood pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 01:36 PM

Ah but Jayzus Gnome, unlike others I could name, you could never accuse the man of being a coward, a bigot, a hypocrite or a liar now could you.

No teribums, I couldn't. He has the courage of his convictions and is no coward. I could not say he is a bigot but some of his statements about certain races being predisposed to certain crimes are, in my opinion, ill considered and may be viewed as bigoted by some. Hypocryte and liar? Tough one. As I said, I will always give the benefit of the doubt. When Keith has said one thing and then, when challenged, changed it to mean another, I always consider it a breakdown of communications rather than a deliberate deceit. I hope I am right.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

I really do think we've finished here - don't you.
Soldiers are liars, historians are liars - Spectator reviewers are liars
Have you gone completely insane in your efforts to defend your lords and masters?
It's over Keith llie down - unless you can prove the Spectator review is a leftie plot
"Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM"
Sorry Cookie - lost me there
Perhaps you could explain your rather aggressive and bullying posting (nothing new there)?
Would you also like to explain the Spectator review for your friend?
"This apparent "hard-on" you've got for Max Hastings"
Not mine Cookiue - he's Keith's friend and both of you displayed your own "hard -on's" supporting him
I use him here to explain the dangers of doing so without reading what he has to say first.
As far as I am concerned, he is a right wing tabloid journalist who learned his trade in a fascist supporting bumwipe of a newspaper - one of your own, in fact.
You explain your feet in mouths for using him as a witness to your anachchronistic jingoism
"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."
Take it up with the author - nuffin' to do with me, it was a direct quote from the review.
I have litle doubt that you know volumes more than he does - or anybody else, judging by your permanent contemptuous tone
PLEASE, PLEASE TELL US THAT THE SPECTATOR REVIEWER DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT - NOW THAT REALLY WOULD MAKE MY DAY - MY MONTH, IN FACT!!
Amazing how much you can learn when you have a break from cooking fry-ups!!
I think it's time you both had a bit of a lie down, don't you?

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM

Just popped in.

Think I'll pop back out.

It's bad enough that The Daily M*il exists without being encouraged to read it by the resident TC.

Tatty bye

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

Max Hastings in his own words.
A real quote Jim, not some prat trying to tell us what he thought he said but didn't!

". But his own(David Cameron) and his colleagues' knowledge of 1914-18 derives chiefly from watching Blackadder when they were in short trousers.
They learned to think of the struggle simply as a pointless tragedy in which Britain's idiot generals committed mass murder.
This 21st-century view has also been strongly influenced by the satirical musical Oh, What A Lovely War!, and by the 'trench poets' Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, whose impassioned pens depicted in the most vivid and moving terms the nightmare to which their generation was subjected in France.
But no poet ever identified a route by which the British, French and Belgian people could have escaped the conflict, save by accepting the Kaiser's domination of Europe. Germany's 1914-18 war aims fell not far short of those of 1939-45, except that there was no genocidal programme against the Jews.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2339189/MAX-HASTINGS-Sucking-Germans-way-remember-Great-War-heroes-Mr-Cameron.html#ixzz3scM6rRU5

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:59 AM

Ah God Bless you Jom - you never let me down:

"standing by for next incoherent rant"

Gentlemen I give you ----------------------------------

Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM

(Damn me though I should have predicted "stand by for the next incoherent multi-coloured rant - Still I'll know for the next time)

One question for you Jom (I know I do have so many) - This apparent "hard-on" you've got for Max Hastings - he didn't happen to have been a cook at any point in his career did he? - I mean you do have this apparent massive downer on them so I just wondered.

One last point I would like to make Jom. As far as this bit of your last "multi-coloured rant" goes:

'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.

In November 1918 the victory celebrations were held in London and in Paris - NOT Berlin or Vienna.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:53 AM

No other reviewer said anything like that Jim.
There is much written by Hastings available on line.

Why can't you find a real Hastings quote?
Because Jim, your claims are bollocks!

About the British Army in 1914.(Hastings' book is just about the outbreak)

Because Britain neither intended nor expected to be involved in the brewing conflict, its army was not prepared to fight it.
Not the army's fault.

The Germans heavily outnumbered them, and had far more machine guns and artillery.
Not the army's fault.

The British Army were attacked by overwhelming force and had to retreat.
Not the army's fault.

They fought a remarkable fighting withdrawal and just managed to halt the German advance before Paris.
A remarkable achievement of arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM

"That was not a Hastings quote Jim."
It is a summing up by a reviewer of what Hastings wrote - are you in all your great wisdom and after " a lifetime of study" going to contradict what he has written (after having read Hasting's book, of course - maybe you'd like to claim you've read that one too!!!)
Pis off Keith - you are making yourself a bigger and bigger joke each time you put finger to keyboard
And you can piss off with selective pieces you have neither read nor could understand if you ever broke the habit of a lifetime and actually read something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 09:49 AM

That was not a Hastings quote Jim.
Just some bloke called David Crane who has written nothing about WW1.

A review of the same book by an actual WW1 historian in the paper Hastings once edited,

"Hastings's second adversary is more amorphous: what he calls "the poets' view" of the war as a futile struggle for a few blood-drenched yards of mud, which wasted a whole generation, solved nothing and which Britain should have steered clear of, allowing those funny foreign fellows to slaughter each other without compromising its splendid isolation.
This view, propounded by various powerful voices from the great economist John Maynard Keynes in 1919 down to the scriptwriters of the television comedy Blackadder Goes Forth, has been hammered so relentlessly into our heads that it is now the received opinion on the war. "
"Hastings, who received a knighthood in 2002, will have none of this."

"Hastings pushes the parallels between the two world wars even closer. He details the barbarities perpetrated by the Kaiser's armies as they marched through Belgium, showing that such atrocities, though smaller in scale than the Nazis' crimes in 1939-45 (6,000 civilians murdered rather than six million), were inflicted in the same wanton spirit. With irrefutable logic Hastings argues that if it was right for Britain to wage war in defence of Poland in 1939, then it was also correct to take up arms in defence of Belgium in 1914."

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/historybookreviews/10382547/Catastrophe-by-Max-Hastings-review.html"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM

"Produce a quote that challenges anything I have said."
"'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." - will do for a start.
The review (by the right wing Spectator) objects to Hastings' book as undermining the official view of the war.
"Dominic Alexander has published no single book on WW1 and is not an academic at any university"
Real books by real historians from real universities - you are a ***** joke Keith.
"There are lots of people, especially on Mudcat, who have seen Lovely War and Blackadder and believe they know all about WW1."
Give one example where anybody has ever used either as historical fact - I seem to remember that used a song from Dad's Army to prove your point - but then again, you are a law unto yourself
"Dominic Alexander" is every bit as qualified to have a point of view on history as does Max Hastings, and you fought tooth and nail to have him (a right wing tabloid journalist who cut his teeth on a newspaper that openly declared itself in support of Hitler and fascism) accepted as a credible historian.
"Now then I wonder where and when Keith A ever said that "historians" are infallible"
Keith's whole argument is based on the claim that THE HISTORIAN HE HAS CHOSEN ARE INFALLIBLE AND ALL WHO DISAGREE, OR ARE DEAD, ARE LEFTIES AND THEREFORE WRONG - wake up cookie or you'll burn the pans again!!
He continues that argument now
" Strange really I thought that Jom always fancied himself as a champion of the working man, "
Nope - I am a working man, or was one until I retired and I have never suggested them to be either gullible or liars (and before you repeat it - it is not gullible to believe the mass of misinformation and emotional blackmail that was pumped out to gain support for this colonial family squabble - at the time, the media was the only source of information that the working man had.
When they broadcast the idea that Germany was about to invade and bayonet us and rape our women, as they were doing in "gallant little Belgium", who was to deny them tell us it was all a foregone conclusion that would all be over shortly,?
I have never called a soldier a liar to make a case as you pair consistently have.
"I don't know why you bother."
It's good fun to see these two squirm as these two worms are, and, using the same logic as did the courts martials and execution squads - as a warning for the future.
Don't think these two will ever be taken seriously again, with their real historians and flag-wagging crap - do you?
Have to admit that I can't suppress a smile whenever the word "historian" is mentioned - it's become a punchline.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:21 AM

Baldrick

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:11 AM

GUEST - 26 Nov 15 - 06:54 AM in what way does Ferguson support either "your" dogma or good ol' Jom's? Does he cast light on roaming bands of special groups of Redtops gunning down British soldiers who aren't moving at the desired rate? Does he argue that even although British casualty rates were lower than any other combatant powers on the western front that Britain's Generals were the poorest leaders, or that British forces were the worst led? By the way what exactly is "your" dogma? After all you've never told us what you think, and why you think it.

GUEST - 26 Nov 15 - 07:14 AM in what way does Dominic Alexander support either "your" dogma or good ol' Jom's? Does he cast light on roaming bands of special groups of Redtops gunning down British soldiers who aren't moving at the desired rate? Does he argue that even although British casualty rates were lower than any other combatant powers on the western front that Britain's Generals were the poorest leaders, or that British forces were the worst led? By the way what exactly is "your" dogma? After all you've never told us what you think, and why you think it.

As none of these questions will be answered all we have is just more GUEST "white noise" which it would appear that Keith A is silencing quicker that nameless GUEST can come up with suggestions. Now why is Jom not coming up with suggestions of his own - ah of course Jom's sources are drama and comedy scriptwriters and an ex-wife of Jom's most holy of holy's - Ewan MacColl "blessings be upon his name" - standing by for next incoherent rant interspersed with totally unwarranted, negative aspersions and contempt for those usefully employed in kitchens and galleys throughout the land and on the high seas. Strange really I thought that Jom always fancied himself as a champion of the working man, mind you he hasn't sunk so low down the scale as to call them "plebs" yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

Par for the course, dismiss anyone who doesn't fall into your little boxes. Can't be bothered anymore, basically Keith because you are as boring as hell.
Jim, Dave the Gnome, Raggytash, #, Rahere, Steve Shaw, Musket(s),Greg F, Ed T, Big Al Whittle, Troubadour, Some Bloke in Scotland, Modette, Jim 1, Bill D, et al I don't know why you bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:30 AM

Dominic Alexander has published no single book on WW1 and is not an academic at any university.
His "work" only appears on an extremist website. You can not take seriously anyone whose stuff only appears on extremist sites, whether extreme left or right.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:14 AM

Dominic Alexander

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:58 AM

Furguson does not claim the British army was incompetently led, nor does he deny that the ordinary people and soldiers supported the need to fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:54 AM

Ferguson

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:52 AM

Jim,
You totally ignore what your hero Hastings has to say -

No I do not.
Produce a quote that challenges anything I have said.

Re your two anonymous sources.
What universities do they teach at, and what acclaimed books have they written?
Obviously none or it would be specified.

There are lots of people, especially on Mudcat, who have seen Lovely War and Blackadder and believe they know all about WW1.

I can quote actual, named historians to support my views.
You can not find a single one who still believes that shit you cling to.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM

Now then I wonder where and when Keith A ever said that "historians" are infallible - perhaps Harry can enlighten us. I believe that what Keith A has pointed out, quite a number of times, is the rather reasonable and logical comment that "historians" who specialise in the study of the period covering the First World War, who have written on the subject post 1970 have far more information, from far more sources, than their predecessors ever had. Which means that the work that they have produced is better informed and provides for far better understanding of the period and the events of the times. The main objectors to the conclusions drawn by the "historians" mentioned by both Keith A and myself cling with the tenacity of limpets to conclusions, myths, half-truths and misrepresentations of "historians" whose conclusions have been discredited in the light of newer, and more complete information. Keith A's main critics on this forum prefer to quote as "gospel" the work of playwrights with a particular axe to grind that had nothing whatsoever to do with WWI and the output of television drama and comedy scriptwriters.

And as those objectors admit that they have little or no knowledge of the "Great War" I can hardly see how those people can possibly have formed any sort of different opinion to be scoffed at if they have not studied what all of that new information has turned up. My guess is that out of pure idleness they have simply adopted their automatic default position without making the slightest effort to actually inform themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:50 AM

Keith, most English people are not tory voters. Even most English people who voted are not tory voters. Its only our undemocratic electoral system which gives them a majority in parliament, and the ability to push through their extremist policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM

Hoisting your own pair of hairy petards there, I think Mr Hertford.

By your own weird logic, historians cannot as historians be left right or up their own arses. According to Keith A of Hertford they are infallible. People on here are scoffed at for forming a different conclusion to their research.

So.. Which bit is left wing? Collecting evidence? Reading it? Laying it out, presenting it or giving your own perspective on what to conclude?

A historian you quote as gospel appears to be politically motivated? Tut tut. Next you'll be saying he is therefore selective to ensure his conclusions are backed up by selective cherry picking of evidence.

Busted
Fucking
Flush



I personally would like you to carry on spouting because I could do with a laugh and Teribus's drivel is too long winded to fully enjoy, but if I were you, I'd keep my mouth shut and go away and learn a subject before attacking anyone who doesn't see life in the wannabe tin soldier fantasy that you inhabit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

Jim, your two links are to two anonymous pieces!
So **** what - just as Gary Sheffield before you trwaled him out of the ether, or any other historian you have ever put up - you wouldn't have a clue who they were if they were identified - you don't read historians and it is obvious you are more interested in defending the past honours of the British establishment than you are of political facts.
They are two valid pieces from historical sites - no political prejudices, no agendas evident - they are a historical analysis every bit as valid as your unqualified Max Hastings and they are saying what the rest of us have always known
Your rejecting history because it doesn't suit your of quaint jingoism is long over - about time you came to terms with it.
One of the pieces is a brilliant analysis by a group of international historians who are taking a holistic approach to the subject - ie - not presenting it from the point of view of interested nations
It is exactly in line with much that has been said by soldiers who actually fought the war, who you pair of disgusos have written of as gullible liars.
You totally ignore what your hero Hastings has to say - because it goes against all your claims (you did so a year ago when I first linked to it - that's the way you work)
You are a pair of clowns, though your technique is a little different - you go for the Uriah Heep, hand wringing approach while your mate favours the Bill Sykes thuggish approach to arguing of sneering and shouting down.
Both clowns, and sometimes entertaining nevertheless - as now.
Keep up the good work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:21 AM

" My politics, however, lay on the Left, not Right."

I can not do links for pdf files.

PDF]The Centenary of the First World War: An unpopular view by ...
https://www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1406712453&id...
article by Gary Sheffield in this edition of The ... and a half years Professor Sheffield will be one of the ... 'Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths ..

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM

Gary Sheffield is a left wing historian.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:03 AM

In the same way as you think no left wing historian can.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM

Rag, Why do you believe that no Tory voter can have a valid opinion about WW1?
That is most English people.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:04 PM

Ah but Jayzus Gnome, unlike others I could name, you could never accuse the man of being a coward, a bigot, a hypocrite or a liar now could you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 05:13 PM

You know I posted an urban dictionary definition earlier. I just realised I did not post the whole thing. The example at the end seems strangely coincidental...


Pompous Ass
A person who seems full of themselves and who grabs every opportunity to let others know of their feelings of superiority.
This professor sounds like a complete pompous ass. (See from time 3:00 of this recording: soundcloud dot com/kingston-university/music-at)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:08 PM

A wonderful independent voice is Max Hastings, public school, Oxford, Knighted, member of The Other Club, editor of the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail columnist. Not that I'd expect him to be biased or anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM

Jim, your two links are to two anonymous pieces!
Historians put their names to their work, so no credibility there at all Jim.

You provide a review of a book that is only about the outbreak and lead up to the war. Nothing about the actual conduct of the war at all!
The reviewer himself has written nothing about WW1 except something about monuments!
He finds things that no other reviewer has found and that Hastings has never said.

So Jim, you still have provided nothing on the issue of leadership, or support for the war, written by any actual historian!
I have found plenty that rubbish your views and can produce more if you like.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:27 PM

It's not what you say, it's their prejudice against reading your name in the title block. Hence their having a paddy when we post anonymously.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM

I am still quite amazed that teribums seems to be oblivious of the fact that I am not disputing any of his, or Keith's, 'facts' when even Keith seems to have eventually twigged that. I have always said that it is the attitude of some posters that is particularly obnoxious, not the content. How anyone can be so intent on winning completely useless points while seeming to be completely oblivious of the human suffering is, I suppose, a reflection of their wartime role models. Fortunately none of the merry little band here are in a position to cause anyone any damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 12:10 PM

You might, of course, look at what your old Ally, Max Hastings jas to say about the war – somewhat typical of the way you have misused historians in this argument

OR THIS

OR THIS
Jim Carroll

The Wisdom of Max Hastings from a review of his book 'Catastrophe'
Why does Max Hastings have such a hatred for the British military?
David Crane is taken aback by the particular contempt Max Hastings appears to reserve for the British at the outbreak of the first world war
14 September 2013
One of the great problems for any historian writing writing of 1914 and the slide into conflict is that everyone knows the causes of the first world war and those of us who don't still imagine that we do. It is clear that no historian can simply ignore the causes and get straight down to the fighting, but with the best will in the world it is hard not to feel like some poor Easyjet passenger, stranded on a Gatwick runway and sadly watching the precious take-off slot slipping further into the distance while the cabin crew go though the familiar old pre-flight safety instructions that they know perfectly well nobody is listening to.
Serbian ambition, the internal incoherence of the Hapsburg empire, the Kaiser, Alsace-Lorraine , the 'first blank cheque', the 'second blank cheque,' Pan-Slavism, Ulster, mobilisation, uncertainty over Britain's intentions, fear of decadence, fear of Russia, fear of socialism — none of them can be any more dodged than can the emergency doors or the oxygen mask. But when half the world seems to be writing about what happened in 1914, or should have happened and didn't, it is an uphill struggle to make it fresh or interesting. It is immensely to Max Hastings's credit that he manages to dispose of it all as economically as he does; but this huge, compelling, argumentative bully of a book only really hits its stride when the fighting starts, and the full catastrophe that the 'absurdly amateurish' 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip unleashed with the assassination of the unloved and unlovable Archduke Franz Ferdinand begins to unfold.
'A bullet does not go precisely where one wishes,' was how an apologetic Princip explained away the unintended murder of Franz Ferdinand's morganatic wife, Sophie; but Hastings will have no truck with the idea that a chapter of accidents brought about the war, or with any liberal, guilt-ridden guff about equal moral and political responsibility of the warring belligerents. There is no reason to think that Germany was gunning for war when it gave Austria their 'blank cheque' for the extermination of Serbia, but they were certainly prepared to live with the consequences in the firm belief that they were in a stronger position to win any war against Russia and France in 1914 than they would be in the years ahead.
One of the great strengths of Catastrophe is the space and energy it gives to the less familiar theatres and aspects of the conflict — the barbarism of Austria's Serbia campaign, the chaos of Galicia, East Prussia and Tannenberg, the Home fronts, the North Sea, German 'beastliness' — but like the fortunes of the war itself, the book stands or falls on the Western Front. From the start the Germans had gambled on the rapid and total defeat of France before turning their full attention to the east, and by the time they realised that no number of victories over Russian armies was going to win them the war, they were inextricably mired in the bitter stalemate in France and Belgium to which the strategic fantasies of Schlieffen and his disciples had doomed them.
It is the story of the Germans' bid for a quick and crushing victory in the west, told with an equal richness of detail and sure narrative sweep, that is at the core of Catastrophe, and no story better deserves the name. In the popular imagination the first world war is always going to be associated with the miseries of trench warfare; but the trenches were the consequences of this first fluid phase of the war, a place of troglodytic sanctuary from a war of open movement in which 19th-century strategies and armies led into battle by mounted officers and bands playing came up against modern technology.
Eighteen thousand French and German dead in the Ardennes on 23 and 24 August alone, 329,000 French dead by the end of the year, 800,000 German dead or wounded in the same period, 150,000 Austrian, 16,000 British, more than half of Samsonov's 230,000 Russians, killed, wounded or captured at Tannenberg in the last week of August — it is impossible, or at least it ought to be impossible, to write about the first world war without a sense of moral indignation at the waste and futility and stupidity of its leaders. But Max Hastings saves his particular animus for Britain and her army. There are precious few generals on either side of the war who escape his wrath, but if he is rightly contemptuous of Moltke and dismissive of his army commanders, the British seem to inspire something approaching a hatred — it is the only word to convey the level of hostility — that adds a startlingly bitter edge to this formidably impressive book.
Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading. Anyone travelling down the 900-odd Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries that mark the line of the old Western Front from Ypres to the Aisne might be forgiven for thinking otherwise, but Britain no more won the first world war by herself than it did Waterloo and here is chapter and verse. Whatever happened later, it was the French who saved France in 1914 and saved it in spite of everything our own Sir John French could do to scupper the alliance, and with the centenary looming it is important to be reminded of that. 'No part of the Great War compares in interest with its opening', wrote Churchill, and Hastings does full justice to its appalling drama. He is, unashamedly — thankfully — a historian in the Barbara Tuchman tradition andCatastrophe is rich in unexplored sources from every side of the conflict and every theatre of the war. He is wise, too, to end the book where he does, with the German defeat at Ypres. I, for one, could not take much more and — more to the point — I'm not sure the author could either. If the performance of the old army that died at the First Ypres can reduce him to such frustration, God knows what, the 2nd and 3rd Ypres, Loos, Gallipoli, Kut and the Somme might do.
It is going to be a long five years of grim anniversaries, so triumphalists might want to pencil in 8 August 2018 — Ludendorff's 'black day of the German army' — for the next centenary we can really look forward to.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 11:20 AM

"Not true Jim. "
Oh not again!!
"Jim and Rag, I suggest we leave it there "
Surrender -= you mean?
You have nor made your point - you two have not convinced anybody with your jingoism, you have faked history and you have lied throughout
Happy to leave it there unlessw you'd like to explain the examples of bad leadership you have been given, of course!!
As with Cap'n Pugwash - won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:45 AM

Rag, I have never defended any army bit ours, and I have pointed out how much better led ours was than the French, and most definitely the Russians.

Jim,
You explain how any of these can be put down to "good" leadership"

I refer you to the work of the historians and military historians, all of whom know much more about the Somme and all your other issues than you do, and are still quite clear that the army was well and competently led.

You have still not found anything written within the last twenty years that finds otherwise.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM

Jim,
- you refused to read the list of nearly 200 you were given because it was "tto large"

Not true Jim. If it was you would be quoting some of them, but you can not quote any.
I know that there used to be a few who believed what you still do, but knowledge has moved on.
Nothing written in the last twenty years supports your views.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:32 AM

My word !!! Are those goalposts moving again?

I may find the pertinent post later if I'm bored

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:31 AM

Teribus is more interested in who is writing rather than what they write. What's up? You don't need to get concerned about a cookie in order to clarify the bullshit you keep spewing.

Oh gosh. All the historians seem to agree with Sheffield's conclusions so why be bothered with the conclusion of someone else given the same evidence? I don't know what, if anything Keith A of Hertford does for a living but I hope it isn't being a teacher or lecturer. First off I doubt "they" do, not that there is a "they" to make such a silly claim from and secondly, Sheffield himself has published various conclusions at different times. He's a historian not a god botherer.

Eeh, it's worth coming on here just to tour the cages and give them the odd rattle when the zoo keeper isn't looking.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM

Good Raggy - is that really all you've got? No vehement denials that you sent me a message stating that I am "obviously interested in the subject [First World War] and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

My compass reading is probably a damned sight better than yours part-timer. But by all means if you wish to discuss how well connected the port of Cork was to the hinterland to the south and west in the mid-1840s to mid 1850s then by all means feel free to open your own thread on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:12 AM

Shot and completely miussed the target again Jom I see:

Jim Carroll - 25 Nov 15 - 09:58 AM

Read my last post which is addressed to Raggy as was the charge of hypocrisy.

Hate to say this Jom but it isn't all about you - truth be told very little of it ever is, you are too much of a bigot to really bother about - but at times "Wolfie" you do make me laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM

OK Teribums off you go and read your compass ..................... oh you can't do that either.

Not that you have ever admitted that mistake.