BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM

It's surprising that with all those people queuing up to enlist that we needed all this propaganda and conscription isn't it.


Apologies Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:42 AM

Propaganda 5

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:40 AM

Propanda 4

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:38 AM

Propaganda 3

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:11 AM

Jim,
Go and read what she has to say instead of looking of out of context clips

I have, and my quotes are wholly representative. They are NOT "out of context." I supplied links so they can be seen in their original intended context.

she goes on to say immediately after that that the reasons for joining were far more complex

No. She says that they were "more complex" than your "myth of war enthusiasm would suggest."
It is YOU trying to put quotes out of context!

Dave,
What proportion of the general public were less than enthusiastic about the war?

Not enthusiastic. They just believed it had to be done.
Paxton said "most people."
MacMillan would not have said, ""Britain certainly thought" unless she knew it to be most people.

Pennell clearly meant most people or she would not have said, "the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause." and " People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."

Most people Dave, and right to the end of the the war.
Most people Jim.
The myth you cling to is debunked and discredited, not by me, but by hard facts and hard evidence researched by leading historians who head university History Faculties.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 08:43 AM

Can't fault what you write Dave. Do you think others will agree to differ?


Not a prayer!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 08:32 AM

None of them are wholly correct but some are more humane than others.

Not to mention that some are more fact-based than others.

Not all opinions are equal.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

It's no good, Jim. Most people have preconceptions and will read things that confirm these more than things that undermine them. We all do it as it is simply human nature. What I will never say, however, is that an opinion or argument can ever be wholly correct. Keith's isn't. Yours isn't. Mine isn't. They are opinions. We take in information and we gain experience. From these actions we form our opinions. We don't have to justify them. We do not have to explain them. They are our opinions and people can ignore or agree with them as they please. No one is exempted from this. People should realise that the more complex an event gets, like a world was for instance, the more sides there are to every argument surrounding it. None of them are wholly correct but some are more humane than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM

Go and read what she has to say instead of looking of out of context clips - she goes on to say immediately after that that the reasons for joining were far more complex - shje mentions propaganda, fear, peer pressure and much much more - go read what she has written instead of dishionestly claiming that you have (not not a first for you).
No historian has ever presented a picture of people flocking to join up for 'freedom' - as you have.
If people had have done they would have been gullible idiots because, as you have pointed out, it was an Imperial war for territory - a war to gain and defend countries that none of the protagonists had a right to and all of them were plundering - Britain - Germany and especially "gallant little Belgium - a horrific Colonial master.
Your cut-'n-paste fully accepted that this was what it was about and nobody else has ever challenged that.
As Pennell points out, they did so for a whole host of reasons and 18 months into the war those reasons wore thin and compulsory conscription was introduced.
The War was sold like soap powder, Bottomly depicted it as something to be laughed at and a foregone conclusion - he made a million out of sending young man to their deaths.
Had our great national hero Kitchener, remained in office, conscientious objectors would have been executed for refusing to take part.
Men with shellshock were executed for "walking away from the noise" as Tommy Kenny put it, he described officers beating men up the ladders with their swagger-sticks, into murderous hails of bullets - fair to many accounts of this happening for even you pair to deny.
Some mamy fave gone out of a sense of duty, but many many others were tricked and eventually forced by law to go.
AS the lady said - "complicated" - read her book instead of claiming you have.
Go on - break the habit of a lifetime - read something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:20 AM

"Suggest then that you just leave it at that then Steve "

If you can give yourself a moment of respite from your bluster and wade back through this wearisome thread, you'll see that that is exactly what I have done and, from here on in, what I propose to carry on doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM

" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

I have no doubt at all of the veracity of this statement. What we are not told is of equal significance though. What proportion of the general public were less than enthusiastic about the war? What proportion were only informed of the facts that the government wanted them to know? How many changed their minds once they saw what was happeing?   

"People supported the war" is another vague statement. Of course there were many people who did support it for the right reasons. No mention is made of those who were 'duped', those who volunteered for the wrong reasons or those who were stridently opposed.

We are talking about real human beings here for heavens sake, not just battlefield statistics. There were thousands killed, on all sides, who had no wish to harm anyone and no axe to grind in the family disputes of their 'betters' at all. Lest we forget...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:13 AM

From her own mouth, 3mins 5 secs - 3.34.

"A strong sense that Britain's cause was just, compounded by the miserable atrocities in Belgium and France committed at the hand of the advancing German Army, resulted in a stoic determination to fight, no matter what the cost, for victory. In other words, the task ahead was dutifully accepted other than enthusiastically embraced."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W0657Bwn_A

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:51 AM

Go and read what's available on line of Pennell's writing

I already posted this.

" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."
Whilst enthusiastic crowds certainly existed in August 1914, the new research suggests that this didn't reflect the whole picture. "Other gatherings around late July and early August opposed the war," Dr Pennell explains, "and many more people were shocked and disbelieving that such an event could happen."
"Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances.""
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM

Teribums, you say OK then Jim, Raggy, Gnome, nameless GHOST tell me why none of those who were summarily executed by their own officers...

Yet I have not mentioned any such thing. Why ask me? Are you getting confused?

Mind you, you also said, of Raggytash and me, neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway Yet you continue to argue with us and even quote our words. Why is that?

Apologies if it is some sort of mental illness.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:58 AM

"They ALL say the same."
You haven';r read "all" so how the hell do you know what they say.
You've made it fairly evident that you haven't read any - certainly not the ones you've quoted.
Go and read what's available on line of Pennell's writing - what she says doesn't bear any the slightest resemblance to what you claim - you;ve taken the bit that suits
"now c'mon give us just ONE F**kin' NAME."
I have no idea who they were and you ***** know it - I believe that it happened because people who were there said it happened.
I have no way and no intention of accessing records locked away in archives - the fact that much of what happened in generally inaccessible (including the unofficial soldiers' journals) is still inaccessible after a century is par for the course.
The only way you can deny these events is to call the veterans liars - you're happy to do that because you're that kind of feller - with your head rammed so far up the arse of the establishment you could clean its teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:28 AM

I gave you a quote of Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan,
"Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "

I gave you quotes from the Paxman/University of East Anglia programmes saying the same.
Also Sheffield.
They ALL say the same.
You will find no single exception among historians that your view is just a myth Jim.

I challenge and defy you to produce a single dissenting historian on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM

Jim, even you can not deny that the Times Higher Education Supplement reviewer did read Pennell's book.

He says she argues, "that the public's support for war against Germany was based on a reluctant, but rational, agreement that it was necessary. After an exhaustive search in primary sources, she concludes that "in reality, the responses of ordinary British and Irish people were much more complex than the myth of war enthusiasm would suggest...[they] did not back the war because they were deluded, brain-washed and naively duped into an idiotic bloodbath, as the subsequent myth would have it"."

Another direct quote from the book, "the majority of people - including those in Ireland - supported the onset of war in a spirit of seriousness and acceptance of duty".

"That support for the war was no late-summer madness, born of a foolish optimism and the expectation of early victory, is demonstrated by recruiting figures. "

" It is significant that it was in September 1914, after the retreat from Mons and the revelation in The Times of 25 August of just how hard-pressed British forces were, rather than in the first weeks of war, that the greatest number of recruits came forward. As it became clear from military reverses that there was little hope of a swift and glorious end to the war, and as reports of German atrocities in Belgium circulated, so resolve hardened. This was no "war fever", but a commitment to victory by a UK convinced of the justice of its cause."

"the concept of popular support as an irrational fit is demolished convincingly by Pennell. Historical myths are notoriously enduring, but that of a British "collective war enthusiasm" at the outbreak of war in 1914 should not survive after this excellent and important book, and should be replaced by a view of a nation accepting the need for a war of national defence."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/a-kingdom-united-popular-responses-to-the-outbreak-of-the-first-world-war-in-britain-and-ireland/420302.article

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:46 AM

Sorry I forgot to ask my other question in that last post of mine.

Jim you haven't yet told us how those in command on the "Western Front" knew where to locate those "Special Groups of Military Policemen" prior to any offensive operation? I mean you do believe they existed yet you can tell us absolutely S.F.A. about them - I find that rather strange, but there again you'd take merest rumour over fact any day as long as it fits your preconceived notion - wouldn't you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:36 AM

"I don't know much at all about WWI." - Steve Shaw

Suggest then that you just leave it at that then Steve - Can you offer any explanation as to how men were shot in front of their friends and not one of these so called "witnesses" to these murders can name the victim? If you can't then I can - they didn't actually witness anything, they heard stories and rumours about what was happening to soldiers in regiments in the French Army.

GUEST 21 Nov 15 - 02:11 AM

Really GHOST? - care to give us some examples and explain exactly what makes the content of those posts "Howlers"? Personally I don't think that you'll come up with any as the post referred to above is just another example of throwing some wildly inaccurate statement out there without one whit of substantiation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:11 AM

The most ridiculous comment on this thread cannot be sought by a mere time reference. There are many contenders. One way of whittling them down to a finalist showdown is to concentrate on person not time. Start with anything by Teribus or Keith A of Hettford and take it from there.

Some howlers.....

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:37 PM

I haven't been in this thread. I don't know much at all about WWI. But what I do know, reading the three posts above this one, is that we are dealing here with a complete maniac. I'd say the best policy is to not respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:55 PM

OK then Jim, Raggy, Gnome, nameless GHOST tell me why none of those who were summarily executed by their own officers or by "Special Groups of Military Policemen" have any names - I mean you have stated, and you believe that they were shot in front of their comrades at the moment they were ordered to "go over the top" - how come nobody knew who they were - now c'mon give us just ONE F**kin' NAME.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:46 PM

GUEST - 20 Nov 15 - 12:31 PM

About the most ridiculous comment I have ever seen on this forum. If it needs to be explained why I find that so then you are further gone than even I suspected.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:41 PM

"I do find it a bit strange that people who dismiss historians pre 1970 are quite happy to believe in the teachings of the bible written 2000 years ago."

And where Raggy have you ever read anything that I have stated that leads you to believe that I BELIEVE IN THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE WRITTEN 2000 YEARS AGO - Ball is in your court come up with something that I have written or shut the fuck up - you add and contribute absolutely nothing to this forum all you can do is bully and snipe reveling in your complete and utter ignorance. In future please do not address any further inquiries in my direction I will refuse to respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:14 PM

Only a complete moron would expect it to be spelled out that Sheffield can not actually see alternative histories!

Absolutely agreed, Keith. No one, as far as I can see, has said he can. I do not believe anyone has asked for it to be spelled out either. I said quite categorically that Sheffield cannot see alternative histories. You agreed. Why bring it up again? Are you as amazed as I am that we agree on something?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 03:26 PM

"Hey Raggy if you aren't prepared to listen then butt out of the discussion - you obviously have S.F.A. to add to any discussion OR debate"

The comment I made was addressed to the professor. However I could quite happily extend it.

BTW Just for your delectation Teribleonacompass


This one has a compass on, Just for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM

"but they were not summary executions "
You've been given them and all you can do is call the soldiers who spoke of them liars.
"and most of those condemned were not actually executed."
Doesn't make any difference to those with shellshock who were =- none should have been
"Pennell said it was a "myth" that British and Irish people were "deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict."
Out of context again - she said a great deal more - mentioning fear of humiation - and particularly that the reasons were complex fro enlisting - why do you persist in this - you have lied about reading her book - you are dealing with misleading half-quotes - again.
PARAGRAPHS ARE NOT ENOUGH - READ THE BOOK
None of these people said what you claim if you read the articles in full.You are trying to score points yet again
Does being a Christian encourage you to lie for your country? - I don't know any Christians who behaves like you - I really don't.
You are a shining advert for atheism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

Dave, here is the whole paragraph,

"Far from being fought over trivial issues, World War One must be seen in the context of an attempt by an aggressive, militarist state to establish hegemony over Europe, extinguishing democracy as a by-product. To argue that the world of 1919 was worse than that of 1914 is to miss the point. A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse."

Only a complete moron would expect it to be spelled out that Sheffield can not actually see alternative histories!
A professor and doctor of history whose life's work has been the study of that period is well placed to extrapolate upon his vast knowledge to consider the most likely outcomes.
That is what he did, and if you read his books you will see how he supports his views with hard facts.
His peers would rip him to shreds if he could not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 01:37 PM

Rag, all sides in every war use propaganda, but the Germans really did massacre hundreds of civilians including children in 1914.

Jim, of course there were executions, but they were not summary executions as you claimed, and most of those condemned were not actually executed.

Pennell said it was a "myth" that British and Irish people were "deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict."

She said "Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."

That directly contradicts your position Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM

No-one can possibly know what the world would look like today if the Germans had won WW1.

Obviously.

Well done, Keith. That is exactly what I have been saying. Glad we can agree on something.

So we gave gone from A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse. to Sheffield only said that 1919 would have been much worse. to saying that everyone knows that Gary Sheffield cannot possibly know what the world would look like etc. in the space of a few short posts.

Glad to see that your mind can be changed after all. Thank you :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 12:31 PM

Keith thinks that a person giving an opinion is an extension of being a historian therefore you can't argue with the opinion.

That's a bit like the mental leap that vicars know a bit about theology therefore their opinion that sky fairies exist (well, not all of them believe in that tosh but I digress) isn't one you should argue with.

Historians set the scene. Your own intelligence provides the opinion. The only people who borrow opinions are shallow God botherers.

Slowly but surely, the Keith in the couch is revealing his condition. Once we have the diagnosis we can get nurse to rig up the enema hose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:08 AM

"never have a single instance of our troops mutinying "
ONLY HALF THE STORY
"have a look at how the Germans treated the indigenous tribes under their care "
Didn't comment on how the Germans behaved - just that the "freedom and democracy" excuse for going to war was bullshit.
It was an Imperialist war - Keith said so, so it must be true
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:00 AM

I do find it a bit strange that people who dismiss historians pre 1970 are quite happy to believe in the teachings of the bible written 2000 years ago.

Just saying like.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:57 AM

"Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit""
So you say Mr Woodcock
"245 men being shot for desertion and a further 17 being shot for "cowardice""
Nothing to be proud of considering they were shooting men with shellshock - or is that another lie?
"WHAT??? Debate against the likes of this?"
Keith lies, backtracks and contradicts himself and - like you, when caught out, refuses to respond on the grounds you might commit yourself - in his case, his putting up the fact that it was an Imperialist was when he denied it, and in yours that soldiers were not afraid of officers - you've been given the level of discipline dolerd out at great length |(and the rest is silence)
Keith is the only one to "take the piss out of historians" in the way he misquotes them and doesn't read them
Attempts at bullying will never replace information my galley swabbing friend!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:55 AM

" GUEST - 20 Nov 15 - 08:06 AM

Have you actually read Catriona Pennell's book "A United Kingdom" Keith."

More importantly GHOST - Have you?? If so please appraise us of what it is that alters anything stated so far. It would appear that Keith A knows the work and can actually give it it's correct title. Does she recount "special groups of military police" roaming about the front line gunning down British troops? Does she identify the incidents where British Officers summarily executed their own troops? Still can't get my head round the fact that NONE of these Officers or their "victims" have names - I mean if I'd joined up with my "pals battalion" I damn near would have known a good proportion of that band of 1,000 men and the Officers under whom we were all serving - Jim and the usual suspects haven't yet explained that little fact away have they - So boys, all you who know more than anyone else, tell us if the practice existed how come there are NO NAMES - not holding my breath, as they will not answer.

The other one, addressing the main point is how come if we were so appallingly led did we ever mannage to:

- Increase the size of our army tenfold
- never have a single instance of our troops mutinying at the front as occurred in the French Armies fighting alongside us.
- be the only army capable of mounting an offensive after having withstood the massive German Offensive in the spring and early summer of 1918
- carry-out what is recognised and acknowledged as being the most successful military offensive ever undertaken by British troops
- Win the war.

Over to you and your "experts" who for some strange reason very seldom happen to be specialists in the subject, or if they are are all pre-1970s vintage, whose works and conclusions have been discredited by information that has come to light since 1970.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 09:08 AM

"You were a greasy fry-up slinger, weren't you - lots of action in the kitchen, especially when you burn the bacon!!"

Really Jom where on earth did you get piece of fiction from? One of your own troll pals or was it just more Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit"

""But armies [NOTE JOM "Armies" as in Armies in general] did not leave men's behaviour in battle down to chance: the system of military discipline existed to coerce them into obedience. Punishments for disobeying orders could be severe, and men who were convicted of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' or desertion from their unit could receive the death sentence. Many hundreds of soldiers were executed by their own armies for military offences during the conflict [However NOT in the British Army - 346 does equate to many hundreds]."

Look up the figures if you like Carroll (I know neither you nor any of the usual suspects will) but during the First World War there were 304,262 Courts Martial held and of those defendants 265,496 were found "Guilty". Just taking the crime of desertion that accounted for 14% of that total meaning that during the First World War 37,169 men deserted - 29,205 did so in the UK. Yet the Courts Martial only resulted in death sentences being carried out on 245 men being shot for desertion and a further 17 being shot for "cowardice". Perhaps you should stick to Traditional Folk Songs JOM - you seem to know quite a bit about that - on this subject you are totally clueless.

""Any chance of learning debate Keith?""

WHAT??? Debate against the likes of this?

" Raggytash - 19 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

actually don't bother to reply to that I'm not really interested in anything you have to say"

Hey Raggy if you aren't prepared to listen then butt out of the discussion - you obviously have S.F.A. to add to any discussion OR debate.

"A historian collates, assesses and presents information. When he says the future would be x y or z he says it as a person and his view has no more weight than anyone else."

Ehmm NO anonymous GHOST - As a historian and specialist in the subject and the period just purely by the information at his fingertips his opinion would have far, far greater weight than say yours, purely because it would be based on a far greater understanding of the times, the people and the era than you have.

Ah have a word with your "Historian" Jom - and by the way my recollection is it was you and your grinning hyena "mates" who started taking the "piss" out of historians - as David Englander when it was during the First World War that the French collapsed at Sedan, now I know he is referring here to the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 - but the man's writing is all over the place - no wonder you like his style Jom - it's as chaotic as your own. David Englander was not a historian who specialised in the study of the First World Was his area of specialisation lay elsewhere - why didn't you mention that Jom?

As to whether or not things would have been better or worse under the Germans, who would have annexed Belgium and taken over all of the French overseas possessions - as you mentioned Belgium and their treatment of their subjects in the Congo - have a look at how the Germans treated the indigenous tribes under their care - you might just learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM

"I did read her "A Kingdom United" a couple of years ago. "
Then why are you arguing that men joined up because they supported the cause - in fact, in 'A Kingdom United', she argues that the reasons for joining up were varied and complex and they fluctuated as the circumstances changed.
She puts much of the reason down to the pressure of propaganda and points out that the inability to maintain that pressure led to the introduction of compulsion.
You most certainly have not read it - bloody nonsense!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM

Propaganda 2

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:45 AM

"Historical myths are notoriously enduring, but that of a British "collective war enthusiasm" at the outbreak of war in 1914 should not survive after this excellent and important book, and should be replaced by a view of a nation accepting the need for a war of national defence."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:44 AM

I have not read Catriona Pennells book A Kingdon United. However there are numerous historians notably Jo Fox who seem to consider that propaganda played a significant role.


Propaganda 1

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:34 AM

Have you actually read Catriona Pennell's book "A United Kingdom" Keith.

No never Guest.
I did read her "A Kingdom United" a couple of years ago. Would you like me to dig it out?

Meanwhile, here is a review of it from The Times Higher Education Supplement,

"Pennell argues that historians of the UK have lagged behind historians of German and French history in reassessing the picture of "war fever". She seeks not to demolish the notion of Britain and Ireland as accepting the need for war, but rather to argue that the public's support for war against Germany was based on a reluctant, but rational, agreement that it was necessary. After an exhaustive search in primary sources, she concludes that "in reality, the responses of ordinary British and Irish people were much more complex than the myth of war enthusiasm would suggest...[they] did not back the war because they were deluded, brain-washed and naively duped into an idiotic bloodbath, as the subsequent myth would have it"."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/a-kingdom-united-popular-responses-to-the-outbreak-of-the-first-world-war-in-britain-

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:26 AM

Here, BBC includes him as one of the "ten leading historians of WW1"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

Can you find a single historian who disagrees with anything I have quoted him on Jim?
No you can not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:09 AM

"Yes it is. He is a leading historian of WW1."
No he isn't Keith - he is one historian
He expresses the establishment view - which is no more valuable than any other person in terms of opinion - certainly not of the people who actually fought on the front, which you pair of jingoists have sought to denigrate (step up from shooting them if they stepped out of line, I suppose)
Up to these arguments, you had never heard of Sheffield - your first choice was a tabloid journalist - you stumbled across him in your attempts to justify the indefensible.
He is only a "leading historian" because his defence of the war from the point of the establishment coincides with your own jingoism.
"Yes he does, but you will need to read his books."
But you haven't Keith - you stumbled across him by accident and have only read out-of-context quotes.
If you read what he says fully, you will realise that expertise is on the actual war - his expertise does not go beyond that therefore he is in no position to comment on what would have happened had the war gone the other way.
Democracy was not any more under threat under Germany as it was elsewhere - "gallant little Belgium" our ally and one of the ploys for conning men to enlist, was quite free to massacre 10 million Congolese and cut the hands of their workers if they didn't work hard enough - how "democratic" was that.
The conditions in the British Colonies were little better - no democracy to be threatened by Germany there.
As you have pointed out with your own quotes - it was not about freedom, or democracy or better conditions - it was a colonial war on a world scale.
How about coming out from behind an establishment historian who you haven't read and responding to the actual situation?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:06 AM

Have you actually read Catriona Pennell's book "A United Kingdom" Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:44 AM

When Sheffield casts an opinion he speaks as a person giving a view.
That is not a historian speaking.

Yes it is. He is a leading historian of WW1.

A historian collates, assesses and presents information.

Yes he does, but you will need to read his books. The quote was from a brief article for the BBC history site.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:33 AM

From a 2002 study of discipline in the British Army From a "real" historian who sells his books in a "real " Bookshop
Jim Carroll

In a recent study of military discipline during the First World War David Englander rightly asserted that 'British and Belgian soldiers were more at risk [from capital punishment] than either their French or German counterparts'2. This contradicts existing ideas about both Prussian militarism and popular notions of French military justice – or more accurately injustice – such as conveyed by Stanley Kubrick in his film Paths of Glory. A comparison of statistics for discipline in the British, French and German armies, the three main combatants on the Western Front between 1914 and 1918, supports Dr. Englander : the British condemned more than 3000 men compared with 2000 in the French army and only 150 in the German army3. Indeed, the comparative harshness of the British was especially marked in the case of deserters on the Western Front4. Whilst it should be noted that the number of French soldiers executed (perhaps as many as 700) exceeded that of the British army (officially 346, but probably many more5) the two remain comparable given the relative size of the armies. Only 48 of the 150 German soldiers condemned by military courts were shot. On the face of it the British army was not beset by disciplinary problems any more than were the other major armies, yet no historian has adequately explained this striking differential. This is even more surprising given pervasive British attitudes of the time : Germany was castigated as authoritarian and militaristic and France was viewed from across the Channel as decadent. The French army, so it appeared, was not immune from this and its collapse at Sedan was regarded by many in Britain as evidence of the moral degeneration of the French, a view seemingly confirmed by the chaos of the Commune. Accordingly, when discipline in the French army collapsed in 1917, the British commander, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, emphasised what he considered the lack of 'moral qualities' in the French army as its major cause6. Paradoxically, German authoritarianism and militarism had, according to some, been a major factor in securing the Prussian victory in 1871 : British generals had a high regard for the discipline of the Prussian army if not their tactics7. Yet these continental armies exhibited more tolerance of their soldiers than the supposedly more progressive British. Paradoxically, therefore, it was in the country that believed it most espoused liberal values that military discipline appears to have taken on its harshest form.
The harsh nature of military discipline in Britain owed much to tradition. The earliest armies were regulated by Articles of War issued on the prerogative of the Crown and valid only during the duration of any given conflict. This power, introduced by William I, was not superseded until the nineteenth-century. But if military law seemingly became more the concern of parliament than of the Sovereign, the Crown was still able to exert considerable influence in this area, playing the 'apolitical' card to great effect – the army shared with the Crown a (mythical) status that supposedly transcended politics. The nature of these earlier Articles was pejoratively described in a military manual of 1914 as being 'of excessive severity, inflicting death or loss of limb for almost every crime'12. Ironically, a certain amount of this severity was to return in the years that followed.
8The peacetime army, thanks to the British aversion to a standing army, did not exist in a modern sense and no regulations were thought necessary beyond what was covered by criminal and civil law. This changed, however, after the so-called Glorious Revolution whereupon the Mutiny Act was passed in 1689. The object of this annually renewable act, which made mutiny and desertion a capital offence, remained largely unchanged until 1878. It did, however, undergo a series of refinements each reflecting the circumstances of the time. The Act, often allowed to lapse during times of peace, was frequently re-introduced, usually with an extension of its jurisdiction to include overseas territories as the army's garrison duties expanded around the globe. The Mutiny Act finally superseded the prerogative power to make Articles of War towards the end of the Peninsular War in 1813 and remained in force, largely unaltered until our period.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM

When Sheffield casts an opinion he speaks as a person giving a view.

That is not a historian speaking.

A historian collates, assesses and presents information. When he says the future would be x y or z he says it as a person and his view has no more weight than anyone else. After all, his work as a historian is to get such information presented so people can form their own views.

Only a moron would say otherwise eh Keith?

You really don't grasp this, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM

" The Kaiser abdicated the throne on the 9th November 1918 and fled Germany going into exile in the Netherlands on the 10th November 1918"
The Germa revolution began in November 1918 - th Kaiser abdicated at its outbreak of internal unrest - I suggest you go read something.
"To anyone who has ever served in any of the armed forces such an idea is laughableTo anyone who has ever served in any of the armed forces such an idea is laughable"
You were a greasy fry-up slinger, weren't you - lots of action in the kitchen, especially when you burn the bacon!!
Officers held the power of imprisonment and death in their hands in wartime - World War.
Whatever the man thought of them, they kept it to themselves - or else.
Fiction!!!
From British Library account of wartime discipline
"But armies did not leave men's behaviour in battle down to chance: the system of military discipline existed to coerce them into obedience. Punishments for disobeying orders could be severe, and men who were convicted of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' or desertion from their unit could receive the death sentence. Many hundreds of soldiers were executed by their own armies for military offences during the conflict. "
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:38 AM

"A piece of history, largely neglected, is what happened in Germany following the war.
Germany entered into a period of revolution which swept the entire country and ended up in the abdication of Wilhelm II and the establishment of the Wiemar Republic."

Certainly neglected by you Carroll - go away and do some reading - it will make for a bit of a switch to reality in your postings:
- The Kaiser abdicated the throne on the 9th November 1918 and fled Germany going into exile in the Netherlands on the 10th November 1918
- The War ended on 11th November 1918

Whatever you do Jim don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

"Soldiers did not fight just because they were afraid of their officers"

Now why would soldiers be afraid of their officers? To anyone who has ever served in any of the armed forces such an idea is laughable - Keith A knows that and so do I, but who on this forum is trotting out the fiction and attempting to tell us that soldiers were afraid of officers due to the incorrect fact that officers were allowed to and allegedly carried out summary executions of their own troops - definitely NOT Keith A or myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:18 AM

But I think by today everything would be much the same.
Sheffield only said that 1919 would have been much worse.