BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:16 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."
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: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:16 AM

Keith,

I think the world today would have been little different, Germany would be the industrial powerhouse of Europe and the UK would be trailing along behind. WWII would have been a different war, possibly a face-off between Europe and the USA. But I think by today everything would be much the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:05 AM

I think you do not understand the mindset of subservience which existed before WWI. Soldiers fought not because they were afraid of the officers, or because they thought that the cause that the officers were asking them to fight for was just, but because not to have done the bidding of the higher classes was unthinkable. The monarchy, the aristocracy, had been put in their place by God, and not to obey them was not just treason, it was blasphemy. WWI broke this mentality in the UK, I think it still existed elsewhere. And it is experiencing a renaissance today.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:02 AM

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

Obviously.
Only a complete moron would expect that to be spelled out.
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 he supports his views with hard facts.
His peers would rip him to shreds if he could not.

It is hard to have any respect for people with no specialist knowledge who really believe they know more about history than the historians, and who actually ridicule people who learn their history from history books instead of just imagining how they think it should have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 02:48 AM

So let's get this right. David Irvine is a historian.

Ok

Move on

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:38 PM

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

The main difference keith is that you took the words as they are written. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have read it as:


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

Having said that we know you lack the intelligence.

Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:37 PM

I do not have an ego big enough to warrant stating 'what if' scenarios as facts but I do know reality from fantasy.

No-one can possibly know what the world would look like today if the Germans had won WW1. By all means speculate on possible scenarios but remember it is just speculation, not fact. It never happened. Historians are good at what they do, but they are not Gods that know all possible outcomes.

What are you going to come up with next? It would have been better if the Roman invasion would have failed? After all, what did the Romans ever do for us? What if the crusades had failed? Would we all be Muslims? What if the mayors of Rome and Carthage had not met to end the third Punic wars after over 2000 years? What if Berwick upon Tweed had won the war with Russia? What if Keith lived in Hamburg instead of Hertford? Very interesting but it is all fantasy.

I am not disputing any of your 'facts'. I am just saying that an opinion over what would have happened if the Germans had won is not, in any way, shape or form, the fact that you would have us believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:01 PM

"WW1 has been a life long interest of mine and I have read much Jim"
Doesn't show one inch Keith - talk about hidden talents!
You have not responded top one single point people have made about your appalling behavior
Said you wouldn't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

Dave,
How do these people know these thing? I'm gobsmacked.

Historians derive their views from the results of years of research Dave.
They challenge each other to justify everything they say.
Unlike you, historians do not regard it as acceptable to express an opinion that they can not support with hard facts.

Not being an historian, I form my views by reading history books.
That is what intelligent people do.

You must have a huge ego to imagine that you know better than the history books, and the historians who research and write them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:25 PM

WW1 has been a life long interest of mine and I have read much Jim.

On some things there is a consensus among the historians.
Those 3 views I expressed for instance.
That is why, in the years we have been discussing this, you have failed to find any that contradict me, except a few long dead and discredited.
You appear to have read nothing less than 20 years old.

I can produce any number in support, and have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:12 PM

"Just an opinion, but all the historians seem to share it."
You haven't read the 100 or so historians, I doubt if you have read one (yet another hastily grabbed cut-'n-paste.
You have single-handedly made the term "historian" a joke - I hope they appreciate what you have done for their profession
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM

Just an opinion, but all the historians seem to share it.
In their books they justify their opinions with hard evidence from a hundred years of research.

Here is Margaret Macmillan, a Canadian historian,

"Most of the poets who were widely read at the time – notably Rupert Brooke – were writing patriotic verse, and the "futility of war" line only emerged later. "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/25/margaret-macmillan-just-dont-ask-me-who-started-war

"Soldiers did not fight just because they were afraid of their officers. The toughest discipline was in the Italian army, which had the highest rate of desertion among the Allies. Soldiers fought for something. Indian soldiers, as their letters reveal, for honour, the British for king and country. As one French soldier said simply, 'I do not want to become a Boche.' "

"Stevenson argues persuasively that we must believe that men and women meant what they said when they talked about duty and sacrifice, that they accepted the war, even willingly."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n23/margaret-macmillan/von-hotzendorffs-desire

"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:26 PM

Nah, achmelvich. Everyone knows it is the peoples republic of Sheffield and totally outside the scope of normal geography :-)

For those interested there is a new TV series released by Amazon this Friday. The man in the high castle is advertised as being based on a SciFi classic by Philip K. Dick (stop sniggering at the back there, boy) but after being stunned by the certainty of earlier statements I am beginning to wonder if it should actualy be classed as history...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:17 PM

can i just change the subject from history to geography - surely nobody these days still believes that sheffield is in the north of england (never mind the uk)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM

"I have. You and your friends seem to have read nothing written less than 20 years ago!"
Then your postings show no fore-knowledge of the subject - every single one of them is a hastily gleaned cut-'n-paste - every one.Your latest one from Sheffield - no new insight into the war, but an opinion, and on you might expect from someone who built his career as an British Army employee - a lecturer to the troops.
Your accusation that none of us know anything more recent than twenty years old is also typical apart from my particular interest in 20th century history, do you think we all went to bed after tea last year when we were bombarded with all those radio and televion offerings?      
Bloody insulting clown.
When I described the German revolution (the one which overthrew the Kaiser and established the Wiemar Republic), you described it as "made up shit" or some such phrase
I cannot believe that somebody who claims to have made a life-long study of the period is that ignorant - or does your own kowledge end in 1918?
You even contradict yourself - you dismissed the idea that the war was Imperialist inspired - even going to great lengths to explain why it was refered to as 'The Great Imperial War'
Then you turn up with a quote from Paxman that it was an Imperialist war
Give us a break - lifelong study my arse.
You are the only one on this forum who comes here to "win" something - I counted about a dozen occasions when you claimed that you had "won" and we have "lost".
You are also the only one who has dominated a thread on a subject, by your own admission, that you have neither knowledge nor interest in - you apparently know nothing, nor do you wish to learn from what others have to say.
I concur complete with Guest's request - "Any chance of learning debate Keith?"
You will now ignore all this and continue with your support for the establishment line.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM

A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse

Well, I'll be... I am surprised that someone would express this as a fact. I would say it would have been a possibility. Even a probability. But can you be absolutely sure that things would have been worse? Worldwide? Would WW2 had happened if Imperial Germany had won? How do these people know these thing? I'm gobsmacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 11:39 AM

We have friends?

Gosh! When is the next slumber party to discuss Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:10 AM

Jim,
there are around 200 researching WW1 - to understand what they have to say you need to read a few,

I have. You and your friends seem to have read nothing written less than 20 years ago!
You will find they all say much the same on the issues we have discussed.

The quote was of Dr. Gary Sheffield in a piece written for the BBC History site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

A historian who works to a preconceived hypothesis rather than examining the evidence, as real historians do.

Anybody quoting historians would cite, give reference and if they have the intelligence, explain what that quote means in support of the view they express on this subject.

Any chance of learning debate Keith? Some of us are fed up of making allowances for your capacity when you fail to grasp the fundamentals, then perhaps your points can be dealt with correctly

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 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

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

Which historian, which book or probably more accurate which webpage

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM

One historian - there are around 200 researching WW1 - to understand what they have to say you need to read a few, not scoop up convenient books that suit your own particular prejudices.
Than you can claim that "the majority of historians....." whatever
And by your own goalpost emplacements, tabloid journalists who cut their teeth on a paper which openly supported Hitler doesn't hack it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:55 AM

An historian's view,

"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."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

"the rulers of Germany at that time were a different kind of person altogether."
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.
The new republic was divided into left and right - in 1919 the leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered, the right came to prominance and in the same year the Nazi Party was founded and eventually rose to power with the support of German industrial capitalism.
Would highly recommend an extremely readable book on the period, 'The Kings Depart' by Richard M Watt, one of the great classics of Twentieth Century European history.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM

"Sheffield will be very much alive. "
Concur - despite Maggie's attempts to kill of the North of England and killing of the (crappy, according to some) British Steel industry.
Great folk song conferences at the Uni.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM

In WWI, as now, the working class had been persuaded that their fate and the fate of the ruling class were the same. Would their lives have been any different if Germany had won the war? I very much doubt it. It was just a squabble over which branch of a family of inbreds lorded it over them.

WWII was different, the rulers of Germany at that time were a different kind of person altogether.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:12 AM

If the northern powerhouse works, Sheffield will be very much alive. Although Manor Top will still be eating rather than burying their dead. Attercliff will always be the home of the topless hand shandy.

As to discredited revisionist historians, to be fair he also came out with a few more objective essays before rallying to Gove's call for rose tinted glasses.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:17 PM

Is Sheffield alive or dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 01:32 PM

" Ah so all the volunteers in 1914 were "working class" were they Raggy? Got any evidence to back-up that preposterous claim?"

Two things Teribus.

1. The statement said that "in 1914 all working-class soldiers would have been used to being at the bottom of society, with all that entailed" Not that all volunteers were working class.

2. It was a quote from Gary Sheffield whom I seem to recall is one of Keith's favoured historians.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 11:05 AM

Sorry lads - not going round in circles with you clowns any more - we really have been here, done that when you pair ALONE telling us that "'twas a famous victory." (Robert Southey).
Now you're contradicting what you were arguing last time.
You denied it was an Imperial war, Keith went to great lengths to show that 'The Great Imperial War', as it is known, didn't man Imperial in the Imperialist sense, yet now you're digging up quotes like "Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony"
If the war was inevitable, it was so because the politicians and industrialists made it so - s.f.a. to do with "freedom" - just a family squabble over which of Victoria's sprogs should rule the planet - over 18 million people died - over territory.
Must be true, Keith's just quoted it - twice.
No argument with that.
The other reasons were down to propaganda - Harry Patch made the point beautifully when he said he had no argument with the lads he was sent out to kill - he had no argument with them - he didn't know them
The same with them, of course.
You want to continue justifying that, feel free - once more you do it alone.
As for the summary - we've got your message - the politicians are great - the military is great (though neither have ever denied the executions happened - just you) - the men who actually fought were lying or gullible shit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 10:14 AM

"That's official then - we only take the word of the authorities and not the men who fought?"

By all means let us take the word of the men who fought. So far you have at least two men who were told but who never actually saw any summary execution and stacked up against them you have the written autobiographies and memoirs of hundreds of "the men who fought" who make no mention or reference to any such summary executions. On balance of probability I would say the silent majority win that one.

By the bye Jim, what is your problem, indicated by your complete silence, with giving us the details requested about these "Special Groups of Military Policemen?" - Could it have anything to do with the fact that they never existed?

A question for you Carroll have you any explanation of why none of "your" sources can put names to those who were executed (They would have been in the same platoon, same company if they were standing alongside them in the trench - i.e. they would not be strangers) or the names of the officer who shot them? (Or do you wish to tell us that the men in the trench did not know the officers who led them?) The answer of course Carroll is that it is all bunk, all rubbish.

"I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons, idiots who didn't know which way was up" etc."

No not referred to them as such Raggy, you lot only INFERRED that they did not know what they were doing when they volunteered, which I most certainly know from personal experience was not the case with any of the WWI veterans I ever talked to, read about, or listened to their recorded interviews (Take it Raggy that you have not been arsed to listen to the veterans interviews recorded for the 1964 documentary The Great War)

"What I would suggest it that in 1914 all working-class soldiers would have been used to being at the bottom of society, with all that entailed."

Ah so all the volunteers in 1914 were "working class" were they Raggy? Got any evidence to back-up that preposterous claim? Actual fact in most cases they were not, primarily as the "working class" was required to ------ work. The queues of volunteers in 1914 contained solicitors, bank clerks, teachers, students, etc, etc , they came from all different backgrounds - NOT JUST WORKING CLASS. The mass of "working class" recruits came in with conscription as women replaced them on the factory floor and the Army was none too impressed with the material, in their first two months of training your average "working class" recruit gained two stones in weight and 1" to 2" in height - simple matter of record - another thing you will no doubt not be arsed about checking (Can't really see why I bother providing you with the information - possibly in the vain hope that one day you will wake up to the fact that a discussion is more than simple sniping)

RE: The Paxman Programmes Jim, your ability to deliberately misunderstand everything stated is truly astounding - having watched them I would advise you to go back and do the same - you will find out that Keith A's quotes accurately reflect the message being put across.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 09:30 AM

2nd programme

"43 minutes in. Paxman to camera.

"The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."

""The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."

Previous quotes,
"Now war had broken out, almost everyone backed it."

"Most people seemed to have accepted that the war had to be fought."

" Lord Kitchener's appeal for volunteers in the early days of the war had been so successful that lines at recruitment offices snaked for blocks down city streets."

"Throughout it all, the resolve of the British people did not weaken."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 08:28 AM

Paxman also dealt with the peer pressure of the Pals Brigades, the threats of dismissal by employers and the White Feathers   
As I said - half arsed selective information - again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 08:18 AM

Been here Keith - Paxman then went on to show that the reasons for people joining were down to the propaganda of the time - he devoted a part of that to war being presented as a pantomine by master recruiter-cum millionaire-cum jailed criminal.
Of corse some fell for the propaganda - wouldn't be forth the effort if they didn't
When will you realise that presenting only part of the story doesn't work?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 08:12 AM

Can anyone decipher that lot, I can't be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:54 AM

First Paxman programme of his BBC series on WW1,

About 9 minutes in, Paxman to camera.

"Most people seemed to have accepted that the war had to be fought.
To honour treaties. To defend the empire. To protect Britain.
And, what else were they supposed to do?
To sit back and watch as Germany amassed an empire from Russia to the shores of the English Channel?
Now war had broken out, almost everyone backed it.
Most trade unions suspended strikes, which had been common."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:52 AM

Nope it was programmes like Paxman's who went in depth into why men joined up - and that's part of history

What Paxman actually said.

"Don't insult my Uncle Charlie or his comrades. Their sacrifice in WWI foiled Germany's plan to rule the world,"

"Yet we are stuck with the default conviction that the First World War was an exercise in purposelessness. That was not the prevailing view at the time. On the contrary, Lord Kitchener's appeal for volunteers in the early days of the war had been so successful that lines at recruitment offices snaked for blocks down city streets.
The great harvest of anti-war memoirs and novels did not appear until ten years after the Armistice. Throughout it all, the resolve of the British people did not weaken."

"What aggravates our ignorance is the false assumption that we do understand the First World War. We need to cast ourselves back into the minds of these men and their families, to try to inhabit the assumptions of their society rather than to replace them with our own.
How, one wonders, would the teacher explain to her students that after writing his celebrated denunciations of battle, Wilfred Owen returned to the Western Front to continue fighting and, furthermore, described himself in his last letter to his mother as 'serene'? It was, he said, 'a great life'."

"The retrospective narrative of innocent conscripts, dullard generals and boneheaded battle plans has become tiresomely familiar. It is precisely because the Great War changed so much that we understand it so little."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:42 AM

"I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons"
It hasn't - that is Terrytoon's interesting take on what has been said.
Men joined up for a whole variety of reasons - because a "short war" was a way out of poverty, for the romance, emotional blackmail, white feathers 0- some because employers threatened them with the sack if they did not.
The main reason was a massive, totally unprecedented campaign of lies and distortion (propaganda) which ran out of steam within 18 months and was replaced by enforced conscription under threat of imprisonment and even death (when Kitchener left office he was demanding that conscientious objectors should be executed).
The "mindless morons" bit is further evidence of the#is jingoist's contempt for the serviceman
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons, idiots who didn't know which way was up" etc. Those expressions have only come from your side.

What I would suggest it that in 1914 all working-class soldiers would have been used to being at the bottom of society, with all that entailed.

And please Teribus can we not go back to the mind numbing and pointless 3 points, that was tedious by any standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

"As asked by Keith A - WHAT REPORTS?"
That's official then - we only take the word of the authorities and not the men who fought?
Can't say plainer than that - thanks
"who didn't know what end was up,"
Nope it was programmes like Paxman's who went in depth into why men joined up - and that's part of history
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:46 AM

As asked by Keith A - WHAT REPORTS?
You cannot even verify that the Tommy Kenny you interviewed was ever in the Army FFS!! As research work goes your approach is just too damned sloppy to be of any merit or value at all.

If Journals were forbidden how come so many of them and we are talking tens of thousands here exist? There was no prohibition on keeping either a journal or a diary, what they did do was ban you from taking it into the front line - worked out as about 5 days a month - you see troops were regularly rotated - unlike the portrayal in Blackadder that they moved into their little dug outs for the duration. If what you state is true there would not be the wealth of memoirs and autobiographies of ordinary soldiers who saw action during the First World War would there. And oddly enough Jim none of those authors bang on about "special groups of military police" or about summary executions of British troops carried out by their own officers - perhaps because they were too busy writing diaries that they weren't supposed to have to have time to chat to those bending the ear of the likes of Harry Patch?

The material donated to the Imperial War Museum has been available to historians with proper accreditation for decades, but in most cases the material is normally donated on the death of the author.

I can go back to find out but it was you and your fellow travelers who challenged the three points put up in a post by Keith A relating to the First World War that post 1970 historians concluded that:
1 - The war was necessary
2 - That the people of Great Britain understood why it was necessary to fight it
3 - That in general compared to other combatant powers the British, Commonwealth and Empire armies were well led.

It was you who tried to tell us that all those volunteers were mindless morons, idiots who didn't know what end was up, fools who could be easily lied to and manipulated. Keith A, myself, Lighter and a number of others countered those slurs of yours and demonstrated that those men, those volunteers were educated men who were fully aware of the situation and responded as they did out of principle, duty and respect for freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:37 AM

You've had them Keith - there have been others, even naming the squads given the job of executing those who didn't go over the top fast enough - try to keep up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:09 AM

The existence of these executions are based on reports of people who were there

What reports?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:08 AM

Rag, one person in the whole period from 1914 to the present claims it.
No other of the hundreds of thousands there corroborate it.
If I put up such a thing as evidence you would rightly laugh me to scorn.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:05 AM

All bullshit designed to make veterans liars Terry
The existence of these executions are based on reports of people who were there - if they were false, they would have been denied long before now.
The authorities have respected the opinions of those who fought (those you claim are fit to be commemorated only by Christians) so much that they first forbade them to keep journals to describe their horrific conditions, then by keeping the ones that were written locked up for a century, because those experiences were as horrific as they were, even now they are available selectively.
A century after this horrific bloodbath, we still have only a partial view of the conditions undergone and the reasons men joined.
Maybe one day we'll get round to discussing honestly the justification for the war unclouded by the jingoistic bullshit.
Why the **** should we accept your one-man campaign - a serial establishment arselicker, a member of the Norman Tebbitt "Get on your Bike Club"
You haven't made your case that these men were liars and gullible morons - try harder!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:21 AM

In answer to the posts directed at me:

Firstly to Guest 12:24 and to Greg F:
Mock all you like but neither of you have ever been able to refute and counter a single thing that I have stated which makes your contributions to the discussion nothing more than irrelevant "white noise" - It would appear that you know nothing, understand nothing, are prepared to learn nothing, classic examples of boorish, pig ignorant buffoons who revel in portraying yourselves as being as thick as shit and proud of it - The pair of you make Dumb & Dumber look intelligent.

Jim Carroll:
"Hearsay" is not considered as being evidence of something having actually happened. Stories can simply be stories "urban myths" abound - none of them are true but thousands if not millions believe them to be true.

My explanation for Harry's story about officers summarily executing soldiers specifically states that he probably heard it from someone else and that the stories originated from British Units operating alongside French troops who had actually seen such executions IN THEIR ARMY.

"What kind of people are you that go to such lengths to defend an establishment that cold-bloodedly slaughtered a generation of British youth."

The kind of people who believe in the fundamental legal principle that someone who is accused of something is "Innocent until proved Guilty" - so far you have offered no substantive evidence at all to convince me of their guilt. I also believe that the people responsible for "slaughtering a generation of British youth" between August 1914 and November 1918 were the enemy, I also believe that that generation of men from Great Britain were responsible for slaughtering a rather larger number of Germans - That is what happens in War Jim, your own father must have fully realised that when he went to Spain to fight, he did not go down there to dissuade and befriend the enemy he went down there to kill and defeat them.

Now then Jim when it comes to declining to reply - tell us all about these "Special Groups of Military Policemen", how did they know where to position themselves? Who was it defined what the allowable time to "get over the top" was?

Harry Patch served as part of a Lewis Gun crew in the Cornwall Light Infantry and was sent to France with his Unit in June 1917, he was wounded in September 1917 and evacuated back to England to recover from his wounds. In France he would have moved, trained and fought alongside men that he had served with in England - He was not attending a social the other units he would come across would only be in passing as his unit moved up to the front. His main opportunity for talking to soldiers from other units would have been in hospital.

Finally Raggytash:
Cherry picking? No you specifically addressed my attention to that particular section of the interview and I answered the point that you were attempting to make, i.e. that what Harry Patch said in the interview was conclusive proof that summary executions were carried out - I merely pointed out the anomalies, which you have conveniently completely ignored.

The interview was conducted 80 years AFTER the event - if Harry Patch did not recognise the term Shell Shock in 1917 (By then the term had been coined and people were aware of it to the extent they were having misgivings about it) then he sure as hell would know what was meant by it when he gave that interview and when specifically asked to comment about it in 1997. - TRUE??

"Do you really believe that he never met anyone suffering from "shell shock"?"

While he was in France in 1917? Yes I do believe he never met anyone suffering from shell shock as his three months deployment to France would have consisted of:
- Transport to France with his Unit
- Training in France with his Unit
- Movement up to the forward area in the build up prior to the launching of the Passchendaele Offensive
- Fighting in that Offensive
- Suffering his shrapnel wound and being cleared to the rear as a casualty
- Evacuation as a casualty to Southampton.

By the way the extent to which I did not cherry-pick Harry's interview - I would suggest you read the bit right at the end about "the mutiny" where after the war while waiting for demob his section refused to turn out for bayonet practice - you will find out exactly what would have happened to any officer attempting to summarily execute one of their number.

"Thirdly, and I'm sure we'll come back to this point, I find this quite bizarre you state "Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law" Are you truly expecting us to believe this didn't happen?

On the contrary I am sure it did on occasion, but that does not negate the fact that such an action is an offence against the Army Act and if any Officer or NCO did strike a Private soldier he could face disciplinary proceedings for it - that being the case do you really think that summary execution would be sanctioned? Rhetorical question it wasn't if it happened it would be construed as "Murder".

"Do you want to tell us about the floggings of Indian troops?"
While punishment by flogging had been removed from the Army Act affecting British troops it remained as a punishment in the Indian Army (Unduly harsh?? Hardly, people are still flogged in Pakistan to this day - Pakistan being part of India during the First World War). Floggings were not carried out on the whim of any individual the punishment was handed down as part of due process - unless of course you have evidence which proves to the contrary.

"Finally, as I know this is a subject you are deeply interested in,could I suggest that rather than making automatic responses claiming that the hierarchy of the British Army were all good men and true you contact the MOD, Judge Advocate General and Lord Chief Justice and just ask them the question."

Ehmmm no Raggy the boot is firmly on the other foot. It is Jim Carroll, yourself and others that "believe" on the strength of pure unsubstantiated hearsay that those commanding the British Army during the First World War ordered or at least sanctioned summary executions of British troops by junior officers commanding them. It is therefore up to you to raise the matter with the proper authorities - that is if you can be arsed, which you would be if you really did think there was a case to answer - But you don't do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:01 AM

"Of the hundreds of thousands of front line soldiers, only one claims summary executions and even he does not claim to have seen it.
Is every other soldier a liar?"

Could someone please explain the logic of this sentence to me because I'm buggered if I can see it.

So far Keith the only soldier to be called a liar is Harry Patch, by you. Remember when you typed " He was certainly wrong about it, but he never claimed to have witnessed such a thing"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 04:35 AM

Of the hundreds of thousands of front line soldiers, only one claims summary executions and even he does not claim to have seen it.
Is every other soldier a liar?
Many memoirs exist. Not one mentions it.
Two that I have read are those of Graves and Sassoon.
Both became anti- war and both are very critical of the establishment.
Graves says that the legal executions were not always reported, but he never mentions summary executions because they did not happen in the British Army.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM

Hmmm Teribus, You seem to be cherry picking, as we all do, which bits of Harry Patch's testimony you want to believe.

Firstly you say he had not experienced "shell shock" although today "shell shock" seems to be an accepted "fact" today.

Do you really believe that he never met anyone suffering from "shell shock"?

I would proffer the argument that the term "shell shock" was not acknowledged at the time and that he didn't recognise the term. I seem to recall that "shell shock" was not an accepted diagnosis until quite late in the war.

Secondly in your rather convoluted logic you state "then it becomes impossible by his own statements that he could have "witnessed" the summary execution of a soldier suffering from shell shock by an officer in a trench. He might have heard stories about it but if Harry Patch is telling the truth then he could not possibly have witnessed it"

If he didn't recognise it as a condition he couldn't say he saw it. Being honest I believe

Thirdly, and I'm sure we'll come back to this point, I find this quite bizarre you state "Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law" Are you truly expecting us to believe this didn't happen? Do you want to tell us about the floggings of Indian troops?

Finally, as I know this is a subject you are deeply interested in,could I suggest that rather than making automatic responses claiming that the hierarchy of the British Army were all good men and true you contact the MOD, Judge Advocate General and Lord Chief Justice and just ask them the question.

Cheers

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

"Very good Jim, now tell your pal Raggy that at no time in his three months in France did Harry Patch ever see an officer summarily shooting any British Soldier."
So?]
"His mention of it amounts to pure hearsay, "
So?
He was there - he was fighting along other soldiers - He spoke too them presumably - he had a life preserving interest in what was going on.
Presumably the people who passed on the information too.
Wha are we honouring these lying bastards ya#ar after year - let them rot in hell, I say.
What kind of people are you that go to such lengths to defend an establishment that cold-bloodedly slaughtered a generation of British youth.
I asked whether it was conceivable that Harry got his information from people he fought with - you decline to reply
I ask to provide examples of denials of these executions - you decline to reply
Patch, and others who claimed these executions took place were there at the time fighting.
You were not, you have no evidence that these people were lying, you have no examples of others saying they were lying, yet you mount a one-man crusade to make them either liars or gullible eejits.
What exactly are you on?
If they are lying - where is your evidence apart from your own somewhat distasteful claims?
Jim Carroll