BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM

Why, what should be embarrassing? People have tried all sorts from abusing my stature, questioning my intelligence and morals, and casting aspersions on my roots and parentage. None of it matters from people I know little about and care even less for. They do not know me and whatever they say is usually well wide of the mark anyway. It does surprise how that people on here get so heated about inconsequential matters though.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 10:10 AM

Had Great Britain remained neutral and had stayed out of the war in 1914 the following would have been the case following a German victory:

1: If Belgian forces opposed the Germans (Which they did) it would result in the annexation of Belgium by Germany - this was clearly stated to the Belgian Government by the Germans BEFORE the invasion - no speculation about that it was a clearly worded statement regarding what the consequences would be should the Belgians elect to fight. Any doubt in your mind there Gnome? If so one wonders what sort of a warning you would have to receive before you realised you were being warned of something.

2: By way of reparations should your armies resist ours we will strip you of your colonies and overseas possessions - No speculation there - a direct consequence of us defeating you means that we take over your colonies and overseas possessions.

3: As a result of a German victory in Belgium, Belgium then becomes part of Germany in much the same as Alsace-Lorraine did after the Franco-Prussian War. The formerly Belgian Ports of Antwerp; Zeebrugge and Ostend would therefore become German ports capable of being used as bases for the German High Seas Fleet. The ports of Zeebrugge and Ostend are within four hours steaming of the Thames Estuary and London - No speculation Gnome just FACT

The likely threat of the above prompted Great Britain to join the "entente powers" in their fight against Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:57 AM

You don't embarrass easily, do you ?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:47 AM

Ah - OK. Never heard it in that form. Looked it up since and found it being defined as something pointless as well as what I thought it was. IE -

In connection with our life, the sawdust is like our past. Many people tend to get back on their past. They used to think back of their sad moments, regretting and worrying those moments that are over and done with. When you are doing this, you are merely trying to saw sawdust.And if you are doing it in some portions of your life, I tell you,you will never find happiness but instead you will live in a life full of worries and regrets!Don't be a prisoner of your past!

This quote is actually similar to the saying, "Don't cry over spilt milk."..Yes, this saying is a commonplace, a platitude.

In the context of this thread and my understanding of it, it did not make sense. In the sense of saying things over and over again, then surely everyone on this thread, apart from newcomers such as Guest, Dave, are equally guilty of that offence. Aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:28 AM

Dave, sawing sawdust means saying the same bloody thing over and over..What "context" are you talking about ?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:20 AM

Guest,
Some people have said that a historian agrees with them even when they finally admit they haven't even READ that historian until a year AFTER they claimed his agreement.

I had read that historian, and all the others I have used.
I had read numerous essays and article which I quoted agreeing my views.
I gave the quotes with links to their source so they could be seen in their original intended context.

I have never even referred to what is in Hastings' book until Jim started quoting his review.


All histories of the last twenty years any of us have been able to quote confirm my three points.
On what basis do you reject them all Guest?
If you believe you know more than all of them, your conceit and stupidity are truly epic!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:19 AM

...and I have no idea what sawing sawdust means in this context :-( I thought it was akin to crying over spilt milk?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:16 AM

Well, if you insist that I name names..Dave The Gnome knows very little history. Evidence, read his post..argument for its own sake. nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:12 AM

Ah, OK. Thanks HiLo. How come you are happy to name those you believe do know about history but shy away from naming those you believe do not?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:10 AM

Whatever side of the pond you are on guest, your statement is called gross misinterpretation. You ought to read more and post less.
Dave, you are doing it again..sawing sawdust.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:04 AM

That is after all how any decision is made

It is indeed how any decision is made. As I said at the outset, there is a distinct possibility or even a probability that things will go that way. But that is not a certainty. Your assertion that Had Great Britain remained neutral and had stayed out of the war in 1914 the following would have been the case is therefore invalid. You could have said 'may have been the case', 'possibly would have been the case' or even 'probably have been the case'. But you didn't. You said it would have been the case. Neither you nor anyone else can be certain of that. You know that, which is why, I suspect, you are now relying in poorly aimed abuse rather than reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:02 AM

Some people have said that a historian agrees with them even when they finally admit they haven't even READ that historian until a year AFTER they claimed his agreement. Now I don' know what you call that were you live Hilo but on this side of the pond we call it lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:54 AM

I think I have been very clear..some people here know about history..some don't know about history but insist on arguing about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:48 AM

HiLo's contributions add more to the discussion than your pin head dancing Gnome. It would appear that in terms of this discussion one side would appear to need to up the factual content of their game and provide substantiation for their views and that in his/her opinion that side is not the side Keith A or myself are arguing.

Getting back to speculation and informed assessment If A stands on the bank of a river, should he fall in he might drown, he might not, but as he doesn't fall in, whether he may have drowned or not is pure speculation for someone who knows nothing about A. If on the other hand someone did know that A was an extremely good swimmer and supremely confident in the water then it would be an educated and informed assessment that had A fallen in the river then A would have survived. Further factors could be added to this for someone who knows the river and the location along its banks where A was standing. In exactly the same way you in your own self-confessed ignorance might speculate about the situation, circumstances and factors pertaining to Europe in the summer of 1914 and state that nobody could know with any certainty what would have happened, others fully up to speed with the information available could with regard to how various courses of action would affect them. That is after all how any decision is made Gnome - carry on dancing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:41 AM

Sorry, HiLo. As I am sure you know it can be difficult to get things across on an on-line forum. I still don't know what your point is. If that makes me stupid, so be it but it would be better if you spelt it out rather than risk a misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:28 AM

My point is that there are those who present a fairly reasonable set of facts and those who come merely to argue. The discussion will probably not progress as long as attacks are made against people and not against ideas or history.
As for not getting my point, I can hardly believe that it was that obscure.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:27 AM

"Jim Hastings supports my case" 26th Nov 2014

"Max Hastings own words" 26th Nov 2014

"Max Hastings does not support your view" 26th Nov 2014

Bold assertions from someone who NOW acknowledges he has only just read the book.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:20 AM

Not sure what your point is HiLo. Those are pretty obvious observations. How will they help to progress the discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:19 AM

GUEST - 10 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM

"Keith in fact has read little to judge by his posts, and understood less. Now if you said he was a google scholar few here would disagree with you. If you want verification of the same look back through his posts over the past year."

If judging by posts is the metric you wish to measure by then GUEST you would appear to know and understand S.F.A., about anything to the degree that you could not even be viewed by anybody as being any sort of scholar at all. As to verification well at least a person could check back to see what Keith A or indeed even myself have previously said about something (Jom has done that on a number of occasions and it has blown up in his face every time") bit more difficult to that for though isn't it - but there again as you never actually say anything and your posts tend to say nothing germane and are mostly mere ad hominem attacks there is no real point in checking back on them

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM

I have read many of Keiths posts, I believe he reads history and understands what he reads. I do not always agree with his interpretation, but he does read, it shows in what he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM

Keith in fact has read little to judge by his posts, and understood less. Now if you said he was a google scholar few here would disagree with you. If you want verification of the same look back through his posts over the past year.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM

Just some observations.. Keith reads a lot of history, Teribus know a lot of history. Some here appear to read very little history and are what are known as "google" scholars. Some just come to argue. no matter what evidence is produced they insist on sawing sawdust.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:00 AM

That looks fine to me, Keith. Try to remember it next time you are tempted to say all historians agree with you :-)

Teribums

Keep dancing on the head of that pin Gnome it really does provide endless amusement.

If you can find endless amusement on a BS section of a web forum, well done but you really need to get out more. Glad to be of service to the disadvantaged :-) While enjoying yourself so much, can you tell us whether you still believe that you can say with certainty what would have happened if any historic event had not occurred? If so, surely you could amuse yourself far better by writing alternative reality fiction?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 07:19 AM

How about this DtG?
'All histories of the last twenty years any of us has been able to quote confirm my three points.'

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 07:13 AM

DtG,
That would not be factual. I have no idea what anyone else has read, have you?

Yes, because we have discussed it openly.
If they had found something that contradicted me, it would have been posted.

Fred,
You first mentioned Hastings on the 7th December. LAST YEAR.

Much earlier actually Fred.
I have cited articles and essays written by Hastings, but never his book. I only read it because Jim made such an issue of it.
I did not cite that book once before I read it last week.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 07:13 AM

Therein lies the difficulty these people face. Every time they present a historian the work is discounted for various specious criteria set by yourself or predominantly Keith. The latest being your reference to someone who's speciality is the First World War. Now Hastings, for example, has written on many subjects and has not specialised in WW1 history. Do we therefore discount him?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:53 AM

Chaps you seem to think that I am trying to convince you all of something - I am not, I know that that would be an impossible task as even in your own self-confessed ignorance of the subject you all feel as though you know much more about it than people who have made it their life's work and received academic acclaim for that work.

The WWI threads and those hardy annuals where people have a pop at the Festival of Remembrance always bring out the same old myths, lies and misrepresentations and as long as you keep trotting those out the likes of Keith A and myself will introduce you to the facts rather than your fantasies - and to date none of you have ever challenged or countered any of the facts stated, your normal resort has been to personal abuse.

Throughout these threads Keith A has challenged you to come up with the name of just one historian who disagrees with the three points originally raised - and to date after two years you have not been able to supply one whose specialty IS the First World War.

Keep dancing on the head of that pin Gnome it really does provide endless amusement.

By the way whatever happened to GUEST and his/her example of how historical theories are cyclical? GUEST never did get back to us on that did he/she - wonder why not? Could it be that he/she was talking a complete and utter load of bollocks?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:42 AM

How about 'All histories any of us has read or is aware of, in the last twenty years, confirm my three points.'

That would not be factual. I have no idea what anyone else has read, have you? You can say that anything YOU have read does but you cannot speak for anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:37 AM

GUEST - 10 Dec 15 - 05:33 AM

Most intelligent thing that you have contributed to date - please keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:23 AM

You first mentioned Hastings on the 7th December. LAST YEAR.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:15 AM

Fred,
By his own admission Keith has only recently started reading Max Hastings book "Catastrophe" despite this he has been citing a book he has not actually read for over a year.

I did not cite that book once before I read it last week.
I have cited articles and essays written by Hastings, but never his book. I only read it because Jim made such an issue of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:11 AM

You seem to confuse reading with prejudging.

Not to mention understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:10 AM

How about 'All histories any of us has read or is aware of, in the last twenty years, confirm my three points.'

Why do some of you reject all the histories any of us has read or is aware of in the last twenty years?
Is that rational?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:00 AM

By his own admission Keith has only recently started reading Max Hastings book "Catastrophe" despite this he has been citing a book he has not actually read for over a year. Now we'll have to wait for the excuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:51 AM

I have tried this before and thought it was a good idea. Can't remember what happened.

Keith, how about you use the phrase 'all histories I have read recently confirm my three points.' Nothing contentious in there. It is a proven fact that no one can dispute. Remember though that 'all histories I have read recently' is not the same as 'all historians'.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:44 AM

1. I do not have any criteria as I am not claiming anything.
2. See 1.
3. See 2.

I have not made any claims that I need to prove, Keith. You have. You say that all historians agree with you.

Now, I have answered your questions, will you answer mine? Do I need to repeat them? Shall I hold my breath while waiting? The simple fact of the matter is, you do not even know how many there are, let alone claim that you have read them all. Nothing to do with history. Simple logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:32 AM

So, really simple questions then Dave.

1. How many historians, worldwide, fit your criteria? You have named none.
2. How many books and articles have been written by them? You have named none.
3. Have you read them all? Or any single one? NO!

Unless and until one of you finds one, you are arguing against all the historians any of us are aware of.
Why would an intelligent person do that?
(Answer, politics.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM

Perhaps you may add;

What gives you the authority to take their work at face value?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

Keith has an odious agenda or he is of extremely low intellect.

No argument. Just personal abuse from a non-person.

I learn history from the history books.
That is what normal, intelligent people do.
If you think you know more about history that the people who research and write the history books, your are a deluded fool.

Guest Dave, no need to spend time on research.
You must have had some names in mind when you said, "we certainly do have examples above of historians who don't say this."

So name one.
Unless and until one of you does, you are arguing against all the historians any of us are aware of.
Why would an intelligent person do that?
(Answer, politics.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM

BTW. For anyone new to this discussion, what are your criteria? Did I get it right before?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:18 AM

So, really simple questions then Keith.

1. How many historians, worldwide, fit your criteria?
2. How many books and articles have been written by them?
3. Have you read them all?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:06 AM

Yeah, they called up dustmen but apparently not historians or other academics?

So a historian who was there has only "snapshot" to add to their account?

Setting aside the obvious point that any and every account and commentary is built up from first hand accounts...

You are off your bloody rocker. No wonder Keith feels an affinity towards you.




DtG. Yes, let's be fair but either Keith has an odious agenda or he is of extremely low intellect. Neither suggests the need for earnest debate with his preposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:00 AM

Millions fought in WW1.
The testimony of one is meaningless. Every view possible to hold will have been held by one of them.

The historians look at the views of tens of thousands to establish a representative view, and they use statements taken at the time or shortly afterwards.

(An example of Ferguson's understanding and judgement, he said that John Maynard Keynes had no stake in the future because he was gay and childless."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM

the appraisal of what they saw as being the likely outcomes

what they saw as being the likely outcomes indeed. Not certainties then. Not certainties now. That is the fact of the matter. These thing MAY have happened. Not WOULD have happened. Let me know what part of it are you having problems with and I will try to make it clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM

GUEST - 10 Dec 15 - 03:38 AM

They have to be still alive too

Unlike every single fucking first hand account.

The "first hand accounts" are extremely valuable in studying the period - but only as snap-shots.

Most were written 1918 - 1929, some probably later from diaries kept at the time. The authors of these works are writing about THEIR experiences and those books were not written with any access to;

1: Restricted and Classified British Government papers relating to the subject, the last of those are only now being released.

2: Restricted, classified and untranslated papers from Belgian, French, German and Russian sources

The accounts you refer to apply to the small picture and are one sided so although they do give important information they do not give the whole picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM

"Certainly not all historians, and maybe not even most historians, and we certainly do have examples above of historians who don't say this."

OK I take it that Dave is talking about historians who have made the study of the First World War their speciality - YES or NO?

As you do have examples of historians who don't say this Dave would you care to name them. I can only think of one Niall Ferguson who said it was a mistake for Great Britain on economic grounds - only thing is that this hypothesis of his is based on the erroneous assumption that after a German victory in the west in Belgium and France that everything would go back to the way it was before hostilities.

Now then GUEST DAVE as you'll take the word of Harry Patch above anything else here is what Harry said about killing the enemy - note the change at the end:

Shooting to kill

I never knew Bob [Harry's friend and gunner] to use that [Lewis] gun to kill. If he used that gun at all, it was about two feet off the ground and he would wound them in the legs. He wouldn't kill them if he could help it.

[A German soldier] came to me with a rifle and a fixed bayonet. He had no ammunition, otherwise he could have shot us. He came towards us. I had to bring him down. First of all, I shot him in the right shoulder. He dropped the rifle and the bayonet. He came on. His idea, I suppose, was to kick the gun if he could into the mud, so making it useless. But anyway, he came on and for our own safety, I had to bring him down. I couldn't kill him. He was a man I didn't know. I didn't know his language. I couldn't talk to him. I shot him above the ankle, above the knee. He said something to me in German. God knows what it was. But for him the war was over.

He would be picked up by a stretcher bearer. He would have his wounds treated. He would be put into a prisoner-of-war camp. At the end of the war, he would go back to his family. Now, six weeks after that, a fellow countryman of his pulled the lever of the gun that fired the rocket that killed my three mates, and wounded me. If I had met that German soldier after my three mates had been killed, I'D HAVE NO TROUBLE AT ALL IN KILLING HIM."

You take the word of Harry Patch, yet you discount the words of others who were there and fought for a far, far longer time than Harry Patch - some saw service in France in the infantry for the entire duration of the war - perhaps that is because what they say does not matched your blinkered and biased view of the conflict, borne I would suspect from the 1960s anti-war portrayal and presentation of it that was made to order for an agenda all of its own.

Gnome if the British Government of the day saw that to act the way they did was in our nations best interest and on examining the facts and the appraisal of what they saw as being the likely outcomes I have no problem in stating them - no speculation on my part. So who is it that has changed the subject? What bluster?

Sorry Guest Dave - nobody had to invent the 45 minute claim the Iraqis were armed by the Soviets and went on to make domestic copies of Soviet weapons. Fact: To arm a GRAD Rocket, Artillery Shell, Bomb or a SCUD missile with any Chemical/Biological Agent from the time the order is given to the time that weapon is ready to be used IS 45 minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM

Dave Gnome,
I say that until he has read the works of all living, eminent, etc. historians he cannot prove it.

I say that I have, or enough of their work to know their opinion on my issues.
In their books and articles the historians refer to each others' work.
No name has cropped up that I have missed. No book has been reviewed in the media of an unknown name.
In three years of arguing, Jim has scoured the net looking for anyone, and I am sure his supporters have too.

If they are worthy of attention their work should be accessible. No such has been missed.
Perhaps Guest Dave will now produce some.
Good luck with that Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:38 AM

See what I mean? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:26 AM

Certainly not all historians, and maybe not even most historians, and we certainly do have examples above of historians who don't say this.

We know about Ferguson.
Who else Dave?
Names and quotes please.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:18 AM

Now, come on chaps, be nice. I may disagree with Keith's statement that all historians agree, for the reasons I have given, but Keith does have a point in that all the historians that meet his criteria, that he has read, do agree. The sticking point is that Keith genuinely believes that all 'Keith's historians' does mean all historians. I do not believe him and feel that it is up to him to prove it. I say that until he has read the works of all living, eminent, etc. historians he cannot prove it. He says that until I disprove it, it must be the truth. Bit like a belief in God really, apart from Keith is not likely to kill disbelievers. I hope...