BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:37 AM

Hey Lofty - Raggy's just score us another!!!!

GUEST,Raggytash - 16 Dec 15 - 05:24 AM

Ah so Summary Court Martials did take place but no records were kept - So:

1: How did you come to hear about them Raggy?

2: Why do you think they'd bother to go through all that rigmarole? Wouldn't it be just simpler to summarily execute the guilty party? Which of course would lead onto

3: Who would carry out the execution Raggy - we are now up to about twenty odd people who have to be in on this secret.

4: Raggy as you are "in the know" on all these secret summary Courts Martial and Summary Executions can you give us a name of anyone who was executed, anyone who presided over such a Court Martial, anyone who acted as Chaplain, Doctor or indeed firing party? NO? What a surprise oh dear, how sad, never mind.

The number of British and Commonwealth troops who were executed is know and Court Martial papers for all are on line.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM

Keith, you really don't listen to things that upset your little apple cart do you.

Harry Patch said it happened, Jim's old soldier said it happened. You don't really expect it to be written down do you. It won't be written down in Regimental Histories or War Office records because it shouldn't have happened but we have two old soldiers who said it did.

You already called both these men liars before please don't stoop so low as to do it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:41 AM

meant to silence and intimidate

Absolute classic coming from someone who tries to silence and intimidate people with personal abuse. Well done, once again, teribums.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:06 AM

She attacks me for saying the historians all agree my points even though it is a fact

How many times, Keith? Not all historians. Remember that even you agreed that only the historians that meet your criteria that you have read agree with your points. Even that is in dispute now it seems that people who have read the same works have not interpreted them in the same way. Yet you still claim it to be a fact.

Are you really so insecure that you must get everyone's approval before your are happy? Why not just accept that some people will always disagree with you. It is not as if it matters to anyone but you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM

Rag, I would certainly expect such a thing to emerge in personal accounts, such as those I mentioned.
Murdering prisoners and other crimes do.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM

Teribus,

You have been given examples of jingoism at the RBL events. You have ignored them. Or maybe you choose to believe that people prancing about in uniforms with flags isn't jingoism, but you could apply that logic to the Red Square parades.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:11 AM

I would certainly expect such a thing to emerge in personal accounts

Ah, OK. So everything that was written in personal accounts was not subject to censorship or destruction? It was not covered by any official regulations? It is not true that some records from the war have only just been released and there are probably a lot more that we are, as yet unaware of?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM

You have been given examples of jingoism at the RBL events.
We have not.
All countries have a national flag used at national and military events.

people prancing about in uniforms with flags

They were veterans in civilian clothes but wearing their old service berets.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM

If you fed a swan with shrimps would the beta carotene have the same effect as on a flamingo?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:29 AM

Yesterday from Keith:

"No jingoism Dave, The flags are those of British Legion branches, not national flags"

Today from Keith:

"(You have been given examples of jingoism at the RBL events).
We have not. All countries have a national flag used at national and military events"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:07 AM

"Wouldn't it be just simpler to summarily execute the guilty party?"
You'vee already denied that ever happened (but of course, by British law, they wouldn't be guilty until they were tried, so it should be "innocent parties".
"Jom - sorry I didn't wade through your latest badly written, "
I'm not surprised you can't be arsed - it dismantles everything you have claimed about the War
It wasn't badly written, but even if it was it would not be an excuse not to read it.
The bulk of it comes from an official report and most of the rest of it is a fairly well written and perfectly legible account of our interview with Tommy Kenny
"If you are not a liar Jim, give an example of an out of context quote."
Where to start - Hastings welcome acceptance of the review of his 'Catastrophe' puts every single one of your Hastings quotes into perspective as being out of context - as with Christine Kineally, he has totally blown up in your face..
Margaret McMillan's claims on the conduct of the war show that she doesn't back your case in any way
When are you going to learn that single line quotes are in no way indicative of an author's opinion on any single subject - never - it's why I don't go in for out-of-context cut-'n-pastes.
Whjo but a madman can believe that one or two lines can pssibly represent th view of a author
You don't just claim dishonestly for your handful but you continue to claim all modern historians agree with you ((that presumably include the nearly 200 historians working on the subject) that is ***** insane, especially as you have read none of them.
Even having been shown Hastings' acceptance of the review - you go on to deny that as his attitude - you are totally dishonest in your use of the people you have not read.
"First, that it was an accident, a war nobody wanted "
Covered fully by Margaret McMillan's book and in depth by Clark's The Sleepwalkers; the entire book was based on the premise - both "Real" historians - a case of a disad#greement between professionals - nothing to do with the general public.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:15 AM

So Lofty out of a conflict that lasted 1,561 days in which millions were killed we have on one hand thousands of diaries, hundreds of memoirs and autobiographies written by soldiers (Whose service can be checked and verified) and NOT ONE MENTION of any summary executions against one or two accounts where both individuals say they saw nothing.

No-one can give the name of any of their friends who they claim were summarily executed by Military Police or by their own Officers. No-one can name anyone who carried out any of the alleged murders. And everyone kept quiet about it all - Sorry Lofty that is just plain unbelievable.

Please correct anything stated above that is incorrect.

This allegation is pretty old hat now, but to put it into perspective if you were charged with something would you be happy to be convicted on the doubtful and contradictory hearsay evidence of two men or would you wish the verifiable accounts of hundreds if not thousands to be taken into account that screamed your innocence.

Come up with ONE NAME. People peddling this crap on this forum have had two years to come up with any evidence and they've turned up NOTHING. Still Lofty you do not believe in evidence or proof - you are only interested in believing what you want to believe to bolster your own biased and far from impartial point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:25 AM

GUEST - 16 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM

Prat, while Mute Swans who live on salt water may eat molluscs they do not eat crustaceans.

If you cannot tell a Flamingo from a Swan I'd advise you to drop it. It is however a terrific example of your lack of attention to detail and basic general knowledge.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind:

Fish in a barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:27 AM

"and far from impartial point of view" Ha Ha Ha brilliant. keep it up Teritowelling I like a good laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:38 AM

What about if you fed the molluscs solely on carrots?


http://comps.canstockphoto.com/can-stock-photo_csp8968669.jpg

Here's one with a bit of red just for you Teribums as you seem to get your knickers in a twist about all sorts of things recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:41 AM

This one sadly is blood

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:54 AM

Jim,
Margaret McMillan's claims on the conduct of the war show that she doesn't back your case in any way

What claims? I have read her book.
Your lies are exposed when she says,
""The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd"
IN CONTEXT JIM!

Nothing in your review of Hastings' book contradicts any of my claims.
For the THIRD TIME OF ASKING, show any bit that does.

Clark's The Sleepwalkers; the entire book was based on the premise

That book is about the events prior to the invasion of Belgium in August 1914.
I have expressed no opinion about any of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM

You are falling for the same logical falacy as Keith, teribums. Lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. It simply means it has not yet been proven. What I will say, in fairness as I keep saying it to Keith, it is up to the person making the claim to substantiate it, not up to others to disprove it. Personally I am not claiming that summary executions occurred as I simply do not know. What I am saying is that there is a possibility that they did happen, however rarely, and that possibility should not be discounted out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM

Keith, the line The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents can easily be interpreted as some wartime generals were cowards and incompetents. If Ms McMillan wanted to say none of them were cowards and incompetents then, surely, she would have said so. Yes? I think everyone accepts that there are good and bad in every walk of life so why should that not be applicable to wartime generals?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:11 AM

I should have said that both books are about the events prior to the invasion of Belgium in August 1914, and Hastings' book only covers the first months of the war.
I have expressed no opinion about any of that.

None comment on the conduct of the whole war.
None contradict any of my points.

Will you give a quote?
No you will not.
You lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:15 AM

Dave,
Keith, the line The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents can easily be interpreted as some wartime generals were cowards and incompetents. If Ms McMillan wanted to say none of them were cowards and incompetents then, surely, she would have said so.

Why would she spout such nonsense?
Sheffield said of British generals, "Some were incompetent, most were not."
I am sure he is right and that Macmillan would agree.

Has anyone ever claimed that any of them were cowards?
No.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM

And Dave, she followed that line with,
" A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM

"I served on the western front during the 1914/18 war as a platoon commander in 914 rising to GSO1 of a division by 1918. I never once saw Haig, nor did I ever see him after the war …. I can never forgive a General who intrigues, as Haig did – against his C-in-C, and against his political chief …....... There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front …....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:31 AM

"What claims? I have read her book."
No you ******* haven't - I doubt if you have ever read a book
Your claims to have read both McMillan and Hastings are the new kids on the block for this forum - they are both huge tomes of books - totally beyomnd your capabilities judging by past whinings of contributions being "to long" - I don't believe you have read either of them - certainly not since your claiming to have done here.
The Genals incompetence speaks for itself - at Loos, on the first day of the Somme, on The Dardanelles - the wrong shells fiasco all recognised disasters where many thousands of young man died.
The well known fact that while young men were dying on the Somme, the politicians and military leaders were conducting their own war back home - with each other - what eejit could describe that as "a well-conducted war?
"Nothing in your review of Hastings' book contradicts any of my claims."
You have been given the review - it undermines any support for your claim of support for Hastings - you bloody well know that because you first hysterically claimed that it was a "crap review" then, when Hastings acknowledged it as correct, you claimed he didn't mean it.
I've given you what I found McMillan said - she questions both the wisdom and the conduct of the war - I can't quote and I wouldn't if I could - I've said before, I'm not entering into a "my historian is bigger than your historian" battle on a book I haven't read with a brain-dead who has read nothing and has no intention of reading nothing.
You are a total waste of space - you have convinced nobody and you never will until you sit down, read a book and then grapple to understand it - a monumental task for you which should keep you busy.
You have been given fact after fact after fact here and on other threads - you first ignore them then deny you have been given them (as you are about to now)
A typical example of your dishonesty it shown in the fact that you started out to defend every single aspect of this shitty war - every one - and now you have whittled that down to only three points, claiming that's all you have ever mentioned - that is a stupid lie.
You denied that it was an Imperial War - and when you could not maintain that stupid argument "The Great Imperial War" - "The Imperial War Museum" - you have refused to respond to the fact that millions of young men died to defend a system that crashed in flames a few decades later - a family squabble over who should rule what - no comment on the grounds that it might nause up your case.
You refuse to comment that it was a war of attrition - waves of British lads against waves of German lads - who didn't know each other, let alone have a reason to slaughter each other.
You really are a squalid little jingoist of the worst type - an anachronism.
Why should you think anybody should want to argue with you - you have nothing to offer and you've far exceeded my expectations in exposing yourself for the rabid right winger that you are.
You never have responded to the points I have made above - either of you, and you never will.
If I were you I'd take your bullying mate's example and quit while you are this far behind.
On the other hand, respond to some of the points made and you might have an argument.
So far - nothing
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:37 AM

Oh bugger, that's not a swan either

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:38 AM

By the way - your first claims to have read McMillan and Hastings were two days ago , before that, despite having quoted bits from both extensively, you claimed only to "have read much"
Both are extremely large doorsteps of books - fast reader or what?
Another fine mess you have got yourself into Stanley
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:16 AM

Jim,
You have been given the review - it undermines any support for your claim of support for Hastings

No it does not.
Show us any bit that does. I have asked FOUR TIMES NOW!

I spent about three weeks on Macmillan's book (some years ago), and have now had Hastings' for two weeks.

You spent a few days in Dublin, mostly doing other things, and claim to have read all three books which are, as you say, "huge tomes of books."

I've given you what I found McMillan said - she questions both the wisdom and the conduct of the war

No she does not.
How could she and say, " "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. " ?

And, "A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation (of incompetence) and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked. "

It was not an imperial war for Britain, it was a war of defence against a cruel invader.
"Imperial" was added to the name of the museum to acknowledge the contribution of Empire troops. They had complained.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:21 AM

Dave, let us use some of your Gnomian logic on Macmillan's line,
" A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."

She does not qualify "A new generation of British historians," with "some," "many," or "most."
She obviously would if she did not mean "all."

As an historian of WW1, it is her job to read them all.
It is possible we all might have missed one, but not her.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:21 AM

Sheffield said of British generals, "Some were incompetent, most were not."

Meaning that some were. Most does not equal all as I have gone to great lengths to point out before. And don't start berating me for mentioning the word 'cowards'. It was MsMcMillan that first said it via your quote from her book.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM

" it is up to the person making the claim to substantiate it, not up to others to disprove it. Personally I am not claiming that summary executions occurred as I simply do not know. What I am saying is that there is a possibility that they did happen, however rarely, and that possibility should not be discounted out of hand."

Quite right Lofty you lot, primarily Jom and Musktwat originally then Raggy all claim categorically that summary executions were carried out - so according to your rather pompous little speech above - it is up to them to prove that they did indeed happen - two years on from them being called upon to do so and numerous WWI threads later what have we had from them - S.F.A.

Another own goal I'm afraid Lofty - Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:54 AM

"No it does not."
I can see little reason to debate with someone who tells lies and only wants to score points
You keep moving the goalposts - you have been give your behaviour towards the review - that is an exact description of how you reacted and are continue to react
you have not responded to one single point I made in my last posting - you are a shameless, dishonest waste of space.
Both McmIllan and Clark suggested that it took Britain nearly three years to get their act together in assembling a competent and efficient army - McMillan compared it to how long the French took - which meant that for at least two years British troops were fighting badly led and insufficiently trained - hence the high casualties at Loos and on the Somme - you would know this if you had read her book as you claim.
You have been given exampls of actual incompetence - you refuse to respon
d, once more hiding behind historians you haven't read.
"A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation"
You are still relying on hastily gathered cut-'n-pastes and are now dishonestly not linking them - This lot comes from this
Who do you think you're kidding, Mr Hitler
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:54 AM

Ah Lofty - why didn't you quote the whole thing???

"The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961)."

Sorry Lofty but apparently Clark did write a book that would lead clowns such as yourself, Jom, Raggy and Musktwat to believe that ALL the wartime Generals were cowards and incompetents.

Fish in a barrel, Fish in a barrel. Keep em coming Lofty, we can keep batting you down till the cows come home.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 10:03 AM

I am confident that I have never said that any General was a coward. The only mention of a General that I have placed was the comment below at 8.24. Not surprisingly you haven't referred to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 10:09 AM

Another own goal I'm afraid Lofty

Errr, teribums, this was exactly what I was pointing out. It seems that as well as losing the ability to reason you have now also lost the ability to read. You mentioned quoting the whole thing, above, which I will come to later but the whole sentence you partially pasted was What I will say, in fairness as I keep saying it to Keith, it is up to the person making the claim to substantiate it, not up to others to disprove it. That means that everyone as well as Keith needed to substantiate claims. No home goal at all. Just a home truth.

Right - On to what you call a partial quote. The part I quoted changes not one jot with the addition of the rest of it. She still says they were not all incompetents and cowards. Why would someone interested in accurately recording the events of the past use the phrase 'not all' instead of 'none of them' if she did not mean that some of them were?

I see you are now batting fish as well as howling at goals. Are you sure English is your first language? If you need some private tuition I can recommend a personal tutor in Hertford who I believe speaks your language.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 11:05 AM

" Jom and Musktwat originally then Raggy all claim categorically that summary executions were carried out "
Didn't you miss out the soldiers who were there and claimed they happened - course you did - "the liars"!!
Far easier to rely on establishment reports (which you have never at any time produced to deny they happened - though they were widely rumored to have taken place - lying soldiers eh)
"ALL the wartime Generals were cowards and incompetents"
The generals and politicians conducting the wars were incompetents because of the fiascos at Loos and the Dardanelles, the highest level of casualties in the early days of the Somme, the sending of the wrong ammunition and the fact that the politicians and military hated each other so much they couldn't get their act together - not because some historian coming along a century later says they were or weren't.
Address those facts and you might have th makings of an argument, and while you're at it, perhaps you might explain why sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths till one side gave in can possibly be described as anything but good butchery.
They're the ones you have studiously avoided throughout th length of these arguments.
It doesn't take a qualified historian to explain any of these - just to explain them away, as you pair of Blimps have.
Jim Carroll
I wonder are you also disillusioned enough to believe that your permanent sneery talking down to people constitutes good writing?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 11:39 AM

Teribus, I suspect Dave, and GUESTS are enjoying their thrashing just a little too much for it to be altogether healthy :0(

Pin dancing is simply a device to encourage more scolding from you and Keith.

None the less it is excellent entertainment for a winters evening and if you've nothing better to do ....swing the whip!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 11:49 AM

"are enjoying their thrashing just a little too much for it to be altogether healthy "
In your dreams Ake - don't suppose you'd like to put us right - no - didn't think so.
Hit 'n run trollism is much more your style
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 12:48 PM

I think you are right, Jim. The village idiot stands on the sidelines whooping and screeching without really understanding what is going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM

That's the trouble with the Oh What A Lovely War crowd. The stage and screen play relied heavily on Alan Clark's "The Donkeys" and unfortunately none of the left wing CND anti-war Luvvies realised that Clarks book was all about Sir John French and what happened in 1915 - they mistakenly took it to be relevant and representative of the entire war - which of course it was not.

Bad, poor incompetent British Generals? How about Sir John French? Superb job in keeping the BEF intact in the opening months of the war but far too timid by half thereafter so he had to go. Fortunately he was replaced by Douglas Haig who had been giving the Germans headaches since Neuve-Chapelle. At Gallipoli Ian Hamilton distant and unimaginative aided by Fredrick Stopford (A T.A. General for a T.A. Formation) totally useless and incapable of using any initiative he sat around on his arse and allowed his soldiers to do the same under conditions at Suvla where he could have cut the Turks off in one day. Then there was Nixon, Lake and Townshend out in Mesopotamia (Townshend being the worst of the lot) ALL from 1915 the last year commanders of British formations were selected on the Buggins turn principle - AFTER Haig took over on the Western front and Allenby went to Palestine and Maude took over in Mesopotamia they never looked back. But then if any of you clowns HAD done any reading up on the subject you would have known that.

Townshend is compulsory reading for anybody interested in object lessons of how not to lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM

Isn't it what I just suggested, teribums? Some good, some better, some bad. The point being they were not all bad or good.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:08 PM

Jim, you are entitled to your opinion about WW1, but not to lie that any historian agrees with you.
None does.

Macmillan certainly rubbishes all your views, and does so unequivocally IN THE LINK YOU JUST PROVIDED, and which I have given several times already.

Dave,
Meaning that some were (incompetent.)

Huh?
Obviously Dave, and never denied.
I have referred more than once to the incompetence of French, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:14 PM

You might have suggested it Lofty - your pals all to keen on
"The Butcher of the Somme" MYTH and baiting Keith A.

The conclusion reached by those writing about the Great War in recent times has been that in general compared to other combatant nations the British Army during the First World War was well led. And in assessing the veracity of that claim using any metric you wish to name it comes up as being a fairly accurate statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:28 PM

I've been at work all day, hence my late response.

Had Teribus been one of my students, his obnoxious and obstreperous behaviour would have resulted in a sudden need to find a new course of study. [Yes, Teribus, I run History degree courses. You wouldn't be accepted.] As a woman, I am also aggrieved by your condescension.

Teribus also clearly lacks any understanding of the ideological nature of history, otherwise he would have appreciated my earlier comments.

Keith has that all too common failing of not recognising how hegemonies operate. The fact that numerous historians may claim the same thing at contemporaneous times is an indicator of influence.

I cannot comment on anything to do with WW1 - my field is firmly set within the post-WW2 world. However, Keith clearly exhibits a characteristic which some historians call the 'Eccles piece of paper'. It has to be true because it's written on said piece of paper.

I definitely won't comment on this thread again. Life is far too short and Teribus and Keith are far too ugly.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:31 PM

"Jim, you are entitled to your opinion about WW1, but not to lie that any historian agrees with you."
You have your chance to prove me wrong simply by answering the points I put up - it really doesn't get more complicated than that.
A lie is when someone claims that "none does" - when not only haven't they read all (a fairly daunting task for a non-historian anyway) but has openly lied over and over again about books he simply has not read - I repeat " your first claims to have read McMillan and Hastings were two days ago , before that, despite having quoted bits from both extensively, you claimed only to "have read much""
Two days to have read two enormous books - Commmme oooon!!!
"Macmillan certainly rubbishes all your views,"
no she doesn't - and please explain to me how you can possibly say she does on the basis of a couple of lines
"Bad, poor incompetent British Generals"
Good butchers don't make good generals - but you refuse to respond to that aspect of how the war was conducted.
While you both refuse to responds to the points made about the actual cock ups that lost so many lives you will continue to appear the tossers you are
KEITH'S APPROACH TO HISTORY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:34 PM

Good! Glad we all agree that some were better than others. Like everything else in this life there was some good and some bad. This is what I find quite alarming about the attitude of some posters. Everything is either black or white. You are either for us or against us. I have found from experience that life just isn't like that and there is an element of good comes out of even the worse things. Like war!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM

Sums the opposition up perfectly Guest
This is going to go the same way as Keith's horrific 'Muslim implants' claim - blamed somebody else for telling him to say it, was given hundreds of chances to reveal his sources and humiliate us all but he refused - speaks for itself really
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM

...oh, and conversely there is an element of bad even in the best!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:49 PM

Jim,
your first claims to have read McMillan and Hastings were two days ago , before that, despite having quoted bits from both extensively,

That is not true.
I have never quoted from Macmilan's book because I do not still have a copy and it is a couple of years since I read it.
I borrowed a copy of Hastings' book about two weeks ago, and have never before claimed to have read it.


You have your chance to prove me wrong simply by answering the points I put up

I thought I had.
Put up anything you want me to answer but just 2 at a time.

Two days to have read two enormous books - Commmme oooon!!!

You claimed to have read three in just a few days while doing other things in Dublin!
I told you, "I spent about three weeks on Macmillan's book (some years ago), and have now had Hastings' for two weeks."

and please explain to me how you can possibly say she does on the basis of a couple of lines

Because those lines unequivocally and unambiguously rubbish your views, and she has done so in several articles and essays.

but you refuse to respond to that aspect of how the war was conducted.
Yes I have. I have shown you that the historians agree that the British Army was generally well and competently led.
They know more about it that you Jim.

While you both refuse to responds to the points made about the actual cock ups that lost so many lives you will continue to appear the tossers you are

Of course mistakes were made!
Do you really think that a WW1 historian is less aware of that than you?
Taking all that into account, they conclude that the British Army was generally well and competently led.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:52 PM

Before you disappear, I put this to you yet again Dr. Modette,

My views come from reading WW1 histories.
Nothing written in the last twenty years contradict them.
Nothing written in the last twenty years supports the views expressed by Jim.

Do you challenge any of those facts Modette?
If you do, please give details.
I provide quotes from numerous historians working on that period.
What can you provide?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM

Modette,

Even if you will not comment I hope you are still reading the thread. I am not an historian, but I am an academic and I have many times witnessed what you refer to as hegemonies. You won't get grant money, or access to facilities, or appointments to peer review panels when your views as expressed in your applications run counter to the current consensus. Then, suddenly, the consensus moves and you do. Or not. So I am perfectly prepared to believe that there has been a move in the last 20 years towards a reactionary view of the histories of the world wars. And I am also perfectly prepared to believe that it has little to do with new information, and a lot to do with political expediency. But I am also prepared to believe that Keith is wrong in his interpretation that all modern historians agree with the reactionary viewpoint, indeed we have already seen that Ferguson, and the two I gave who Keith decreed to be too old (although they are still living) do not. Much of the support for Keith's viewpoint seems to come from Catriona Pennel, who is the one serious academic (i.e. REF submittable) in his list. But I can't at the moment access her work.