Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 07:45 AM

It is you Jim stuck in the past.
Your views have been discredited for decades.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:02 AM

One day, people will marvel at how in the twenty first century, the establishment tried to make disastrous mistakes, indifference and stupidity look somehow respectable.

The most fascinating part of their research being how gullible shallow fools were to take it in and try arguing in favour of awful revision.

By the way, the photo of the crowds lining up at the butcher of The Somme's funeral. I bet I can find a better one. Kim Jong 'I'll. How about Franco? Stalin got a decent turnout too by all accounts.

You don't have to show photos to demonstrate public gullibility Keith. Just read posts by you and Terribulus.

😹😹




By the way. In the late '70s, many Spaniards climbed the mountain to Franco's tomb to pay their respect. By the '80s, they were climbing it to make sure he was still dead. Juan A of Costa Tosser is posting to say how good Franco was, all the same.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:24 AM

Hang on, someone referred to me as Terribulus can we have some clarity.

By the way, some of what is being said does not make sense. Is it a requirement for following the arguments to also be reading the parallel squabble ?

Or would that not help ?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:48 AM

"Your views have been discredited for decades."
Where - show us you historians who say that the soldiers weren't tricked into joining and they entered the war willingly
Paxman showed all the tricks and inducements - the crook who ran the recruiting campaigns - ther "gallant little Belgium posters, the unemployment and the offers of "adventure" - the voluntary enlistment turning into enforced recruitment, the white feathers, the disillusionment of the soldiers on leave, the fact that everybody at home appeared to be unaware of the war.....
He covered the miscalculation of The Somme, the Kitchener cock-up, forcing him to resign.....
You have refused to respond to the fact that in order to silence Sassoon's criticism, he was locked in an asylum until he stopped his anti war campaign.
You have denied the statements of the soldiers by calling them liars.....
Where are your "historians" who "discredited" all this Names and statements?       
You claim all this is untrue on the basis of historians you haven't read - where is your evidence.
Jim Carroll
Please don't say you've produced proof - you have only made claims

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 09:59 AM

Ah yes Christmas - Tell us again what was the date when Kitchener was forced to resign again.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 10:11 AM

I've just asked a question - you first
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 12:37 PM

Musket, there was an unprecedented outpouring of grief on Haig's death and unlike N Korea it was entirely spontaneous.
People turned out in winter in greater numbers than for Princess Diana in summer.
It was over ten years after the armistice.
Were they just moronically stupid and brainwashed?
No.
They believed in the war they had just fought and they believed in him.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 12:48 PM

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question - no answer will be answer enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:13 PM

Jim, you have been shown lots of historians stating that the people including soldiers believed in the war.
You even saw and heard Paxman telling you that.

Re the reaction of people to the show at the time, here an historian writes about it.
http://www.warhistorian.org/todman.php

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:18 PM

"Two things stand out from contemporary reviews of Oh What a Lovely War . First, very few reviewers perceived the play as an objective representation of historical truth. This was not an unsophisticated audience: they came expecting performances that were left-wing, experimental and controversial. It is worth bearing in mind that, despite Theatre Workshop's aim of bringing theatre to the working class, much of its audience at Stratford consisted of regular theatregoers who were willing to travel out from the West End. A significant part of the audience for the play's first year of performance in both Stratford and Wyndham's Theatre on the Aldwych, where it transferred for the second half of its run, was middle-aged and middle class. Much though the programme notes might claim that: ‘everything spoken during this evening either happened or was said, sung or written during 1914-18', many in the audience were critical of what they were watching on historical grounds. The Guardian 's reviewer noted that Oh What a Lovely War was ‘as unfair as any powerful cartoon'. (16) The Times criticised the play for portraying:

The familiar view of the 1914-18 war as a criminally wasteful adventure in which the stoic courage of the common soldiers was equalled only by the sanctimonious incompetence of their commanders and the blind jingoism of the civilians. This approach is hardly likely to send audiences storming out of the theatre: the war is a sitting target for anyone who wants to deliver a bludgeoning social criticism without giving offence. (17)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:26 PM

Aye, its her fault, jumping into bed with that MacColl fellow....

Considering the fact that many who paid to watch it had first hand experience, it would have been a flop if ...

Hang on? Who wrote that post above?

It is in the name of Keith A Hole of Hertford but is copied from somewhere in its entirity, including reference marks.

There again, he obviously has no argument of his own, assessing and commenting on all that revisionist shit he reads... He just lazily prints it and challenges rational people to deny it. He once got shirty with me for suggesting that was the limit of his wit.

Still waiting for him to show a different limit...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 01:28 PM

"Jim, you have been shown lots of historians stating that the people including soldiers believed in the war."
Didn't I say that this would be your answer?
I've given you what Paxman said - Paxman is not one of your "historians" - that you claim to overwhelmingly support your case
C'mon Keith - you are the master of cut-'n-paste - show us what they said- or not, as the case may be.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 02:57 PM

http://www.warhistorian.org/todman.php

"Please do not quote or cite without the author's permission" (doesn't mean much but raised a smile in the circumstances)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:23 PM

Musket, I post serious stuff to support my case.
That was historian Dan Todman writing about the subject of this thread, backing up what I say.
All you can do is make unsupported assertions.
Jim, Paxman is not an historian but his programmes were made in collaboration with the OU History Department.

I am just saying what historians say.
That is where I get it from.
You just spout myths based on ideological dogma.
The argument is you against all the historians.
You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,punkfolrocker
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:42 PM

.. just a reminder.... later tonight - Channel 4

also from 1964..

2:25am-4:00am (1 hour 35 minutes) Sat 22 Nov

"King & Country" (1964)

An army captain is ordered to represent a soldier on trial for desertion.
The defendant recounts the horrific experiences in the trenches
that finally compelled him to turn his back on the conflict,
leaving the hostile officer to sympathise with his actions
and try desperately to save him from the firing squad.
First World War drama, starring Dirk Bogarde and Tom Courtenay

Category: War

Director: Joseph Losey.


A good solid movie drama...???

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:19 PM

"I am just saying what historians say."
You are not even saying wht historians say - you are just saying that they said it
Who are they and what did they say?
Answers on a plain postcard please
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:10 AM

Try Brian Bond for a start:


Liddell Hart: a study of his military thought. London: Cassell, 1977; New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1977;[3] Aldershot: Gregg Revivals in association with Department of War Studies, King's College London, 1991.


Staff officer: the diaries of Walter Guinness (first Lord Moyne), 1914–1918, edited by Brian Bond and Simon Robbins. London: Leo Cooper, 1987.

The First World War and British military history, edited by Brian Bond. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.


The pursuit of victory: from Napoleon to Saddam Hussein, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, 1998.


Look to your front: studies in the First World War by the British Commission for Military History; Brian Bond et al. Staplehurst: Spellmount, 1999.

Haig: a reappraisal 70 years on, edited by Brian Bond and Nigel Cave. London: Leo Cooper, 1999.

Haig: a reappraisal 80 years on, edited by Brian Bond and Nigel Cave. Barnsley, Pen and Sword Military, 2009.

The unquiet Western Front: Britain's role in literature and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

The British General Staff: reform and innovation c.1890-1939, edited by David French and Brian Holden Reid in honour of: Brian Bond. London: Frank Cass, 2002.

The war memoirs of Earl Stanhope, General Staff Officer in France, 1914–1918 by Lieutenant Colonel Earl Stanhope, edited by Brian Bond. Brighton: Tom Donovan Editions, 2006.

Of the above the most informative is "The Unquiet Western Front" Peer reviews as follows:

1: The Spectator: -Professor Brian Bond makes a thought-provoking bid to claw the First World War back to history, away from popular myth … Brian Bond's arresting, sensible book, concentrating in 100-odd lucid pages the historical evidence against the myth, is a gift to teachers and a welcome antidote to the distorted popular image of the first world war. It may be long before historians win their battle, but The Unquiet Western Front shows where the lines should be drawn.'

2: History Today: -"Anyone who wants to reflect about the Great War and its role in shaping modern British thinking about war must read [this].'

3: Royal United Services Institute Journal: -"'… an important critique of the anti-war culture that is so influential in framing popular suppositions today.'

4: The Salisbury Review: -"a well documented and carefully considered attack on the treatment of the First World War by the literary world and the populist media …'

5: BBC History Magazine: -"'The Unquiet Western Front is a concisely compelling defence of the British war effort … [it] is required reading for anyone who wishes to understand scholarship on the Great War as we approach the ninetieth anniversary of the war's outbreak.'

6: The Academic: -"Britain's outstanding military achievement in the First World War has been eclipsed by literary myths. Why has the Army's role on the Western Front been so seriously misrepresented? This 2002 book shows how myths have become deeply rooted, particularly in the inter-war period, in the 1960s, and in the 1990s. The outstanding 'anti-war' influences have been 'war poets', subalterns' trench memoirs, the book and film of All Quiet on the Western Front, and the play Journey's End. For a new generation in the 1960s the play and film of Oh What a Lovely War had a dramatic effect, while more recently Blackadder has been dominant. Until more recently, historians had either reinforced the myths, or had failed to counter them. This book follows the intense controversy from 1918 to the present, and concludes that historians are at last permitting the First World War to be placed in proper perspective.

After that there is Dan Snow and Jeremy Paxman who in his series of programmes completely disagrees with everything you have said

So Bond; Snow; Paxman then I would refer you to the names detailed in my post of 20 Nov 14 - 01:58 AM

Now then Christmas tell us all again the date on which Lord Kitchener resigned.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:27 AM

I am familiar with some of those - Paxman contradicts you completely completely - the "liars" who were there - still the most disgusting statement both of you have made to back your case, contradict you out of their own mouths, Hastings has been castigated for his condemnation of the military, yet you have both presented him as a "historian" who backs your case.
You claim overwhelming support - where is it.
Kitchener was regarded as an embarrassment by the establishment and was forced to tender his resignation after the arms supply fiasco at the beginning of 1916 - the fact that the Government felt that it would be too much of a setback to accept that resignation out of the further embarrassment that would have caused is beside the point - he offered his resignation.
Lloyd Goerge summed up how he was regarded by the establisment in his memoires, and his position was such that, when he was drowened off Orkney shortly afterwards it was reckoned by many to have been a deliberate act - a rumour still current up there up to 20 years ago
Covered fully in Paxman
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 05:43 AM

I recall a bit too. (Took an interest for a while a few years ago.).

Funny how we normal people read it differently to those with disturbed pro slaugher minds...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:05 PM

Jim, without going back over old threads where I quoted historian after historian and you none, just look at current threads in recent days.
That historian in the Times Higher Educational Supplement.
Read the whole thing.
He rubbishes your silly views.
Likewise The Historian Todman writing about the show in the thread title.
Read the whole thing.
He rubbishes your silly views.
It is so easy to produce Historians who rubbish your silly views because they ALL do!
You still have not found a single one who believes what you do because it is just politically motivated bollocks.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:23 PM

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/he-had-hatred-thrust-upon-him/99766.article

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:29 PM

http://www.warhistorian.org/todman.php

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 14 - 04:59 PM

Historian Dr Gary Sheffield.
His own actual words Jim.
German policies in occupied territory fell short of the genocidal approach of their Nazi successors, but were brutal enough. In occupied France and Belgium there was a 'reign of terror', to quote two modern French historians, involving deportations, forced labour, and harsh living conditions. Democracy and liberalism would have been extinguished in most of continental Europe. No wonder the Allied troops advancing in 1918 were greeted rapturously as liberators by French and Belgian civilians in the occupied zone. For Britain to have stayed out of the war would have been to condemn the peoples of occupied Europe to a very dark existence.

British faced an existential threat in 1914. A German victory would have imperilled the security of the British state and Empire, and left it in the position it actually found itself in a generation later, in 1940 – isolated, without allies, and facing a bleak future. That is why Britain entered the war and continued to fight it, in spite of the appalling cost. The British people were prepared to bear that cost: the evidence is clear that they recognised that there was something worse than the war – a German victory.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 03:25 AM

You have come up with three historians - two, Sheffield and Todman, are or were employees of the British military establishment and Daniel De Groote, who set up The Dharma Institute, financially backed by Danish industrialist and munitions magnate Alvar Hanso and his Hanso Foundation – all three have direct connections to militararism
All three, you claim, back your argument that those who died in W.W.1., did so for a good cause, and went to their deaths voluntarily, believing in a cause and knowing what they fought for – where do any of these, somewhat dubious character witnesses make any such claim?
De Groote argues; "Haig has been accused, perhaps justifiably, of being insensitive to suffering. His religious beliefs may have inspired a confident but dangerous fatalism. Certainty in life everlasting could have caused him to be careless with lives temporal. But, given that this war was destined to involve massive losses, would a more sensitive commander have succeeded?"
He goes on to recall that "many soldiers would eventually remember Haig as the Butcher of the Somme," - Terrytoon asked for evidence that this was the case – there you have it.
Todman's article is based entirely on an analysis of a musical, 'Oh What a Lovely War- a total red-herring; both the musical and the 'Blackadder' series were satirical fantasies based on W.W.1. – neither were historical documentaries, nor did they claim to be – they were what they were SATIRICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF AN INHUMANLY CONDUCTED BLOODBATH.
You both have claimed throughout, a consensus among historians in support of the idea that the war was justified, supported and well conducted – this it what you have managed to dredge up over the last 24 hours desperate trawl through the net - where is your consensus?
Way back, you were presented with a list of over 100 war historians, all studying W.W.1. from different aspects, many conflicting, sometimes diametrically – no consensus there, in fact, you claimed the list was too long to be understood.
The evidence put forward by some of those actually fighting, you have described as "lies" or minority views, yet you have put forward no evidence that there was either conscious enthusiasm for the war or support for the leadership – none whatever.
Those who gave their lives were either tricked or coerced into doing so – the cause they gave their lives for, on both sides, was for Imperial domination, the continuing enrichment of the wealthiest and strongest nations by exploiting the poorest.
Must try harder, I would say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 04:18 AM

Gerard DeGroot is senior lecturer in modern history at the University of St Andrews and was the historical consultant to the Timewatch documentary Douglas Haig: Lion or Donkey? aired earlier this month.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 04:21 AM

Oh, so nt conclusice then?

😂😂🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 04:22 AM

Not



Conclusive


Grrr

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 04:23 AM

You can desperately try to discredit individual historians, but they ALL agree on those issues I have raised.
There is a lot of history in that Todman piece and I have quoted him many times including from BBC sites.


Dan Todman
Queen Mary University of London
Dr Dan Todman took his first degree at the London School of Economics, before moving to Pembroke College, Cambridge, where he undertook his doctoral research on representations of the First World War in British popular culture from 1918-1998. He then taught in the War Studies Department of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, before coming to Queen Mary in the summer of 2003. He was named the Times Young Academic Author of the Year 2005 for the book of his thesis, The Great War, Myth and Memory. Dr Todman works on the military, social and cultural history of war in Britain during the twentieth century, on the remembrance of modern war, and the 'memory boom' in popular culture. Much of his research has focussed on the ways people form their their ideas about the past, with a focus on the myths that arise in the aftermath of war. He is a passionate believer in the need to combine the history of combat with the history of the society and culture from which combatants came. Dr Todman is currently researching and writing a new history of Britain in the Second World War. He is also working on the impact of the internet on the remembrance of the First World War in contemporary Britain.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 04:45 AM

I think that if all the historians agree, it IS conclusive.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 04:48 AM

"You can desperately try to discredit individual historians,"
I've told you who they were and what their military connections are -
show me this is not so
De Grootman is not jut a military mouthpiece - he is part of the armaments establishment.
WHERE IS YOUR "CONSENSUS
Pa-the-tic, doncha think?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 06:07 AM

All the historians....

Where did they agree, at their AGM?

Hah! Hah!

😂😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 01:52 PM

If you want more, I can start harvesting the quotes from all the ones I quoted on previous threads.
Musket, they do not have AGMs, but they all say exactly the same thing about those issues I have raised.
That is where my views came from..
From Historians.
Where do you get your history from boys?
Outmoded political dogma from another century.
You can not produce or find a single Historian who believes what you do.
You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 02:19 PM

Keith - would you actually welcome another war like WW1 or WW2....??? just curious...

Or, do you think historians have got sufficient reputation and career building academic material from those first 2 world wars...???

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 03:03 PM

"You can not produce or find a single Historian who believes what you do."
I've given you the choice out of 100 - you refused even to look at them
You still have't provided one single statement from one reliable historian - every one you've mentioned (all three) is an establishment lackey - one is directly involved in the arms industry - what else are they going to say except "war is OK as long as our side is winning"?
You claim an "overwhelming majority" for your view - three lackeys and a tabloid journalist who thinks the British military was shit doesn't fit that description
Even your istorians don't claim a "majority" for their veiw - they all say "the popular view of the war must be challenged, making them the misfits.
Outmoded? - Flag-wagging jingoism is what is outmoded - lethally so in the case of W.W.1. - it sent the pride of British youth to their deaths for "God, King and Country".
Good cause - freedom from German tyranny?
I'm sure the Congolese would much rather have been slaughtered in their millions or had their hands removed by Gallant Little Belgium rather than those nasty Germans!
The War was hardly over when the British Army were slaughtering unarmed Indians at Amritsar - wasn't that much more preferable than being seen off by 'The Huns'?
Shortly afterwards British troops were firing into the football crowd at Croke Park during the first of several 'Bloody Sundays' - luck old Dubliners; it could easily have been German troops.
Then came the depression, the appeasement, the rise of fascism, bring with it the Holocaust - "Land fit for heroes" my arseum.
And it didn't stop there.... the Empire still had a few rabbits in its hat, as the castrated Kenyans have just testified.
Don't want a rose garden - you promised me a consensus - where is it?   
Mind you - the overwhelming support you're getting here might be the reason you believe "I've won" - but hang on a minute....!!
Looks like the rest of the world's mad and you and the Chocolate Soldier are the only sane ones - again - unless I've missed something!
Rule Britannia eh, keep the home fires burning till the "liars" come home, and all that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 14 - 03:22 PM

"Establishment lackeys"
So like Musket Jim, you think that all those Historians are lying to hide the truth.
I do not remember you offering a hundred, so please just produce one single Historian who believes the shit that you do.

PFR, war is always a catastrophe for the people caught up in it.
In 1914 and in 1939 a vicious aggressor began wars of conquest across Europe.
There was no other way to stop them but for brave men to stand against them.
Not moronic dupes incapable of understanding the cause.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 02:41 AM

OK then Christmas shall we review what has been said

Jim Carroll - 21 Nov 14 - 09:48 AM

"the Kitchener cock-up, forcing him to resign.....

Now then oh great one with such a grip on reality that appears to be a fairly definite statement (Untrue, incorrect, false, but so definite you chose not to further elaborate on it) that prompted my fairly reasonable question (That I had to ask you how many times Christmas??):

Teribus - 21 Nov 14 - 09:59 AM

"Tell us again what was the date when Kitchener was forced to resign again."

Admittedly you ducked it for as long as you could and felt that after I had complied with your you go first demand you were honour bound to answer my question we got:

Jim Carroll - 22 Nov 14 - 04:27 AM

"Kitchener was regarded as an embarrassment by the establishment and was forced to tender his resignation after the arms supply fiasco at the beginning of 1916 - the fact that the Government felt that it would be too much of a setback to accept that resignation out of the further embarrassment that would have caused is beside the point - he offered his resignation."

Now then Christmas that little quote from your post is rather interesting and here are a few points I'd like to raise regarding just pure commonsense and logic:

1: Note the change? "Forced to Resign" has now been changed to "forced to tender his resignation" - Bit of a difference there isn't there?

2: Kitchener was NOT forced to resign - In fact he did not resign at all did he?

He was appointed as Secretary of State for War an appointment he held from 5th August 1914 (The Day after war had been declared Christmas)

He remained in the position of Secretary of State for War until the 5th June 1916 (The day he died Christmas)

3: So do you really contend that the establishment forced him to tender his resignation, yet in the same breath you state that that same establishment felt that they could not possibly allow him to resign in order to save themselves embarrassment? Are you totally f**kin crazy?? Sorry Christmas old son that simply does not wash - it makes absolutely no sense at all - but then on historical matters you very seldom ever make any sense at all - something to do with your inability to grasp detail and your complete and utter failure to recognise the importance of it.

But having now traveled all round the houses we have now reached the stage where we can say conclusively that at no point at all was Kitchener EVER FORCED TO RESIGN, he was never ever even forced by anyone to tender his resignation - on the other hand I do believe that on numerous occasions between August 1914 and June 1916 that he, Kitchener himself threatened to resign but no-one in the Cabinet or in the Government was ever even remotely going to seriously consider allowing him to do it.

"Cabinet Secretary Maurice Hankey wrote of Kitchener:

The great outstanding fact is that within eighteen months of the outbreak of the war, when he had found a people reliant on sea-power, and essentially non-military in their outlook, he had conceived and brought into being, completely equipped in every way, a national army capable of holding its own against the armies of the greatest military Power the world had ever seen."

Just the sort of man you would force to resign at the height of a major war eh Christmas - I know you would because you are an idiot.

"On 2 June 1916, Lord Kitchener personally answered questions asked by politicians about his running of the war effort

He received a resounding vote of thanks from the 200 Members of Parliament who had arrived to question him, both for his candour and for his efforts to keep the troops armed; Sir Ivor Herbert, who, a week before, had introduced the failed vote of censure in the House of Commons against Kitchener's running of the War Department, personally seconded the motion."

So who was it again who "forced him to tender his resignation" Christmas??


Some other things that you may or may not have known about Kitchener Christmas:

From the outset of hostilities he never believed that it would be a short, sharp war - No "Over by Christmas" crap from Kitchener.

From the outset of hostilities Kitchener believed that the War in Europe would last between three and four years and that to fight it Great Britain, for the first time ever in it's entire existence, would have to raise an Army of millions - Sounds as though he was pretty much on the money there doesn't it Christmas. Oddly enough the British Commander of ISAF out in Afghanistan in 2006/2007 Sir David Richards made equally accurate predictions about Afghanistan in February 2007 - as he handed over to US General "Bomber" McNeill. But back to Kitchener Christmas, how did he know? What had he based his predictions on? He'd fought the Boer War - and here's you and Musket and the like telling us all that the British Army Command was too thick and incompetent to learn lessons - the truth, however, was exactly the opposite though wasn't it - they were about the only combatant power fighting the Great War THAT DID LEARN LESSONS and adapt to changing circumstance and the realities of what unfolded accordingly - one of the reasons we won, old son - a fact you cannot argue with.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:31 AM

"So like Musket Jim, you think that all those Historians are lying to hide the truth."
You mean all three and the tabloid journalist? - that's all you've given us.
You are not responding to me description of who and what they are, so I assume you accept it - not lying - agenda driven, like you.
You choose to write off soldiers' accounts of the war as "lies" and prefer 'historical analyses' by establishment figures- sums it all really
For today's establishment the war has become Joss Stone and Dave Beck's schmaltz and pretty ceramic poppies - that is the level you and yours have reduced the massive obscene slaughter too and that is how you would have us remember it.
Captain Mannering and you choose to continue to 'Fight the Hun' showing that the world is still stalked by jingoistic neanderthals who would "start it all over again", as Bogle's other, and probably better song puts it.
You are a pair of Empire Loyalists -
The Empire collapsed under the weight of so many corpses; out of common decency for their memory, you might at least recognise that fact instead of branding them out-of-step "liars", as you have.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 05:42 AM

Oxford historian Margaret MacMillan:
(Another establishment lackey?)

"The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous 'The Donkeys' (1961). ... And was the war just a dreadful mistake or was it about something? ... It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. British soldiers felt they were fighting for their country and its values."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 05:51 AM

Catriona Pennel from her WWI History.

"did not back the war because they were deluded, brainwashed or naively duped into an idiotic bloodbath as the subsequent myth would have it.
Rather, their support was often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted"

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:10 AM

Pennell

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:15 AM

So I think .. whatever Keith says I think?

Telepathy and ignorance, what a wonderful combination.

Are you capable of seeing anything other than polar opposites Keith?

thought not.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:16 AM

This is not about "cowards and incompetents" - it never was.
It is about the ruthlessness of the war; the fact that millions of men were expendable for the cause of empire and that yards of useless territory were won at the cost of human lives.
The incompetence of clowns like Kitchener and the indifference to human life were covered fully in the Paxman series by the 'wrong shells' fiasco and by Passchendaele.
The reasons for joining were also fully covered by Paxman - these have never bee in doubt - whatever Ms. Pennell's opinions might be (no evidence so far to the contrary - though you still refuse to respond to your "liars" accusation.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:26 AM

Polar opposites?
Paman's series rubbished all your views.
Would you like his to camera quotes again?

I get my History from Historians.
You reject the Historians in the laughable, deluded belief that you know more about it than they do.
You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:52 AM

"Paman's series rubbished all your views."
No he didn't and you know it - it is why you refuse to respond to the fact that the recruiting campaign, prior to enforced conscription (necessary because recruiting has dwindled due to the disillusionment that had set in) was run by a speculator who ws finally imprisoned for his speculation.
The name 'Pennell rang a bell - her lecture appears on one of the links you have given
She pointed out that the reasons for enlisting were complicated - initially enthusiastic, then later, in response to the situation that those already fighting found themselves in - "let's help our boys"
Never, at any time, does she give jingoistic enthusiasm for the cause as a reason for joining up.
YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO INTENTION OF FOLLOWING UP YOUR PREVIOUS ACCUSATION OF "LYING AND OUT-OF-STEP VETERANS" and will continue to dredge the internet for out-of-context quotes in order to prove that's what theywere - nice way to remember millions of dead young men eh?
You do not read history, you use bits of it to back up your jingoism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:56 AM

I get my fish from the fishmongers.

I get my knowledge of the past from various sources and assess them on merit.

I do accept that this requires a level of intelligence we are not all either born with or can develop with time, but don't blame me for your own inadequacies.

"You lose." What a wonderful statement.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom BoomBoom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom thick Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom cunt Boom BoomBoom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:58 AM

"You reject the Historians in the laughable, deluded belief that you know more about it than they do."

Keith A of Hertford's take on Jim Carroll's view of historians.

It is a damned sight worse than that Keith - Christmas on one thread actually claimed to know more about what someone said at a minuted meeting held in 1921 than that person did themselves, even to the tune of stating that the signed minutes taken at the meeting were wrong.

He claims that Kitchener was forced to resign - WRONG

He claims that Conscientious Objectors were shipped off to France and executed - WRONG

He claims that armed British Military Police lined up behind troops about to go "over-the-top" with orders to shoot those who turned back - WRONG

His evidence to substantiate that these things happened centre around conversations that he's had with a few "old soldiers" whose word must be taken as gospel truth - right altogether everyone - "And the Band played believe it if you can" - Christmas ever heard of this old service expression "To shoot someone a line"?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 07:06 AM

I quoted an extract from her book,
"The British and Irish people did not back the war because they were deluded, brainwashed or naively duped into an idiotic bloodbath as the subsequent myth would have it.
Rather, their support was often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted"

All countries in all wars have recruiting campaigns.
Only this campaign produced far more recruits than the authorities could even process.
You will not find a single Historian who claims that people were tricked into joining.
Paxman was emphatic that the people supported the war to the end, and that is the view of the Historians.

Can you find a single one to challenge that Jim?
No you can not because there are none.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 07:16 AM

Pennell again.

In the UK, most people still believe that the summer of 1914 was a golden age, shattered by an unexpected conflict, and that British soldiers on the Western Front were led by incompetent generals, whose sole purpose was to sadistically send them to their death...... Academic scholarship, however prolific, has failed to penetrate popular minds on this topic.
These issues must be addressed in advance of the centenary period of 2014 – 2018. With no more surviving 'Tommies', and a declining number of Second World War veterans, a growing distance from the past is at risk of being filled with yet more myth-making. This paper will seek to explore the chronology of popular memory and the First World War from 1918 to the present day, with particular focus on the post-Second World War period. It will then raise a number of issues for discussion regarding the role of historians in the commemorative process. Are we to wade in with our size 12 feet, shaking our finger, and pointing to the foolish errors made by the general public on a topic that we know in such intricate detail? Are we to chastise and correct? If so, how can we do this in a way that does not alienate historical research from a public audience? Or should historians stand back from commemorative processes and attempt to ignore the trite that may appear?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 07:29 AM

Can anybody remember that Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse sketch, The Self Righteous Brothers? Terribulus and TC are doing a wonderful third rate impression.

Oy! Christmas NO!!!!

etc etc.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 07:37 AM

How can anyone not be self righteous when faced with ignorant clowns who think they understand History much better than the Hisorians!?
Ignorant clowns who think the Historians have got the History all wrong.
Ignorant clowns who alternately think that the Historians have the History right but they are lying about it!

You have not just lost the argument Musket, you have exposed your self as a ludicrous buffoon.