Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]


BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

DigiTrad:
CHRISTMAS 1914
CHRISTMAS IN THE TRENCHES


Related threads:
(origins) Origins: Christmas in the Trenches (McCutcheon) (71)
Lyr Add: Christmas 1914 (Cormac MacConnell) (34)
Christmas Truce (5)
Lyr Req: Christmas in the Trenches (J McCutcheon) (13)
The Christmas Truce (14)
WW 1 christmas song (16) (closed)
Lyr Req: A Silent Night (Christmas 1915) (20)
Lyr Req: Christmas in the trenches (9)
(origins) Origins: Song about Xmas & WWI (3) (closed)
Xmas in the Trenches Survivor Dies (41)
Musical Question - Christmas, 1914 (14)
Lyr Req: Christmas day 1960something? / 1914 (3) (closed)
Chords Req: Christmas in the Trenches (20)
Lyr Req: Belleau Wood (Garth Brooks) (23)
Lyr Req: Christmas in the Trenches (4) (closed)


Greg F. 09 Jan 14 - 10:34 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Jan 14 - 10:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 14 - 10:00 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Jan 14 - 09:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 14 - 09:39 AM
Greg F. 09 Jan 14 - 08:35 AM
McGrath of Harlow 09 Jan 14 - 08:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 14 - 07:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 14 - 07:30 AM
GUEST,Musket 09 Jan 14 - 07:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 14 - 06:49 AM
GUEST,Musket 09 Jan 14 - 04:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 14 - 04:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 14 - 04:04 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Jan 14 - 04:02 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 14 - 02:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Jan 14 - 02:32 AM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Jan 14 - 08:46 PM
Greg F. 08 Jan 14 - 08:12 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Jan 14 - 07:51 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Jan 14 - 06:59 PM
Greg F. 08 Jan 14 - 06:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Jan 14 - 06:34 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 05:03 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 04:57 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 04:51 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 14 - 04:38 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 04:36 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 04:17 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 04:10 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 14 - 02:49 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Jan 14 - 02:19 PM
Greg F. 08 Jan 14 - 02:07 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 01:54 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 01:39 PM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Jan 14 - 01:38 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 14 - 01:16 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 11:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 11:54 AM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Jan 14 - 11:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 11:13 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 14 - 10:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 10:56 AM
GUEST,Seaham Cemetry 08 Jan 14 - 10:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 09:03 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 08:59 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 14 - 08:46 AM
GUEST,Grishka 08 Jan 14 - 08:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 08:31 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 14 - 08:11 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:34 AM

I knew from my reading that historians had shown that not to be the case. I also knew that historians did not regard the war as in any way futile, and that the army was generally well led.

Sigh.

A few historians, Keith, certainly not all historians nor the majority of historians.

Once again, repeating nonsense, especially after its proven to be nonsense, still doesn't make it true.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:31 AM

Michael Gove is an historian? Well I never...

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:00 AM

Did you try any of my links to the works of historians Dave?
I found them hard to reconcile with the piece in your link.
(Hastings is the only historian I am aware of who has in any way approved of Gove's outburst)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 09:47 AM

Is it not just some random person's uninformed opinions?


Yes it is. Michaels Gove's. Unfortunately his opinions were published in the Daily Mail and lots of people will believe him. The article I linked provided a very valid argument against what he published and linked to 2 x further such articles.

Cheers

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 09:39 AM

In the essays and extracts we have available, we do not see how research has led to and supports a conclusion.
Other historians would not accept anything from a peer (rival) that could not be substantiated.

There really is a remarkable consensus that the views of Clark and Liddel Hart were wrong but are still pervasive.

I got into this by saying I did not like songs that portrayed the British soldier of WW1 as someone who did not know or understand what he was doing or why, and was just a dupe of the establishment.

I knew from my reading that historians had shown that not to be the case.
I also knew that historians did not regard the war as in any way futile, and that the army was generally well led.

For saying that, you have seen the kind of abuse I receive.
That is all they can do because none of them have any actual knowledge.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 08:35 AM

I am not assuming that Keith is guilty of such a gross distortion.

Supposing one grants that, there are obviously any number of OTHER gross distortions he is guilty of.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 08:17 AM

There is a distinction between believing something and having a set opinion. We talk about concrete setting, and that is the metaphor involved.

I note that you ignore the distinction I made between the things about which academic historians can reasonably expected to have some special expertise, such as about the facts of what happened, and the area where they do not, speculation about what might have happened but didn't.

The assertion that there was "no choice" for Britain but to wage war falls squarely into the latter category. (Unless it is a statement about the psychology of the decision makers, so that being the people they were there was no possibility that they could have acted otherwise, seeing them as some kind of automatons...)

If Alan Clark actually said that "The wartime generals were all cowards and incompetents " I would think it likely that that would have been overegging the pudding. I suspect that an examination of his book would indicate that to be an oversimplification of what he actually wrote. But the crucial issue in any case is not whether they were cowards and incompetents but rather that they made significant mistakes that caused the deaths of enormous numbers of their soldiers.

There seems to be a suggestion that the view that the war should be seen as a disaster rather than a success that vindicated the decision to wage it, and the manner in which it was waged means that the heroism and dedication of the soldiers is disregarded. That is untrue and extremely offensive. At any rate that seems the view of Michael Gove. I am not assuming that Keith is guilty of such a gross distortion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 07:46 AM

Historians complain Government's WW1 commemoration 'focuses on British defeats'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10037507/Historians-complain-Governments-WW1-commemoration-focuses-on-British-defeats.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 07:30 AM

It is not just Hastings and not just Cameron.
WW2 has not been mythologised in the same way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 07:27 AM

If Hastings says the prime minister gets all his WW1 knowledge from comedies but deep research based opinions from WW2, then yes, I am challenging him. I challenge how he can come to that conclusion. If his rationale is similar for all his views then they are in question.

Half a dozen lemmings can never be wrong eh?

Arsehole.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 06:49 AM

No oracle of mine.
I thought he was supporting the establishment.
That does not include the Tory pm then.

Do you know any historians who seriously challenge anything by Hastings?
No.
All the historians discussed on these threads have come to the same conclusions, but what do they know about History!

You lot know more than all of them put together.
Right muppet?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 04:55 AM

If Hastings says The Prime Minister appears to be accurate re his take on WW2, but got his WW1 from Blackadder, it says more about Hastings and his cavalier approach than it says anything about Mr Cameron.

Are you SURE he is the oracle Keith?

When you speak of sacrifice, is that sacrifice to freedom or to callous disregard to human life by those charged with the soldiers' welfare?

Boom etc


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 04:10 AM

Jim, you stated that Sheffield "has acknowledged, as has the BBC article, that the views he hold are not those commonly held by OTHER HISTORIANS"

That is a blatant lie from a blatant liar.

You also claimed that Sheffield said things that contradict my views.

That was also a lie.

If they are not lies, give us a quote.
You can not because it is not true.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 04:04 AM

A recent piece about the 1914 truce.
Use the link, not just the extracts.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd

"It was only at the end of the decade(1920s) that doubts crept in; the war had left a troubled world and the 1930s brought the threat of another great conflict. Increasingly, the Great War, as it was known, came to be seen as something that should never have happened and, still worse, that had settled nothing and destroyed much. Revisionist views of the war meshed with growing concerns in the democracies that another war was on its way. In 1934-35, nearly half the adult population of Britain voted for the peace ballot to show their support for the League of Nations and disarmament. Much of the great anti-war literature, including Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That, Wilfred Owen's poems and the play Journey's End, came out around this time. Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front was published to huge acclaim in 1929. Yet far more novels and memoirs at the time were either ambivalent about the rightness or otherwise of the war or, indeed, saw it as something that had had to be fought. And not everyone who had been in the war wanted to forget it. Millions joined veterans' associations, in part to recapture the camaraderie they had once felt."

"Now is surely the right time to challenge the accepted views. 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. And was the war just a dreadful mistake or was it about something? At the time people on all sides thought they had a just cause. It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. British soldiers felt they were fighting for their country and its values; French, German or Russian soldiers felt much the same."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 04:02 AM

"Jim, you have just lied to us all."
No Keith - you put up what Sheffield said, I pointed out what he said, both about the need to change current historical assessment of WW1 and of his describing the War and being an Imperialist one - he chose to blame German Imperialism for the war, putting out on a limb from all the historians, who have that suggested that this is both incorrect and unproductive.
You won't discuss his false premise, that the war has been regarded as "trivial" when it hasn't, Yyou won't discuss the treatment of the soldiers who were betrayed by the British Government on their return, you won't discuss your lying here and anywhere else.
You are now trying to implicate me accuse me of what you now routinely do on this forum - lie to score points.
The fact that you have not responded in any way to my list of your having lied seem, in my view, that you are unable to and are forced to accept them.
If you wish to continue talking about lying I'll be happy to complete that list and fill in the details with cut-'n-pastes from other threads - whatdya think - are you up for it?
Don't you dare try to drag me or anybody down to your sewer level behaviour
Yours in gratitude for vainly attempting to cast your "pearls of wisdom" before us "swine"
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 02:51 AM

WW1. Misrepresentation Of A Conflict.
Dr Dan Todman. BBC site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/perceptions_01.shtml


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 02:32 AM

Sometimes if he's set his head on a notion it's hard to dislodge it
Look at that statement carefully Kevin.
I used to have the same view of WW1 as you still have.
I read Graves and Sassoon and I still have a volume of Owen, but I also have a recent books. (I would be happy to lend)

I have continued my interest and followed developments in understanding.
Ask yourself why you still think as you do and where you got those views.

Historians are not fashion butterflies flitting from version to version as fashion changes.

You all think you understand history better than historians.
You even believe your understanding of early 20C developments in military strategy is superior to military historians and specialists.

I am not the one with a fixed notion stuck in the head.
My mind has been open these last 30 years and I have moved on.
YOU are all stuck in the past.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 08:46 PM

How we come across here isn't necessarily the whole story. In fact I suspect it very rarely is.

And I also think that it's pretty rare for anyone to actually change their minds on something they've really come to believe in just because they've been presented with "the facts". There are always other facts they can turn to.

And in fact more often than not arguments, especially heated arguments, strengthen people's commitments to the ideas they started with, even ideas that were initially tentative. That's the difference between an argument and a discussion that tries to explore different ways of seeing things.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 08:12 PM

Sometimes if he's set his head on a notion it's hard to dislodge it

Its way beyond that, Kevin - he's in the "Don't Try To Change My Mind With Facts" category. And a nasty piece of work into the bargain- or so he comes across here to all & sundry.

Being pigheaded doesn't mean we are pigs.

OK then, how about just idiots?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 07:51 PM

Keith is a decent enough bloke whom I've met.

That shouldn't be read to mean that the fact I've met someone in itself means they are OK. I've met some people I would not say that of. But when we get in an argument with a faceless stranger on line it's too easy to build up some picture of a kind of malevolent worm who should be expunged. In a way that's one reason the term Troll has emerged. Meeting people gets in the way of that process.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 06:59 PM

Keith is a decent enough bloke whom I've met. Sometimes if he's set his head on a notion it's hard to dislodge it, but most of us are like that sometimes. Just because we disagree with someone, even profoundly, and even if we think there are implications in what they say we might detest, that's no reason to get all hot and bothered.

Being pigheaded doesn't mean we are pigs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 06:42 PM

Kevin, ya can't educate pork.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 06:34 PM

The import of those passages you quoted there Keith were not that there was "no choice", but that the writer believed that the right choice was made. And the arguments for that are based on imagining what the outcome of different choices might have been.

Essentially it boils down to "This is what happened. These are the decisions which were made. These are the things that happened as a result of those decisions. The consequences were disastrous, and the subsequent consequences have also been disastrous. But I believe that if different decisions had been made the outcome would have been even worse."

The last sentence is not actually history, but speculation by a historian. Making up alternative paths in history is an interesting thing to do, but history academics have no special or unique aptitude for doing it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 05:03 PM

I am content to leave it there.
If the historians are wrong so am I.

There is no debate with liars like Jim willing and ready to make up any shit they like.
We have already had Musket's invisible box and "she" who can not be named.

I just put 3 simple views and showed that the historians support them.
In reply just obscene vilification and rage and lies.
I am done with them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:57 PM

Kevin, Max Hastings.
"David Cameron displays unhesitating pride in Britain's World War II stand against Hitler. But his own and his colleagues' knowledge of 1914-18 derives chiefly from watching Blackadder when they were in short trousers.

They learned to think of the struggle simply as a pointless tragedy in which Britain's idiot generals committed mass murder.

This 21st-century view has also been strongly influenced by the satirical musical Oh, What A Lovely War!, and by the 'trench poets' Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, whose impassioned pens depicted in the most vivid and moving terms the nightmare to which their generation was subjected in France.

But no poet ever identified a route by which the British, French and Belgian people could have escaped the conflict, save by accepting the Kaiser's domination of Europe. Germany's 1914-18 war aims fell not far short of those of 1939-45, except that there was no genocidal programme against the Jews."

"Though a few sensationalist modern historians seek to suggest that the Russians — or even, crazily, the British — were chiefly responsible for Europe's catastrophe, the evidence shows that blame rests overwhelmingly with Austria and Germany.

It was Helmuth von Moltke, the Kaiser's army chief of staff, who said in 1912 'a war is unavoidable; the sooner the better' — and meant it. It was German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg who, in September 1914, when Berlin believed itself on the brink of victory, drew up a shopping list of draconian demands which would have imposed absolute German hegemony upon the continent.

The fact that Britain sacrificed three-quarters of a million lives to prevent the triumph of Germany's militarists should be a matter of profound pride to those men's modern descendants, not grounds for ministers to take refuge in empty platitudes.

Most veterans rejected the 'poets' view'."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:51 PM

Jim, you have just lied to us all.

You actually claimed that Sheffield "has acknowledged, as has the BBC article, that the views he hold are not those commonly held by OTHER HISTORIANS"

That is a blatant lie from a blatant liar.

You also claimed that Sheffield said things that contradict my views.

Another blatant lie.

Those are undeniable lies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:38 PM

Keith - I don't tell lies - If I was a liar, with duffers like you it isn't necessary.
You, on the other hand, are now permanently dishonest, claiming you are quoting someone who hasn't and wouldn't dare make the statements you have (implanted Pakistanis) diong skidding u-turns and claiming that's what you were saying all along (Irish famine thread), even faking your identity in order to post support you for yourself you weren't getting elsewhere - (you were warned by 'them upstairs' for that one).... and so ad infinitum.
You are constantly sneering at opposition "casting pearls before swine" - muppets - ignoramouses who refuse to benefit from your vast store of knowledge,... I could go on
If I am wrong I withdraw my comments and apologise - you have described that as "grovelling" and have constantly refused to do so yourself - you have seldom, if ever apologise, you appear to consider it beneath you.
Even here, here you've openly reduced your widespread claims to three items and reduced your claim of "all historians" to "many" - and claim that you have never claimed anything else
You are by far the most unpleasant and dishonest extremist I have ever come across - I was hoping the New Year might bring a new leaf - no chance!
You've turned this forum into a personal ego trip and naused it up for the rest of us.
Once again, for the sake of us all - stop it - this is a debating forum, not a game of one-upmanship
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:36 PM

Description of Todman's book "The Great War myth."

The First World War, with its mud and the slaughter of the trenches, is often taken as the ultimate example of the futility of war. Generals, safe in their headquarters behind the lines, sent millions of men to their deaths to gain a few hundred yards of ground. Writers, notably Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, provided unforgettable images of the idiocy and tragedy of the war. Yet this vision of the war is at best a partial one, the war only achieving its status as the worst of wars in the last thirty years. At the time, the war aroused emotions of pride and patriotism. Not everyone involved remembered the war only for its miseries. The generals were often highly professional and indeed won the war in 1918. In this original and challenging book, Dan Todman shows views of the war have changed over the last ninety years and how a distorted image of it emerged and became dominant


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:17 PM

"Britain went to war with Germany in August 1914 for similar reasons to those for which the country fought Hitler's Germany in the second world war: to prevent an authoritarian, militarist, expansionist enemy achieving hegemony in Europe and thus imperilling British security."

"Rather, the first world war was an existential struggle, just as much a war of national survival for the British as the second world war. If Britain and its allies had lost, it would have meant the end of liberal democracy on mainland Europe. As it was, civilians were kept docile in German-occupied France and Belgium by the routine use of terror. Forced labourers were deported to Germany under terrible conditions. Unlike Hitler's regime, the Kaiser's was not consciously genocidal, but it was aggressive and brutal enough. In 1918 the British army was fighting a war of liberation.

If Germany had won the first world war Britain, although probably safe from invasion thanks to the Royal Navy, would have been reduced to a state of siege, shut out of Europe. As British planners recognised during the first world war, had London been forced to come to terms with a victorious Germany, any peace could only have been temporary. Sooner or later Germany would have renewed the war and Britain and its empire would have been at a terrible disadvantage.

There is plenty of evidence that most ordinary British people understood what was at stake and, just as in 1939-45, more or less willingly committed to the struggle. The idea of mass war enthusiasm in August 1914 has been shown to be something of a myth. Instead, as the gravity of the situation became clear, there was a more nuanced response. One of the reasons why the support of the working classes for the war was so strong, even among those that lived in poverty, was the knowledge that they were better off than their parents and grandparents had been, and so had something to lose. "

"Today, horrified by the casualties of 1914-18, (which were consistent with losses of other belligerents), we tend to see the conflict in terms of what the war poet Wilfred Owen called the "pity of war". This is right and proper, but we should not lose sight of why the war was fought and the significance of the fact that it was Britain and its allies, and not Germany, that emerged victorious. Like all wars, it was tragic, but it was certainly not futile."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/17/1914-18-not-futile-war


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:10 PM

Greg has been saying that for ten weeks now.
That has been his (arse)sole contribution, but not Greg or any of you could find ONE DISSENTING HISTORIAN.
Fact.
It is as if there are none.

All the living historians discussed agree with my views.
Not one contradicts.
I am happy to leave it there.
There is no point debating with people who just make up shit and lie to support their worthless, discredited views anyway.

Kevin, I will give you an example of what you refer to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 02:49 PM

"I happy to leave it there."
I'm sure you are
Wot Greg just wrote.
Don't suppose you'd care to comment on the treatment the soldiers received when they got home before you leave, would you? - No? I thought not.
It's all lies, lies I tell you!!!!!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Toodle-pip-pip!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 02:19 PM

If historians, or anyone else says, "Britain had no choice" they are quite simply saying something nonsensical, or using language sloppily.

In any decision there is by definition a choice, or it wouldn't be a decision. "We have no choice but to..." Is merely a way of strongly advocating a particular choice and rejecting other choices.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 02:07 PM

Kevin, most historians do indeed say that Britain had no choice...

Same old BS, eh Keith? Once again, repeating nonsense will not make it so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 01:54 PM

Kevin, most historians do indeed say that Britain had no choice, and I have supplied quotes. Do I need to repeat them?

As for leadership, military historians are overwhelmingly, I think unanimously, of the belief that the leadership was not deficient.
Again I have supplied quotes and can repeat them.

You are entitled to the opinion that the views of historians are not significant.

I accept that they might all be wrong, and if they are then so am I.
Otherwise I am right.

I happy to leave it there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 01:39 PM

Mac did not make your point.
He thought you were claiming that Sheffield said his views are not generally accepted BY THE PUBLIC.

That is true, and they are not.

You actually claimed that Sheffield "has acknowledged, as has the BBC article, that the views he hold are not those commonly held by OTHER HISTORIANS"

That is a blatant lie from a blatant liar.

You also claimed that Sheffield said things that contradict my views.

Another blatant lie.

Ideologues like you have to win at all costs, and lying is a normal tactic.

I would rather lose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 01:38 PM

'Increased knowledge" is only one factor in affecting the opinions held by academic historians, but by no means the only one.   It can equally be true that the views held by historians impact on how the historical evidence is interpreted by them. "Overwhelming consensus'' can be another way of saying 'fashion".

What appears to be the situation is that there are a number of historians whose views are at odds with general opinion, and who believe that this opinion ought to be revised. That is to say they are "revisionist"

Of the three opinions which Keith sees as crucial, the first, that there was "no choice" for England but to go to war is just wrong, and I would question whether any historian would actually say that. What can be argied is that it was the right choice, and that is a matter of opinion on which a historians' view has no particular value.

As for the question whether ordinary soldiers believed they were right to fight, I have never heard any suggestion to the contrary.

So far as the matter of the quality of military leadership goes, it comes down to whether mistakes were culpable and arising from bad judgement, or arose from other reasons. I cannot see why that is particularly significant either way. Alternatively it can be asserted that the slaughter, while regrettable had consequences which rendered it justifiable. That is a subjective view, not a historical judgement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 01:16 PM

Thanks for making my point Mac"
Sure they are - Keith
Aren't they always!!!
"Otherwise, I am right."
Aren't you always?
"You lose."]
'Course I do!!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 11:59 AM

He has acknowledged, as has the BBC article, that the views he hold are not those commonly held by other historians,

Both of those statements are lies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 11:54 AM

but rather that Sheffield clearly would disagree with your repeated assertion that those views are generally accepted

I fear you have missed the point.
I agree with Sheffield that his views are not commonly held by the public.
Sheffield has never said that his views are not widely held by historians.
They absolutely are.

Though whether a particular historical view is in fashion or out of fashion is not in itself that significant.

It is not about "fashion!"
Historical knowledge advances as new information becomes available.
Existing knowledge is refined and extended.
If there is an overwhelming consensus among the professionals, who are the likes of you and me to challenge it?
What do we know compared to people who have devoted years of their life to this work?

It may be that the historians have all got it wrong, in which case I am wrong too.

Otherwise, I am right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 11:37 AM

You completely miss the point Jim was making about Gary Sheffield. He wasn't saying that his views about the war were not similar to those you have been expressing, but rather that Sheffield clearly would disagree with your repeated assertion that those views are generally accepted - in fact he specifically says that they are not, and thinks that they should be.

At this time the view that the war was well waged and that the slaughter was justified by the outcome does not appear to be the generally accepted one. The fact that a number of academic historians might hold it is interesting in its way, but hardly conclusive. Though whether a particular historical view is in fashion or out of fashion is not in itself that significant.

It is common in public inquiries into public scandals for the final report to end with formal conclusions which sum up against the evidence. That is a temptation into which academics also fall at times.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 11:13 AM

He has acknowledged, as has the BBC article, that the views he hold are not those commonly held by other historians,
Now you are just blatantly lying.
Both of those statements are lies.
Why are you people so driven to win that you do that?
Liar!

In the hypothetical case that Sheffield did back your argument

Nothing hypothetical.
I can provide quotes for my 3 points again if you like.
Can you provide one quote that contradicts?
NO!
Not even when I offered to quit.
You lose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 10:59 AM

Of course not -
I have produced his quotes where he directly contradicts you on your "all historians" claim and your I have pointed out that he has ascribed the war to Imperialist motives, though he goes against the advice of other historians in placing the blame solely on Germany.
He has acknowledged, as has the BBC article, that the views he hold are not those commonly held by other historians, yet you insist on telling us that all other historians agree with your claims.
Sheffield, nor any other historian backs your ridiculous claim that - what was it - 80% + of the soldiers who returned came back with the same 'King and Country' commitment that they went away with
You even accused me of inventing the 14 reasons I gave for them having enlisted.
You even accused me of inventing the "all over by Christmas" slogan that was used to get the lads to enlist - one of the best known and long lasting slogans to come out of WW1 - so much for your "life-long study of the War".
You have persistently ignored all these facts when they have been pointed out to you and have sneered at those of us who disagree with us "swine" who you "cast your pearls of wisdom before"
What you appear to be proposing now is that I agree with your single historian if you take the little he is reported to have written (and you have taken out of context - you have produced no evidence whatever that you have read any of Sheffield's books, or anybody else's, on the subject.
In the hypothetical case that Sheffield did back your argument, he is one historian who is fully aware of that fact - he nowhere represents the general view of historians - you can ascertain this by reading what he says and all the other things you have been given and dismissed out of hand - including that "extremely difficult and long one that you have claimed to be the only one on the planet to have read..
This is the case with every single argument I have ever had with you - quick raids on the internet to prove your twisted ideas - Palestine (straight fro Israeli Government Quotes), The Irish Famine (lifted from a tiny handful of historians with agendas (at least of who backfires drastically and blew your case out of the water.
Your last venture was to enthusiastically support the racist garbage lifted from an openly declared racist/fascist website and demand that we disprove all of it - why the **** should anybody want to wade in such unqualified slime?
I've become sick to the back teeth of your ranting racict/nationalist/pro-establishment right-wing rantings and your insulting and dominating behaviour that has sent thread after thread crashing to obscurity.
We may not be experts, but most of us show that we are interested enough to have taken the trouble to have read something on the subjects we debate - you show no sign of having done so - on anything.
I am at a total loss to remember one single argument where you have not come with a pre-conceived opinion and have then scrambled around the net to back it up - not one.
You are a mess - you are spoiling these discussions for others with your ignorance, you arrogance and your obsessive behaviour, and you obviously intend to continue to do so.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 10:56 AM

concerted effort by the government to clean up the reputation of the military and political leadership of the time,

I am not aware of this.
Can you point out some examples please?

The current understanding of the history of this period has been building for about 30 years.
The new books contain nothing new on that score.
Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy among historians to push a false version of history?
Why would they?
Who would it benefit?

It may be that the historians have all got it wrong, in which case I am wrong too.
Otherwise, I am right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 10:34 AM

I cant wait for next Xmas day, when Keith A of Hertford and Jim Carroll get out of their trenches for a game of football. The bloodshed over arguing the offside rule will be fun to watch....

Have they ever thought that published historical publications have two elements, an account and a view based on that account? Someone mentioned that in this thread somewhere I think.

The timing of recent books has coincided with a concerted effort by the government to clean up the reputation of the military and political leadership of the time, so should be read with a healthy pinch of salt or at least a degree of caution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 09:03 AM

Jim, will you offer to quit if I produce quotes supporting my three claims, or quotes where he says "revisionist" historians like himself are right?
It would be a good reply to my offer.
You know you are right so what is the problem?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 08:59 AM

Gary Sheffield, whatever his qualifications, in no way backs your overall claims on the war
FALSE CLAIM!
Produce one quote contradicting me and I quit.

He has written that the present view of the history of the war needs to be changed indicating that he believes the commonly held view among historians is wrong
FALSE CLAIM!
He has never said any such thing.
Produce one quote and I quit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 08:46 AM

"I mostly formed my views from reading his work.
You are making shit up."
No I am not - go read what he said
You do not form comprehensive knowledge of anything from carefully sought out and selective cut-'n-pastes - you have made it perfectly clear that while you might own one book, you don't read books and rely entirely on what you can dredge from the internet.
I cannot recall your ever having produced any argument from what you have read - everything you have ever given has been taken directly from he internet - everything, including your entire argument here!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 08:36 AM

Historical studies are definitely a science, akin to social and political sciences. They collect facts and probabilities (hence the opposition to "exact sciences") based on observations, other sciences, and transparent reasoning - no "opinion" in the sense of subjective choice. Justifications of wars (and other activities) are historical facts themselves and thus objects of research. Historians who mention their own approval are no longer on the grounds of their science, and thus have no more authority than anybody else.

In particular, "military history" is often concerned with technology and tactics, taking the reasons and goals of the conflict for granted; such historians often appear to approve of these. Like war gamers, some seem to swap sides in the midst of their books - "I'm Rommel now: boom-boom-boom!"—

Pacifism is a dangerous word, somewhere in the realm of fundamentalism - I would not like to use it at all. If you want an -ism, I am in favour of internationalism. Study the current Iran case for the idea, though not yet implemented perfectly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 08:31 AM

Gary Sheffield, whatever his qualifications, in no way backs your overall claims on the war
Yes he does, absolutely and completely.
I mostly formed my views from reading his work.
You are making shit up.

He has written that the present view of the history of the war needs to be changed indicating that he believes the commonly held view among historians is wrong

No he has not.
You are making shit up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 08:11 AM

"Professor Gary Sheffield is one of Britain's foremost military historians"
Gary Sheffield, whatever his qualifications, in no way backs your overall claims on the war
He has written that the present view of the history of the war needs to be changed indicating that he believes the commonly held view among historians is wrong
He sets up his own straw dog by claiming that the view of war is simplistic - no historian anywhere is making any such statement - in fact they have all stressed that it is far from simple and has long moved on from the "Archduke Ferdinand" and "gallant little Belgium" stage.
He concedes in the piece you have pasted that it was a struggle between conflicting Empires.
I suggest you go and read what you have pasted rather than us having to keep reminding you exactly what he did say - I certainly intend to continue doing so.
Against the advice of ALL MODERN HISTORIANS Sheffield attempts to apportion direct blame for the war.
Most modern historians warn against doing so, and point out that the blame lies with all participants, though more with some than with others.
Sheffield is one historian among many and his own statement underlines that fact.
Your other star witness - the scabloid journalist, Max Miller, or whatever his name is, seems to have disappeared from the scene - out of his depth among all those real historians I suppose.
You continue to display your contempt for the veterans of World War One by refusing to discuss what happened to them when they returned from having made their sacrifice - and by attempting to make such discussion 'out of bounds' by calling it 'thread drift' - as you always do when you're in trouble.
Never mind, I will continue to enjoy drawing attention to to your contempt whenever I find myself with a free moment.
I'll allow you to get back to your putting forward a version of the events of World War One which actually became out of date in 1916, when the powers-that-be abandoned their recruiting campaign as a total failure, and introduced compulsory conscription.
Jim Carroll
PS I wonder if Gary Sheffield ever interviewed a World War One veteran, and whether he would very have described one as "a liar" as you have?
I doubt it somehow - he looks to be a nice man, in spite of his establishment views.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 30 April 8:51 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.