BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 07:25 PM

Why all the personal abuse? Even when we are having an argument with someone whom we think is completely and absurdly wrong it is perfectly easy to express that view strongly and unambiguously and politely. And that even applies if they are being abusive towards us.

Some respect towards the context of this thread is surely appropriate. The Western Front was not a playground, it was a killing field and a graveyard.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 05:31 PM

KB, sorry.
I have taken two months of shit from this ignorant bunch and I have had enough.

Point taken, I will try again.


Here is why it is your view I have questioned. In your very first contribution to the thread you posted the following:
They were faced with aggressive, invading German armies rampaging across Europe towards the English Channel, massacring civilians and children as they went.

Germany invaded Belgium on 4 August and Britain declared war the very same day. It could not possibly have been because "Over 6000 civilians including children were deliberately murdered" (which you bring up two posts later). They were not really rampaging across Europe yet either.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 02:40 PM

Nice to see revisionism is abhorred by lots of people.

Not just me then.

I'd add some RAM to my computer if I were you Keith. Gonna take a lot of selective searching to make everybody here look twats.

I'll help you. As of now I'm officially a historian. Now you don't have to keep saying "the historians" all the time. Because I'm a dissenting one.

Helpful?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 02:29 PM

you have no supporters here - not on this forum and not among established historians

Not on this forum, but absolutely among established historians.
All the ones I quoted are just that.
NAME ONE ESTABLISHED HISTORIAN THAT STILL BELIEVES THOSE OLD DEBUNKED MYTHS YOU CLING TO.
You have had 2 months Jim.
What is the problem.

KB, sorry.
I have taken two months of shit from this ignorant bunch and I have had enough.
Why don't you ask them to substantiate their views by quoting anyone, ANYONE, with some knowledge of WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 02:10 PM

Once the war had started, each of the armies considered invading the enemy territories temporarily, to disarm them and seize reparations, as the French army actually did after WWI, and the German army had done in 1871. Britain was absolutely right to prepare for such an event, but its propaganda was absolutely wrong declaring this to be an original target of German warfare.

In France and Belgium of 1914, the feeling was that the worst case was similar to 1871. Only from 1915 on, the stakes were raised to unprecedented heights, probably not planned by the governments but forced by public opinion which had taken the propaganda too seriously. According to my French grandma (- thus grown up as a skeptic -), British soldiers were more ardent believers in their superiors' propaganda than French ones. Not their own fault, to be sure. No point in blaming large masses of young men anyway, who tend to do what large masses of young men tend to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 01:34 PM

One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork.

Edward Abbey

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 01:31 PM

"Only obscure to ignorant, unread know-nothings like you two!"
Er - and the reast of us -you have no supporters here - not on this forum and not among established historians
"The BBC History site is just "jackanory,"
Nowhere among your carefully selected claims has anybody wholeheartedly set out to change history - not one individual - not even Max Beerbohm (or whatever his name is)
It is you who has insisted on only accepting evidence from qualified historians (only as long as they presented views which back up your own, of course)
You have rejected all evidence that hasn't come from a tabloid journalist and a couple of obscure examples you have dredged up and have rejected the statements of the views of some of the most eminent British historians - and called those who were there to witness the events themselves (including one who has always been regarded as a leading authority) as "liars" and "romantics"
"Can you find anyone of any authority still pushing you old, discredited myths."
"Can you find anyone of any authority still pushing you old, discredited myths."
When are you going to respond to the fact that ALL AUTHORITATIVE HISTORIANS TODAY ACCEPT THE TRADITIONAL VIEW AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO UNTIL EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED THAT CAUSES A MAJOR SEA-CHANGE IN BRITISH HISTORICAL THOUGHT - NO SUCH CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE YET
There has been no rethink - there has been no change of heart, there has not even been any significant discussion o the major conclusions of the war - just the acceptance that it is a 100 years since stupidity and greed plunged the world into a murderously, badly organised war that need never have taken place - one of your own historians said exactly that - read your own cut-'n-pastes.      
One thing that has been pointed out recently - covered in one of the links on the other thread is the suggestion is the suggestion that the 100th anniversary and the fact that all of those who actually participated in the war has provided the jingoists with an ideal opportunity to whitewash the military and political leaders of the time and maybe show that the Empire wasn't so bad after all.
You have been, are and will continue to be an utter dipstick - that's something that will never change while you pontificate on subjects you have not enough interest in to read up beforehand - read a book.
Pip-pip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 01:14 PM

You have been highly selective in just picking out what that one secretary said.
Apart from that, it is made quite clear that the military regarded invasion as a real possibility in the Autumn of 1914 while the war was still one of movement.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 01:12 PM

If even just copying that into the box was too much trouble for you, tough.

OK, you have convinced me. You are just a jerk. I was trying to have a civil discussion with you but now I'm outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 01:03 PM

KBt was posted last Sunday on the armistice thread.
I gave it as a link then, but I gave you the web address today.
If even just copying that into the box was too much trouble for you, tough.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 12:45 PM

KB, this was posted just last Sunday.
It is not reasonable for you to come in at the end of 12 weeks of debate and demand a rehash!
If you are not prepared to look yourself, do not expect me to do it for you!
You could start by reading the preview in the link.

"Invasion was recognised as a serious threat in 1914, and many regiments were deployed to meet it."

I am not asking for a rehash. I have read all the posts and many of the links. You mention reading the preview in the link but do not say which link. You refer to last Sunday but there were no actual links posted on that day. edit - I see now that you are referring to a link in a different thread. Sorry, but I do not feel obligated to go through another thread to get an answer for a question in this one.

You asked about 3 points and asked for rebuttals. I picked point one and asked for clarification and for your personal opinion on that point.

On pages 124-125 of the link you provided in the other thread (which I did go ahead and open) I find the following:
"On 14 September, Maurice Hankey, Secretary to the CID, argued that confidential instructions for the population should be prepared in the event of a raid, even if invasion was improbable." - emphasis mine -

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 12:22 PM

[The German] bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War ...

A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (1954

Here lies the crucial point, before 1914, Belgium etc. There had been negotiations between the British and German governments to become allies against France. The official reason given for their failure was about the German fleet. Nothing about human rights, of course (haha!). The obvious truth is that each of the governments involved decided that they could get a larger piece of the cake if they risked a shootout - alliances yet to be wielded. If the fleet had been the true reason, the countries could have called for a public arbitration, which would either have brought about a compromise (like the one between Britain and France, mistitled "Entente"), or identified one party as the aggressor. Instead, British propaganda said Germany wanted continental supremacy, and German propaganda said that Britain (and France etc.) wanted to kick them off the table entirely.

Supremacy in this context did not mean involvement in other countries' domestic affairs, but influence in Africa, sea trade, monopolies (then enforced by military power), and other economic issues. The exact stakes are not known to me, but many think that the fleet thing was a red herring, aimed at the propaganda machine. Anyway, Britons had sung for such a long time that if their government did not rule the waves they would all become slaves, that they started to believe it in reality.

Someone, I think it was on radio, compared Germany's role then to China's now.

My above analysis is based on information that is essentially undisputed. The reason why some people, including historians, come to different moral conclusions is entirely political-philosophical. Regarding countries as if they had a single will is the "original sin" of nationalism; anyone committing it publicly is a deluder, regardless of his academic merits.

To sum up, the reasons for WWI are such that none of the governments involved can be seen to have protected their peoples as they should. This would even be true if their military leaders had been geniuses truly devoted to their task. Those who won were not the soldiers, not even the surviving ones (if we disregard the diminished competition for the girls' favour).

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 11:51 AM

There you go.
The BBC History site is just "jackanory," and the most eminent, acclaimed, and best known historians of WW1 are "OBSCURE."

Only obscure to ignorant, unread know-nothings like you two!

Can you find anyone of any authority still pushing you old, discredited myths.
No.
You have had 2 months, and nothing.
You lose.
I am done with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 08:44 AM

None of this any any way supports your arrogantly presented antique claims none of it
Where are your "established historian"
Where is your wholesale rebuttal of the established view.
None of this in any way alters the taught facts about the war - they are minor challenges by a minute number of obscure historians - how many qualified historian are there practicing in Britain today who have not questioned the way WW2 is now fully accepted to have happened?   
Where is your evidence that the real established historians were wrong
You accused me of dredging the net for information - you are now doing exactly that and coming up with the same cut-'n-pastes you have already put up
You are now beginning to rant
As I said - "Top of the world Ma"
Jim Carroll
Bit of a relief that you've decided to continue "casting your pearls before swine" - thought I was going to have to dig out an old Monty Python DVD

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 08:28 AM

That's the problem with trawling old BBC web pages.

You appear to have stumbled upon a script for Jackanory.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 07:03 AM

BBC
For a younger generation of Britons, the first encounter with the Great War often came either in the pages of Taylor's history, or through a Bank Holiday television repeat of the 1969 film of 'Oh What a Lovely War'.

Having grown up with the version of the war popular since the 1940s, younger audiences often took these works as factual. At school, many came to the war through English lessons, where a small group of war poets were taught in an historical vacuum.

Sassoon and Wilfred Owen could be used to evoke an emotional reaction against war which engaged students and satisfied teachers, but which utterly misrepresented the feelings of most Britons who lived through the war years.

The extent to which this mythology was shared made it an attractive setting for television series and historical novels. Many jokes in the 1989 BBC TV series 'Blackadder Goes Forth' relied on the audience understanding that the war meant stupid generals, pointless attacks and universal death.

Similarly, authors such as Sebastian Faulks could rely on an emotional tenor of tragedy created by a wartime setting. Although works like Faulks' 'Birdsong' are fiction, audiences often believed that they communicated 'deeper truths' about the war, because they reflected their own misconceptions.

The self-reinforcing power of these myths gives them tremendous power. Since the 1980s, a boom in carefully conducted archival investigation has done much to uncover the war's complexity: how it was fought and won by the British army on the Western Front, how domestic support and dissent were encouraged and managed, and how the war was remembered.

Yet this academic research has had almost no impact on popular understanding. This should not be a cause for despair or disdain. Societies have always misrepresented the past in an attempt to understand the present.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 06:48 AM

In Britain, the historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote a book called The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, in which he claimed that German ambitions caused the conflict:




[The German] bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War ...

A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (1954

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 06:39 AM

Same piece.
"Certainly the 'musical entertainment' has been blamed by modern military historians for falsifying popular perceptions of the First World War. They would argue that, if Britons now think of the war in terms of mud, blood, futility and asinine generals, it is not because that accurately represents what happened, but because in the intervening years a false version of the war has become culturally dominant. Alex Danchev, and more vehemently Brian Bond, have both argued that the 1960s was a key moment in that transformation (1). In that decade, they have suggested, new myths of the war were created to fit the rapidly changing social and political context. The war was used by those on the radical left to present ways of understanding the nuclear arms race,..."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 06:36 AM

The main focus of my research is the ways in which the First World War
was mythologised in Britain in the eighty years after its end, with
its focus concentrated on the interactions between family and national
myths of war. In recent years, British military historians have
pointed out the difference between modern popular beliefs about the
war and the ways it was constructed, experienced and fought at the
time. I have taken part in this - what is now too well developed to be
called a 'revisionist' – interpretation, but my main concern has been
to find out how this gap in perceptions developed.
http://www.warhistorian.org/todman.php

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 06:27 AM

Hastings is recognised as a leading military historian by other historians, and by the media including the Guardian.

Who care what your worthless opinion is?

- it is the view of all historians apart from the tiny handful you have sought out - several of these have made it clear by writing that "the current thinking on World War One" must be changed

They said the current popular view, ie YOURS, needs to change because it has been debunked by modern historians.

Can I remind you that I have produced numerous living historians compared to all you lot who have found, errr, NONE!

If these people have been "discredited", tell us when it happened and what has been "discredited, and by whom.

OK, but then I really am done with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 05:42 AM

"That is the position of you, Musket and co."
No it isn't - it is the view of all historians apart from the tiny handful you have sought out - several of these have made it clear by writing that "the current thinking on World War One" must be changed - if you can't believe the evidence of your own witnesses why do you persist in this farce?
"You were unable to produce anything but the discredited work of long dead historians."
They have not been didscredited - they have been challenged on some points only by your tiny handful of your obscure historians and you7r tabloid journalist.
If these people have been "discredited", tell us when it happened and what has been "discredited, and by whom.
These are among Britain's leading historians and highest respected historian - if this is not the case you are also challenging the biographical entries of them - show us where they are in any way "discreditd" - you meglomanic nutter.
"I am done with casting pearls before swine."
Arrogant prick
"You can call acclaimed and eminent historians "journalists""
Max clifford - whoops Hastings - is a journalist who presently works for a tabloid newspaper - he has no professional historical qualifications whatever - go and look up his biographical entry.
As James Cagney once said just before he was blown to smithereens - "Top of the world ma"
Get help
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 05:03 AM

Will you please stop saying you used to think like me.

I have to live with myself you know ....

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 04:28 AM

defence of a long out of date arguments
That is the position of you, Musket and co.

I have shown you the current position, quoting live historians.
You were unable to produce anything but the discredited work of long dead historians.

I have never suggested that any war veteran was a liar, but modern historians are quite clear that those you refer to were not at all representative.

I am done with casting pearls before swine.
I used to think like you.
I read Sassoon and Graves and Remarque as a youth and still have Owen on my shelf.
I thought O What A lovely War brilliant.

Unlike all of you, I have continued my reading.
I know that those all myths have been debunked.

You can not find one single living historian to support your views., because your views are discredited.
They all support my views because that is where I got them.

You can call acclaimed and eminent historians "journalists" but who are you?
Empty headed, know nothings.
You can find no intelligent person to support that either!

So you bunch of ignorant twats can keep telling yourselves how clever you are, and how stupid historians are.
I have put the work of the historians before you.
You reject them just because of your prejudice and preconceptions.
Get on with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 02:59 AM

My "quietness for a few posts" is entirely due to the pointless exercise of feeding a troll who stands alone in his defence of a long out of date arguments and who has adopted the technique of ignoring every single fact on a matter of history
You have claimed the long established views of Taylor and Hart and the accounts given by soldiers like Sassoon, Owen, McGill are "lies" - prove it - prove that the present day view of the war is wrong and that you alone are right - not one single historian, including the ones you have presented, has come anywhere near to sharing your antiquated jingoistic view of the facts - not one single one.
You have had your cut-'n-pastes put into context - you choose not to respond,
You have had the arguments of the present views of history put to you - you dismiss them without proof or qualification.
I have never indulged in 'battles of cut-'n-pastes' why the hell should I - any moron can trawl the internet and prove the moon is made out of cheese should they wish to.
You want a discussion - go and learn something and stop attempting to defend your arguments with out of context - read something.
You are alone here yet you continue to sneer at all who disagree with you.
You alone display absolute ignorance on the subject under discussion, yet you dismiss all opposing arguments out of hand.
ou have had all the evidence needed to make up your mind, yet you demand more.
You are a troll Keith - a sad figure who seems to need to seek the attention you are not getting elsewhere by embarking on fanatical crusades which you invariably end up totally alone, as you have here.
I don't indulge in cut-'n-paste slanging matches with morons, I really don't need to - life's too short anyway.
I certainly don't trawl the net to indulge someone who has long proved himself a raving fanatic on any subject put before him - I certainly couldn't hope to dismantle your own arguments as efficiantly as you have managed to do yourself.
I don't claim to know a great deal about WW1 - I do know a little from what I've read, I know a little of the conditions and opinions of the war by "liars" who fought in that war.
You think we are all wrong, you think all conventional and established historians are wrong - and you alone are right - as I said earlier - extreme meglomania.
You obviously have no intention of abandoning your attempts to destroy this forum with your attention-seeking - it is to be hoped that eventually the administrators of this forum will take a hand in your somewhat insane quest for forum domination.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 02:56 AM

Which is worst.

Those who politely say you have not made your case or those who laugh at you?

The following WW1 poem may be distressing to those readers of a nervous disposition.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom. Boom

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 12:45 AM

Jeri, I have been arguing my simple case against numerous people simultaneously.
Almost alone, it has fallen to me to respond to them all.
What is ridiculous about that?

Also, I have posted numerous quotes and extracts from historians and other sources to substantiate every single thing I have said.
What is ridiculous about that?

What is ridiculous is that they are denying living historians while shouting me down for believing them.

You single me out for saying "ridiculous fool" but pass no comment on the vile, obscene abuse I have been subject to.

You are being unfair on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 12:34 AM

KB, this was posted just last Sunday.
It is not reasonable for you to come in at the end of 12 weeks of debate and demand a rehash!
If you are not prepared to look yourself, do not expect me to do it for you!
You could start by reading the preview in the link.

"Invasion was recognised as a serious threat in 1914, and many regiments were deployed to meet it."

page 125
"In 1914, invasion preparations and home defence measures were taken all along the east coast of Britain, from Scotland to Sussex.
While the authorities tried to keep these preparations out of the public eye-to avoid scaremongering, people witnessed them, stoking fear and anxiety.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lVK0SSmvD5wC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=invasion+preparation+1914&source=bl&ots=qPt2tdhG9V&sig=JIZ

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 08:04 PM

In my previous message, instead of "If we achieve this, ..." I should have written "If we succeed in preventing them from doing this, ..."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 07:42 PM

I agree with Keith A. that surrender would not have been a desirable alternative for Britain and France, once the war had started. But there had been plenty of other options since 1900. The governments had taken their seats at the gambling table for power (not just "sleepwalked"), soldiers taking the role of pawns in chess. Understandable at that time, but not to be approved of. Each single one of the major powers could and should have prevented the world wars (- WWII being unimaginable without WWI, so to speak).

We must demand from our governments to counteract the reasons for future wars as soon as they become apparent. We and they have learned a lot since 1914, but not enough by far. Governments and other powerful institutions who are allowed to glorify their past heroes will feel encouraged to play the same games as their predecessors again. If we achieve this, we may still have to send soldiers to fight, but much more rarely and with a better conscience. I mentioned Afghanistan in the other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 04:23 PM

Keith, count how many posts you've made to this thread (and the others you've been involved in) and don't dare call anyone ELSE a "ridiculous fool". I don't know why these people keep talking to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 04:19 PM

KB, I showed that Britain did regard the threat of invasion in 1914 as very probable, moving troops and preparing defences.
I am not going through all this again.
Read the 2 threads and then ask about anything not already covered.

I am not going to read that entire other thread to get an answer to one question. I followed it for a bit but have not lately, it turned into a p*ssing match, as these things often do, this one included. I am trying to get back to some reasoned debate (though the original topic has been lost in the mists).

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 03:59 PM

Greg, the laughs just keep coming!
Should be easy to find 'em as there are, indeed, hundreds if not thousands.

But you can't find even one!
You ridiculous fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 03:55 PM

KB, I showed that Britain did regard the threat of invasion in 1914 as very probable, moving troops and preparing defences.
I am not going through all this again.
Read the 2 threads and then ask about anything not already covered.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: selby
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 03:04 PM

At the end of the day a generation of young men where wiped out and nothing can bring them back. Politicians still have not learned the lessons from WW1 and think it is good for their personal kudos to send our nations young people to idiotic conflicts. Nothing changes people are still arguing over little words, phrases, believes and colour of politics and thats how wars start.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 02:59 PM

the German armies invaded Belgium and France and were going hard for the English Channel.

Historians are quite clear that Britain had to resist them.
We were treaty bound to defend Belgium, and our own security was seriously threatened.

Do you believe that Germany in 1914 would have been able to cross the Channel and invade England?

Britain was treaty bound to defend Belgium but Germany was also treaty bound to respect the neutrality of Belgium. I agree that Britain had an obligation to Belgium but in the real world of global politics I don't believe that qualifies it as a No Choice situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 02:54 PM

Greg, tell us again about all the thousands of historians who take a different view

What would be the point? Would it shift you from your ignorant & spurious viewpoint?

Do your own REAL research & try reading history by those who don't agree with your half-dozen so-called "historians". Should be easy to find 'em as there are, indeed, hundreds if not thousands.

And once again, I refer you to a library where the actual facts can be found in the writings of REAL historians.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 02:33 PM

KB, the German armies invaded Belgium and France and were going hard for the English Channel.

Historians are quite clear that Britain had to resist them.
We were treaty bound to defend Belgium, and our own security was seriously threatened.

Greg, tell us again about all the thousands of historians who take a different view, but this time name one.
Or, tell us why you can't.
Is it not because you don't know?
You don't know anything at all about any of this but you so want to be with your friends.
You are a sad act Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 02:06 PM

I am interested in how you have concluded that Britain truly had No Choice in the matter.

Because he's an idiot.   QED.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 01:46 PM

Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught.

This is really a very bold statement.

No choice

I am interested in how you have concluded that Britain truly had No Choice in the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 01:42 PM

The conflict I am talking about was in 1914.
Are you aware of any living historian who contradicts my simple, 3 point case case?

If the answer is no, explain why you should be taken seriously on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 01:35 PM

I am not interested in politics or philosophy.
I am only interested in establishing the truth of these 3 points.

The third one appears of little relevance to me, the other two have political and philosophical implications, genuinely and by their rhetorical formulations, as I amply pointed out. So did Jim. The conflict we are talking about is in 2014, not in 1914, and if you did not know that darned well, you would not be so involved in your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:43 PM

Another joke you haven't told that joke for a while.
You must know that no-one believes your shit.
You are a sad little joke.
You so want to be muppet and Jim's friend, but you don't know anything.
Poor Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:42 PM

Now Keith, I assume you're not limiting yourself to historians from the British Isles - thus including French, Belgian, Turkish, German, United States, Italian, Australian & etc. & etc.

Are you really feeble-minded enough to maintain your idiotic stance that no historians disagree with your over-simplified bullshit?

Perhaps you truly are a fuckwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:41 PM

Stupid stupid historians. Hang your heads in shame.
What do you know compared to muppet?

You are a ridiculous fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Well led Musket
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:38 PM

They certainly were well led. They even thoughtfully supplied ladders, whistles and superfluous stretcher bearers. Not to mention red caps with raised guns waiting back in their own trenches.

The well leading Generals thought of everything. Just imagine what would have happened if the butcher of The Somme didn't care for the waves of human life he sent into the path of German guns. Doesn't bear thinking about...

Stupid stupid man. Hang your head in shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:33 PM

You haven't told that joke for a while.
You must know that no-one believes your shit.
Your repeating the same old denial without any substance is just laughable.
You are a sad little joke.
You so want to be muppet and Jim's friend, but you don't know anything.
Poor Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:28 PM

Are you aware of any living historian who contradicts my simple case?

Yes I am. Dozens, if not hundreds.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:25 PM

The conclusions I make are in the realm of politics and philosophy,
I am not interested in politics or philosophy.
I am only interested in establishing the truth of these 3 points.

Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught.
The British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that.
The British army was not badly led.

Are you aware of any living historian who contradicts my simple case?

If the answer is no, explain why you should be taken seriously on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:17 PM

"all those who disagree with me cannot be competent historians by definition".

That has been the argument of Jim and Musket.

And you, all three off the point.

Are you aware of any living historian who contradicts my simple case? If the answer is no, explain why you should be taken seriously on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

Easily explained: the few historical facts I use for my analysis in the other thread are not being disputed, not even by you. The conclusions I make are in the realm of politics and philosophy, in which professional historians - all the more "military historians" - do not have any more of a say than I.

You chose to ignore my analysis and also dodged my "parable". No use in repeating all that; anyone interested can read the previous thread and decide on their own.

As I said, if this were an intelligent debate, that would be the end of it.

How very true.—

I heard that events similar to the one of the thread title occured in other places as well, also between French and German troops, and well into 1915. By "tacit agreements" they stopped shooting; when a superior officer arrived for inspections, they started shooting into the air, so that the other side could go into hiding. Almost every soldier would have preferred winning over losing, but many would have been happy with peace negotiations. The reason why it did not become reality was that all polititians (including German socialists) had publicly commited themselves to winning under moral pretexts, and feared to be shamed and deposed if they backed down an inch or centimetre.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 11:47 AM

Why do historians have to be living?!!!

And why do you have to rely on long dead ones?
I believed them too, 40 years ago.

Since then knowledge has moved on and I with it.
Not one single living historian disputes my 3 points, or supports you.

As I said, if this were an intelligent debate, that would be the end of it.