BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 01:45 PM

You claimed that the "It'll be all over by Christmas" was another of my inventions

Not true. Of course it was not.
I just explained to you that it never came from the government and was certainly never a government promise.

You have claimed that soldiers went willingly and knew what they were fighting for.
Yes, that is the 2nd of my stated views, and it is true for the majority.
That is the view of historians, and also endorsed by the programmes.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 10:50 AM

"Jim, I have only expressed 3 views about WW1."
That is a blatant lie
You have claimed that soldiers went willingly and knew what they were fighting for.
When facts were produced to the contrary, you denied them to the extent to calling veterans who said otherwise "liars".
You claimed that the 14 aspects of recruiting that you were given were my inventions.
You claimed that the "It'll be all over by Christmas" was another of my inventions
You'll be telling us next that your only making the claims you have because "somebody told me to say it" - oh, too late, you already have!!
Personally, I don't give a shit one way or the other whether the war was well led (though it transpires that it wasn't)
It was an obscene war for European political and economic domination for which millions of young lives were sacrificed.
Just thought you'd like a reminder of one of your postings
"There are a lot of programmes coming up you will seriously want to avoid!"
Hee-hee-hee.
By the way - Kitchener was such an embarrassment to the British establishment that there where accusations flying around at the time, still given credence in some quarters that the ship the Orkneys in which he drowned, was deliberately sunk to put him out of harms way.
Blackadder's Stephen Fry look-alike had it just about right - a military bully and buffoon.
Now please stop polluting this forum with your dishonesty
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:48 AM

Teribus, good to read that you enter the discussion. Let me start with your last point, most important to me: a "grateful nation", or any other feeling held by a "nation", is simply no longer a view adequate to the world of today. Those who indulge in such emotions are easy to exploit for nationalist agendas. (Sports events have been invented to canalize the desire for collective emotions, with considerable success, but sometimes of counterproductive effect.)—

Who decides what constitutes "Fair"?

A good question. I hope one day the UN Security Council will be replaced by a tribunal similar to the Hague Tribunal, to do it authoritatively. Until then, and well afterwards, the notion of a fair and acceptable peace is similar to the one of "good music": we cannot say how exactly to compose it, but often we know it when we hear it. In other words, it is an art. Actually it is as old as humankind; anthropologists say that the invention of language (= symbolic communication) was not so much an intellectual or physiological problem, but one of trusting each other's word - to a certain extent. The extent became larger and larger; now it simply has to extend beyond national borders. The main reason is our "globalized" society and economy. The second reason is the existence of weapons of mass destruction. The third one is the presence of mass media which can produce synchronized emotions in large groups in a very short time, compared to, say, the crusades of the Middle Ages. WWI symbolizes the disastrous potential of this era, and must therefore not be remembered as any kind of victory for anyone.

Of the details of diplomacy before 1911, the following seem important to me:

1. France and Britain considered Germany a threat on a worldwide scale, i.o.w. a rival for ruling the waves and colonies. Belgium was not an object of the war, it was important only as a pawn in the propaganda game. The scenarios were prepared long before 1914 and the war crimes of German troops in Belgium.
2. Polititians, monarchs, and newspaper editors publicly fueled outrage on the other side, respectively, depriving peace advocates of good arguments against their "hawks".

The second effect is particularly relevant today. The current Iran affair is much more difficult to treat, but success now seems possible. Sanctions and military threat are necessary instruments, legitimate and efficient if used in a context of fair peace offers, as mentioned above: fair also in the eyes of reasonably-minded Iranians. Needless to say that the tackling of the Iran crises was and is far from perfect; I use this example to demonstrate that war is rarely the only option.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:35 AM

Jim, I have only expressed 3 views about WW1.

1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;
3: That the British army was not badly led.

The programme has not addressed 3, but has fully endorsed 1 and 2.
Deny that?

I have expressed no opinion about profiteering or the kind of shells made in our factories.
There clearly was an issue early on, so a post of Munitions Minister was created and the problem solved.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:58 AM

"You are out of your depth here Jim."
We appear to be all out of out depths here in the face of your proclaimed infallibility.
Kitchener sent the wrong shells - he tendered his resignation, he was kept in office by his reputation as the hero of Omdurman and Kahtoum.
He offered to resign then withdrew it when he saw he could get away with it - he was one of the leasing "donkeys".
Settled - now respond the the fact that all your other arguments have been shot to pieces and stop trying to use this as a diversion
The rest of the below quoted article is well worth a read too.
Buffoon!!!
Jim Carroll

http://www.cercles.com/n21/parsons.pdf
"The admitted fact is that Lord Kitchener ordered the wrong kind of shell—the
same kind of shell that he used against the Boers in 1900. He persisted in
sending shrapnel—a useless weapon in trench warfare. He was warned
repeatedly that the kind of shell required was a violently explosive bomb
which would dynamite its way through the German trenches and
entanglements and enable our brave men to advance to safety. The kind of
shell our poor soldiers have had has caused the death of thousands of them.
Incidentally, it has brought about a Cabinet crisis and the formation of what
we hope is going to be a National Government.
This was greeted with outrage: The Times was accused of giving
sensitive information to the enemy and of undermining military and
civilian morale. Copies of The Times and the Daily Mail were burnt in the
streets and The Times was banned from a number of London clubs.
Northcliffe was, for many people in the British establishment, a cad.
Northcliffe however stuck to his guns and fought back, probably earning
grudging admiration in some quarters for having done a considerable
service to the cause of the war. Others probably never forgave him,
whether he was right or not.
It gradually became clear that there was a genuine shell shortage.
However this was not the only issue which threatened the government. At
least as significant in weakening the government's political position was
the resignation on 15 May 1915 of Lord "Jacky" Fisher, the First Sea Lord,
over the Dardanelles.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 04:45 AM

Grishka you were asked where and when British diplomatic efforts could have been brought to bear in the period in which you claim they did nothing (1904 to 1911) in order that the War could have been averted? So far you have been unable to answer that question. What "fair peace perspective" could Great Britain have offered either France or Germany between 1904 and 1914? "Fair" to who? Who decides what constitutes "Fair"?

The "essay" linked to by Monique shows the British efforts towards both the French and the Germans. The former were pressing the British to engage in a formal military alliance in support of both themselves and the Russians, the latter were pressing the British to formally declare their neutrality in the event of a war between Germany and France. There was no eagerness on the part of either the British or the French military for a war, the fact that they were making plans to counter any attack in itself means nothing. Example: The US Military have plans for the invasion of Iceland, Ireland and Great Britain and they have had those for decades and they are constantly reviewed and revised - Why? As a precaution, so that should any such action be required they are already prepared, they don't have to start from scratch.

The British withstood the pressure applied by the French until 1911 when they formally joined the Triple Entente, in joining this alliance the British made it perfectly clear to the Germans the penalty of any German invasion of Belgium. Britain, Germany(Prussia) and France were all signatories of the 1838 treaty that guaranteed Belgian sovereignty and British resolve to honour that treaty was so well understood that the French in their war plans made certain that under no circumstances would they enter Belgium to counter any German mobilisation (That is clearly stated in the "Essay" supplied by Monique) as that might bring Britain into the war on the side of Germany.

So talking of the "western front" here there was absolutely nothing that Great Britain could have done between 1904 and 1914 that would have averted the conflict that became known as The Great War.

Your example of present day diplomacy with regard to Iran, did not just occur in the last six months, the peaceful diplomacy also must include what was done in the period 2004 to 2012 and that includes all the sanctions all the rhetoric all the scaremongering and hypothesising about military action and the threat of military action, all of that brought pressure to bear and resulted in what we have arrived at today, and what we have arrived at today is still very much a "let's-wait-and-see"; "Carrot-and-Stick" process

As to why a wish "to honour those who served" should be viewed as a "stumbling block" I simply cannot see. In what way do the elected members of parliament who form our Government and Opposition seize the merits of those who they in the company of our Head State honour each year at the Cenotaph? As far as those who served in the Great War are concerned there are now no longer any participants living to parade and publicly demonstrate any act of remembrance for their comrades who fell and for those who served - so if they are to be remembered at all it is entirely fitting that the remembrance of a grateful nation is officially demonstrated.

"Privately we may well honour soldiers" Well we may but that isn't quite enough is it? Doesn't quite do the job. Why? How? Just read through this thread and find out how many clowns think that "Oh what a lovely War" and "Blackadder goes Forth" are representative of anything that occurred during those terrible years.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 03:06 PM

Not Me.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:56 PM

Last night's programme linked Kitchener's resignation with the shell scandal - it claimed they were the wrong size and women had to be recruited to replace them.

KITCHENER DID NOT RESIGN!
THE SHELLS WERE NOT THE WRONG SIZE!
WOMEN HAD TO BE RECRUITED BECAUSE THE MEN WERE AWAY FIGHTING!

You are out of your depth here Jim.
As my actual quotes from the programmes make clear, they support my views not yours.

Who wants 600?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:13 PM

Last night's programme linked Kitchener's resignation with the shell scandal - it claimed they were the wrong size and women had to be recruited to replace them.
Take it up with Paxman
Jim Carroll
"Unfortunately his relations with the rest of the war cabinet were strained. Kitchener was difficult to work with, finding it hard to develop close working relationships with colleagues. Following an attack by Lord Northcliffe's newspapers in 1915 over a shortage of shells, responsibility for munitions was taken from him; later that same year he was stripped of control over strategy.
Kitchener offered to resign from the cabinet, but his overwhelming popularity in the country at large made the government fearful of the consequences of allowing him to leave the cabinet.
Kitchener's involvement with the disastrous Dardanelles campaign led to a further tarnishing of his reputation among the cabinet."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 01:05 PM

Non of my quoted historians could be described as "obscure" or "tabloid journalists."
Max Whatsisname is a columnist working for an extremist right-wing rag whose history includes unqualified support for "Herr Hitler" – he no way resembles the "qualified" historian you have been demanding from the rest of us.
"But Jim, both this week and last week it was YOU who first posted about his programme!"
And it is you who has consistently used his programmes to back your dinosaur case "Paxman to camera".
Nobody is dismissing Paxman's programmes – on the contrary, they have been saying what the rest of us have been saying since this thread started- you are the only one dismissing evidence out of hand "because it doesn't come from real historians".
I was pointing out your increasingly ludicrous stance of hiding behind historians and rejecting evidence that echoed exactly last night's program – idiotic leadership, dishonest recruiting under pressure, executing British Christians profiteering... it was all there in spades.
How does this measure up beside your blanket support of an extremist racist site, your ludicrous use of an obscure bunch of Australian Utopians to support your suggestion of arming a mass-murdering dictator with riot control equipment (please deny this – I would love the opportunity to put it up here!!), your hiding behind 'experts' to back your racist "implant" claim... and every other stupidly extreme disgusting stance you have taken on this forum.
I'm thoroughly   enjoying Paxman's programmes – they absolutely vindicate all the arguments people have put forward in opposition to your jingoistic rantings – your disgusting accusations of "revisionist", "leftie", "out-of-date", "romatic", "lies" (this latter particularly disgusting when it is aimed at WW1 veterans)
Paxmans programmes have shown the "Blackadder" incompetence of leadership, the dishonest and immoral recruiting, the Imperialist nature of the war.... all human life is there.
Cant wait for the next one.
Your case is dead – give it a decent burial
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 12:43 PM

And Jim, Kitchener neither resigned nor was sacked, wrong sized shells were never supplied, and no objectors were ever executed.
"You really aren't very good at this, are you?"

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 11:38 AM

You keep quoting Jeremy Paxman - why should we believe a non-historian TV commentator and quiz-master?

But Jim, both this week and last week it was YOU who first posted about his programme!
I just used quotes to show that you were being dishonest about its message.

I did quote some of his views before the programme aired, giving this reason (26th Jan)

"It is true that in the tiny pond that is Mudcat, I am a lone voice, shouted down by people who have not read any recent historical work.
In the real world, intelligent, informed people exemplified by Jeremy Paxman, know what I know."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:50 AM

Non of my quoted historians could be described as "obscure" or "tabloid journalists."
I remind you that you have found not one single living historian of any description who believes what you believe.
That suggests, quite strongly, that you are wrong and I am right.
As usual.

Dr Jane Winters
Reader in Digital Humanities and Head of Publications & IHR (Institute of Historical Research) Digital

Jane has been Head of Publications at the Institute since 1999, and of the new IHR Digital since the autumn of 2010. She is responsible for the IHR's publishing and scholarly communications strategy, including the management of a range of research projects focusing on the provision of digital resources for historians. Currently, she is Co-Director of the JISC-funded Connected Histories project; Principal Investigator of the AHRC-funded Early English Laws project to digitise Anglo-Saxon legal texts; and Publishing Editor of the Bibliography of British and Irish History. She is also Executive Editor of the IHR's journal, Historical Research.

Jane is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and a founder member of the Porta Historica network of editors of historical texts. She is a member of the Academic Steering & Advocacy Committee of the Open Library of Humanities.

Revised list.
Saul David, Nigel Jones, Richard Holmes, Peter Hart, David Stephenson,
Fritz Fischer, Dan Todman, Gary Sheffield, Max Hastings, Malcolm Brown,
Stuart Halifax, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan, William Philpott,
Tristram Hunter, Dan Snow, Ian McMillan, David Renolds, heather Jones,
Jane Winter, Pierre Purseigle,

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:47 AM

Pray tell in what 190x years prior to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand were Great Britain, France, Russia, Austro-Hungary and Italy close to war? Where and when could this British diplomatic effort have been brought to bear?

The war was about many issues, distinct but related and "aligned" by the alliances, therefore "synchronized". We are talking here about the western front only. The essay found by Monique explains my point well and credibly (given its official character - Keith lost once more by quickly claiming the opposite without even taking a look via Google-Translate).

From a present-day point of view, peaceful diplomacy takes more than just warnings (though these, alas, are necessary as well). A government must offer a peace perspective that can plainly be recognized as fair. It might be working just now with the Iran. If such an offer had been made in the 190xs, German propaganda would have been much less convincing for its own citizens. No guarantee that it works, but those who do not make their best efforts are guilty of the disaster including wasting their soldiers' lives.

The British PM wants

to remember those who died; and to ensure that the lessons learnt live with us for ever.

Excellent.

This additional money will be paid for from fines imposed on financial services firms for misconduct

... and from lotteries. Not really dignified, but money does not stink.

The scandalon is the officials' wish

to honour those who served

- amounting to seizing their merits. My grand-uncles may have acted honourably, but I do not allow any representatives of "nations" to honour themselves by honouring them. Worse still, simple minds will be encouraged to shout for the next "Great War", to collect honourings and medals.

Privately, we may well honour soldiers who fight to prevent even worse disasters, similarly to police and firefighters. Most of those who send them to war should atone for their own negligence, or best keep quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:30 AM

"Jim, why should we read an environmental health expert writing in "Truthout" magazine?"
For the same reason we should read the words of the tabloid journalists and obscure historians you put up - because they all have a point of view to be considered - and not rejected because they don't correspond with "the words wot you rote"
The article confirms exactly what Paxman said last night about the profiteering that went on - are you saying both were wrong - surely not?
"None were from my existing list, but every statement supported my stated views."
Why should we believe Jane Winter? - the only Jane Winters i can find are an oncologist and a photographer
I seem to remember your saying - interminably - that the only evidence you believed aws that of prominent historians (you didn't add tabloid journslists - but tey're there as well)
You keep quoting Jeremy Paxman - why should we believe a non-historian TV commentator and quiz-master?
You really aren't very good at this, are you?
Pst - Chocolate soldier.
The programme last night claimed that Kitchener's reputation was shot over the wrong shells fiasco and that he was removed from his recruitent position - maybe he didn't resign - maybe they just sacked him - they bloody well should have.
Back to the pub and try and convince them what a brave little soldier you are - don't forget to take your gun!!
Diiis-miiiss
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 09:02 AM

Grishka:

"I wrote about my impression (no proof, but good arguments) that British diplomacy could have prevented the war in the 190x years, to the immense benefit of their own country and of the world."

As the grounding for the causes of the First World War lay firmly in disputes centred on the relations between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia I doubt very much if there was anything that Great Britain could have done to prevent anything that subsequently happened. The only people who could have done that were those involved in the initial exchanges. Had the Austro-Hungarians accepted the Serbs offer for negotiations on the 30th July, as the German diplomats strenuously urged them to, then there would have been no Russian mobilisation on the 31st July and there would have been no German mobilisation on the 1st August - there would have been no First World War - (By the way the really ridiculous thing about it was that although the Austrians declared war on the Serbs on the 28th July 1914, the Austrians could not make any move to actually attack Serbia before the 12th August - they had all that time to defuse the situation - unfortunately neither the Russians, the Serbs nor the Germans actually knew that at the time.)

Pray tell in what 190x years prior to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand were Great Britain, France, Russia, Austro-Hungary and Italy close to war? Where and when could this British diplomatic effort have been brought to bear?

All a nonsense really, all Great Britain could do throughout those years is do as she did, reassure allies, and warn potential foes of the consequences of certain actions on their part.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 08:38 AM

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-announces-government-plans-to-mark-first-world-war-centenary

There you go Musket tell us how many times Cameron refers to "celebrations".

Oh Christmas - Kitchener had to resign did he? From what post did Lord Kitchener resign? Can you furnish us with the date of this resignation?

(Pssst Christmas - I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide that information because it does not exist - just more shit that you've made up - Kitchener served as Secretary of State for War from 5th August 1914 until the 5th June 1916 the date on which he died when HMS Hampshire struck a German mine off Marwick Head Orkney. The ship was on its way to the Russian port of Archangel and Kitchener, as Secretary of State for War, was part of a mission being sent to Russia to help revitalise the Russian war effort)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 08:12 AM

"The Great War Of Words" BBC R4 this morning.

A number of historians spoke or were quoted.
None were from my existing list, but every statement supported my stated views.

Some examples:
Heather Jones
"It was a war of consent. People carried on fighting it because they believed in it, not because they were told to believe in it."
Jane Winter
I would utterly reject the idea that the British population are manipulated through propaganda into pursuing the First world war,"
Pierre Purseigle)
Increasingly this war is seen no only as a war to be fought and to be won in order to respond to its tragic challenge, but also as an existential conflict that effectively this is a conflict between right and evil, and that the threat is against our way of life, our home, our families and our friends."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 08:02 AM

I suppose those executed were demonstrating a rather late in the day conscientious objection.

If the men knew what they were there for and agreed to why, then why did they need so many red caps? Why did our understanding and treatment of mental illness take off in the immediate post war years?

Still, I'm sure once I watch the Paxman show, I'll have my barbecued donkey on the road to Damascus moment and start waving my flag with the worst of them eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 08:01 AM

"The Prime Minister referred to the celebrations both in the house and in interviews."

Source please Musket - not just your fevered and biased imaginings.

This from Lord Clark of Windermere (Labour) who asked what plans had been made to commemorate the centenary of the First World War in the House of Lords on 4th March 2013:

"The Government have recognised these sensitivities. Correctly, they have ruled out any talk whatever of celebration, and the emphasis is on commemoration and remembrance, and that is correct. They appear to have the tone right, although I trust that over the four years of the commemorations there will be flexibility in which we can adapt to what is needed. The Prime Minister identified the objectives when he said on 11 October last year that the commemoration was,

"to honour those who served; to remember those who died; and to ensure that the lessons learned live with us".

That is absolutely right.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 07:55 AM

Jim, why should we read an environmental health expert writing in "Truthout" magazine?
I prefer to get my History from historians.

Now clarify for us:
Were any conscientious objectors ever executed?
Were the wrong size of shells ever supplied?

No.
All made up.
You should try reading historians too.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 07:18 AM

Being a bit of an arse aren't we Teribus?

The Prime Minister referred to the celebrations both in the house and in interviews.

You don't need to be a champagne socialist to read / hear. (Although Keith A Hole of Hertford will now say his search of 0.2% of the internet means I am lying.)

In any case, I doubt a filthy rotten capitalist like me could ever be compared to a champagne socialist. (Got a good cellar stock of champagnes all the same.)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 07:17 AM

The wrong shells were sent to the troops
Kitchener's position was undermined, he eventually resigned
Women were recruited to produce the right shells
All was covered succinctly in last nights programme
Whether they were the wrong size or not is really immaterial - they were the wrong ****** shells - end of story.
Also covered last night was the mass profiteering that was going on back home
Large Rent increases, with families being turned out on the streets when they were unable to pay.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/12543-wwi-same-protests-of-futility-folly-heard-today
Oh - oh - oh What a Lovely War
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 07:13 AM

We'll get round to the execution of the 16 Christian Yorkshiremen for sticking to their "Thou shall not kill" Christianity later

More made up shit.
No-one was executed for refusing to take part in the war.

37 minutes in. Paxman to camera,
"But it seems to me remarkable that a country which considered itself in the grips of a struggle for national survival, none the less allowed individual citizens to decide whether they could reconcile that struggle with their personal conscience. It didn't happen elsewhere in Europe."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:59 AM

For ***** sake Keith - Kitchener was forced to resign because of having sent the wrong sized ammunition to the front.

For ***** sake Jim, stop making shit up.`
The "shell scandal" was that the British shells "were not powerful enough" to inflict sufficient damage on German emplacements, and that production was insufficient.(7 minutes in.)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:46 AM

"The statement about shells not fitting the guns you just made up Jim."
For ***** sake Keith - Kitchener was forced to resign because of having sent the wrong sized ammunition to the front.
Sure you weren't watching Coronation Street?
It was claimed that The Somme was going to be an "easy operation" made so by the prepared massive explosion.
We'll get round to the execution of the 16 Christian Yorkshiremen for sticking to their "Thou shall not kill" Christianity later - I'm sure you'll defend that with equal skill!
Wonder if this counts as "Christian Persecution" in your book - nah - couldn't be, it wasn't carried out by Muslims!!
"Lions, donkeys" and, in your case, morons.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:05 AM

to pander to your pedantry

It is not pedantry, it is about a way of thinking in the terms of nationalism and war propaganda. Rethink it for your own sake, not for me.

I wrote about my impression (no proof, but good arguments) that British diplomacy could have prevented the war in the 190x years, to the immense benefit of their own country and of the world. Same with France. If you do not share this view, you should nevertheless take a closer look at those years, and not believe the theatrical myths (half-truths) about an Archduke, brave Belgium, genetically aggressive Germans (whose kaiser happened to be Queen Victoria*s favourite grandson, chatting English with her and his jealous uncle Ed, later with his cousins), autocracy vs. free world, etc. etc. Such story-telling heralds ever more disastrous "victories". The last Iraq war has not yet been the worst imaginable scenario, if we let the jingoists have their way. Think of China, as some journalists did.

Of course, lions-donkeys etc. are similar myths, designed for different political purposes. I wrote that before. Blackadder is black comedy, quoting clichés to identify them as such. Too bad that many viewers are too ill-informed or lazy to understand it.

In the course of this year, we will read and hear more about the "kaiser's fleet theory" and other analyses, hopefully more deeply rooted.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:00 AM

43 minutes in. Paxman to camera.
"The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:54 AM

Actual quote, 52 minutes in.
"So confident in fact that there had been jokes (my italics) that all the troops would need to carry across no-man's land were their umbrellas."
The statement about shells not fitting the guns you just made up Jim.
" a million and a half shells poured down on the Germans" was the actual quote about the pre-attack bombardment.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 04:19 AM

Last night:
Off to the Somme after being told they'd "only need umbrellas" and and armed with shells that won't fit the guns!!!
"Lions led by donkeys" as the man said- Oh what lovely war - Blackadder said it all!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:35 AM

"Some opionions are backed up by evidence and objective fact, others are not." - Greg F

Some opinions, like those stated by Keith in this discussion have been, others, such as those voiced by yourself have been utterly bereft of any substantive evidence and far from objective.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:31 AM

"Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
- meaning: no justified choice. This amounts to praising the British leaders for doing the right thing"

Over the distance of 100 years yes and now fully armed with the facts relating to perspectives and aims of all the combatant nations yes I can now state my opinion that Great Britain (The normal way of referring to the country and the actions taken by it's legitimate Government - If however in order to pander to your pedantry you expect me to prefix "The Government of" every time I refer to a country you are going to be sadly disappointed) did do what it felt that it had to do - i.e. Justified - and yes they did do the right thing, after all clear warnings had been given. At any time through the course of July 1914 Germany could have prevented the escalation by making a U-turn (Unacceptable after the assassination of the Archduke), they deliberately chose not to and the major powers of Europe paid the price - On the other hand at no time at all did Great Britain seek a conflict, but having made the commitments it had to its allies and considering the obligations solemnly made under long standing treaties Great Britain had the integrity to stand by them.


"Unlike the war plans of the other powers, for Germany to mobilize was to go to war. Both Moltke and Falkenhayn told the government that Germany should declare war even were Russia to offer to negotiate."

Now I do not understand what part of that that you do not understand, but to me the meaning is quite unequivocal it meant that on the 1st August 1914 when Kaiser Wilhelm II signed the orders for the mobilisation of German troops that there was going to be a war and the Germans knew that full well - The German invasion and occupation of Luxembourg commenced at 19:00hrs that evening.

There was only one chance to avert this war and German diplomats did try extremely hard to make it succeed. That period did not as you rather foolishly image span from 1904 to 1911. The window of opportunity lasted and was open for only four days in July 1914 between the 28th July and the 31st July inclusive. The effort centred round diplomatic exchanges between Germany and the Austro-Hungarians - Since the Austro-Hungarian declaration of War on the Serbians on the 28th July, the Serbians caved in and accepted Austrian terms more or less unconditionally, the Austro-Hungarians wanted Serbia destroyed, they prevaricated and deliberately delayed responding to German appeals for peace negotiations and Russia gave the orders for full military mobilisation of its forces. In all this both Great Britain and France were powerless to act.

Irrespective of what you believe and think a comprehensive and solid case can be made for stating that the European alliances dating back to 1883 right up to 1911 actually kept the peace in Europe through what were extremely turbulent times.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 14 - 02:25 AM

They do not exist.
that is why none of you can find a single one after weeks and weeks of fruitless searching.
Or, have you now found one Greg? (ha ha ha ha)
Can you give us a name? (ha ha ha ha)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 05:25 PM

My opinions are those of historians.

Your opinions, oh conclusively proven complete idiot (see proof, below) are entirely your own, for the purpose of legitimizing which you carefully select and edit the opinions of a relatively few "living" historians solely of British origin.

Do get in touch with the rest of the world and the majority of historians. Or not, and continue to spout bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 03:10 PM

Greg,
Some opionions are backed up by evidence and objective fact, others are not

Historians do support their opinions with evidence and objective fact.
My opinions are those of historians.
Yours are not.

And Troubadour, all but the "contrarian" ferguson agree that Britain had to resist the German onslaught.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 10:44 AM

Who is praising anyone? ... Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;

- meaning: no justified choice. This amounts to praising the British leaders for doing the right thing, which you (Teribus) also do explicitly. The onslaught was in 1914, options were earlier, as I wrote many times; the rhetorical trick of nationalists is to confuse this distinction. Another such trick is to write "Britain", "Germany", etc., as if the citizens of a country had a single collective mind; this comes handy for governments to avert criticism as unpatriotic. People who are proud of their country, no matter for what reasons, have fallen victim tho this effect. (Those who are ashamed of their country are wrong as well: they would like to be proud of it, and will take the next opportunity. Same with religion, ethnicity, profession, etc. Be proud of your personal achievements, and ashamed of your personal failures - enough to do. Praise or criticize leaders of your own or other groups for each of their actions separately. Praising or criticizing large groups is pretty pointless.)

Alliances are not a good or bad thing in themselves, it depends on their agendas and politics. The relatively peaceful and successful record of NATO is due to its relatively careful politics, compared to the Entente we are discussing here. Nevertheless, I would not praise all NATO manoeuvres either.

Authocracy: Tsar Nicholas's Russia was one. German and Austrian military and political leaders needed propagandistic justifications to win their (newspaper-reading) citizens' support, without which WWI would not have taken place. French and German newspapers readily heated the mutual propaganda machines, and the British leaders were in the boat, as we saw from Monique's link and many other texts. (British newspapers were a bit late with their part, in accordance with the myth of being totally surprised and outraged.) Politicians would have been required to calm down the athmosphere and to address all the fears and arguments brought fourth by the other side. Often they prefer the opposite, for the (all too short-lived) pleasure of the crowd in their own countries. This must be criticized sharply.

Dictatorship is detestable, but most current international propaganda against it was and is hypocritical. A topic for many other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 09:59 AM

I think that is unfair, Greg.

Not at all, Dave.

All opinions, as I'm sure you accept, are not equally "valid" - such as the opinion that the Holocaust never occurred, for example.

Some opionions are backed up by evidence and objective fact, others are not.

Yes?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 06:37 AM

Wilhelm delivered this speech in Bremerhaven on 27 July 1900, addressing German troops who were departing to suppress the Boxer rebellion in China.

"Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name German be affirmed by you in such a way in China that no Chinese will ever again dare to look cross-eyed at a German."

Hence the Germans in the "Great War" became known and were refered to as the bestial Hun.

Under the Schlieffen Plan, for Germany to mobilize was to mean war because as part of the plan, German troops as they were called up were to invade Belgium automatically. Unlike the war plans of the other powers, for Germany to mobilize was to go to war. Both Moltke and Falkenhayn told the government that Germany should declare war even were Russia to offer to negotiate. Subsequent therefore to German mobilization for war the fates of both Luxembourg and Belgium were irrevocably sealed on the 1st August 1914. An ultimatum was delivered to the French the same day and that was when France mobilized. Sir Edward Grey warned Lichnowsky that if Germany invaded Belgium, Britain would go to war.

1st August 1914 – Luxembourg invaded

2nd August 1914 – Luxembourg occupied unopposed - Belgium given a ultimatum by Germany demanding free passage for its troops

3rd August 1914 – Germany declares war on France

4th August 1914 – Germany declares war on Belgium - German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg told the Reichstag that the German invasions of Belgium and Luxembourg were in violation of international law, but he argued that Germany was "in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law."

4th August 1914 – British ultimatum demanding that German troops withdraw from Belgium delivered and by 23:00 Britain was at war with Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 05:05 AM

BBC R4 9.30am tomorow.

2Episode 1 of 2
Duration: 43 minutes
First broadcast: Tuesday 04 February 2014

"On August 4th 1914 German forces entered neutral Belgium. A decision that brought Britain to war in defence of international law bound by strategic interests and moral force.

The subsequent atrocities committed in Belgium & Northern France in those first weeks transformed many people's understandings of what was now at stake. The war now defined as a great moral cause, civilization versus German Kultur.

The 'rape' of Belgium caused international outrage and created a long propaganda war for the hearts and minds of millions overseas. At home ordinary Briton's identified strongly with the Belgian plight with hundred's of thousands of refugees arriving on our shores. The German policy of civilian bombing raids and later unrestricted submarine warfare brought the shock of war to people's homes and further shaped our ideas of the bestial Hun.

The greatest atrocity of war was war itself. In the turbulent years of peace after 1918 the wartime motivations and meanings of the war for millions was refracted through the prism of post war disillusionment. So much so that a powerful counter myth set in by the late 1920's that has largely persisted. Many now felt that the British public and millions more were essentially manipulated by their governments to wage a pointless war of slaughter. That the atrocities were at best hysterical stories ruthlessly transformed into motivational propaganda.

Michael Portillo explores the true history of those events in Belgium, the impact on people during wartime and the battle for meaning that followed."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 02:54 AM

Grishka:

"British and French leaders were afloat in the same boat long before 1914; all plans were designed on that premise. Enthusiasm varied, of course, but the time of real options was from 1900 to 1911, approximately. I think that each single one of the governments involved could have prevented the war then, and should have done so for the benefit of the vast majority of their own citizens, and of the world."

The agreements and treaties entered into by Great Britain, France and Russia between 1904 and 1911 were entered into with the express intention of preventing a war in Europe by deterring it. Most alliances are made on the premise that they are defensive - both NATO and the Warsaw Pact are examples of that concept - The Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance were no different. Unfortunately, it only takes one of the players to think that they can win to destroy the balance - in the period we are talking about Germany, governed by a very militaristic autocracy, believed that they could strike decisive blows both on land and at sea in order to accomplish what Germany saw as her war objectives.

"If any of them was "less guilty" than the others, we would still be wrong to praise them now."

Who is praising anyone? I will repeat the three points that Keith made:

1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;

2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;

3: That the British army was not badly led.

I agree with all three

In the course of the last two hundred years Great Britain has made a stand and played an instrumental part in saving Europe from four dictatorships - those of Napoleon Bonaparte; Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler and Soviet Communism.

Was it right that Great Britain took the stance that they did? - Yes it was.

Am I proud of the stand that my country took and the part they played in the downfall of those regimes? - Yes I am.

Am I proud and grateful for the sacrifices made by my forebears and those of my fellow countrymen in ensuring the defeat and overthrow of those regimes? - Yes I am, and I am convinced that those sacrifices and tribulations borne by the nation as a whole should be remembered and commemorated and portrayed as honestly and as objectively as possible so that my grandchildren can appreciate the sacrifices made, as unlike me, they will have no chance to listen to the stories of those who actually took part as I have (Great War and Second World War).

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 14 - 01:47 AM

"The PM wants to celebrate it for fucks sake."

Any verifiable source that supports that idiotic statement Musket? The only word I have ever seen or read with regard to the forthcoming anniversaries of the events related to the First World War has been commemoration which is a horse of a very different colour - True?. But there again Musket you could just be playing the role of a typical champagne socialist? The greatest believers in myth, half-truths and downright misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 02:24 PM

But not the consensus of every historian, just those Keith feels comfortable with.

So, why can't any of you find one?
Re the centenary, except for Dan Snow and Hastings, all the quotes are years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 12:44 PM

The opinions he repeats are genuine. But not the consensus of every historian, just those Keith feels comfortable with.

My concern is the way they have been trooped out on time for 1914 centenary. Perish the thought we might use the date to question political and strategic military decisions. The PM wants to celebrate it for fucks sake.

I am recording Paxman and will watch it when I return to Blighty.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 12:29 PM

I think that is unfair, Greg. The opinions of the historians that Keith has quoted are perfectly valid and, as far as I can see, in the majority. I don't think that they are facts though, they are opinions. Conversely the opinions that you and other are quoting are not facts either, they are also opinions. The argument seems to be about degrees of merit or fault. What is the point?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 09:26 AM

The argument, from your point of view, is not about the historical view but about defending yourself.

Got it in one, Dave. The very LAST thing Keith the wunderkinder is about is historical fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 09:17 AM

Defending myself, AND the historical views I hold, but nothing to do with pride or shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 08:20 AM

Fairy Nuff. The argument, from your point of view, is not about the historical view but about defending yourself. I have absolutely no issue with that. Just as long as we know.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 05:13 AM

It would be, but I do not recognise that.
I expressed my views and was vilified and ridiculed for them.
I then defended those views by showing they were the views held by historians who study that period.
I was called every kind of a fool and a cunt for believing them, and also told that it was not true that the views were held by historians.

That has been the debate from my perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 04:33 AM

The point is though that neither of the opposing views, we should be proud or we should be ashamed, is true. There are many things to be proud of and many things to be ashamed of. The truth lies, as I keep saying, somewhere in between. What the argument is getting into here is degrees of merit and fault. Which I find not only ridiculous but pretty pointless.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Feb 14 - 04:04 AM

It was also a slap in the face to those who denied that invasion of Britain was a real prospect.
Greg.
Jim.