Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2

Subject: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 09:17 AM

Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03thcl8

As Britain and the world sets out to mark the centenary of the start of WW1 in 1914, Radio 2 begins its commemorations with by broadcasting Tony Award winning director Terry Johnson's new production of "Oh What A Lovely War" performed at The Theatre Royal Stratford East, the theatre where it was created by Joan Littlewood and the Theatre Workshop half a century ago. The ensemble includes Caroline Quentin and the music is directed by Mike Dixon.

In 1963, despite it being 45 years since the end of the First World War, the debut performance of Joan Littlewood's musical that delivered a satirical slant on the horrific events of the Great War, sent shock waves through British society. This society was yet to embrace the freedom of the sixties and was still recovering from the brutal reality of another World War and so wanted to bury its head in the sand rather than face the human cost that war brings.

"Oh What A Lovely War" is perhaps the best known stage play attacking the Great War. This musical comedy has always been controversial and has enormous impact. Even in 1963, almost half a century after the war, the musical was refused a license for a West End performance, until Princess Margaret, who saw it in Stratford remarked to the Lord Chamberlain: "What you've said here tonight should have been said long ago, don't you agree?" It went on to be a huge stage success, before heading to Broadway and film.

The musical takes the form of an end of the pier Pierrot show comprising a series of popular songs of the period , "It's a Long Way to Tipperary," "Pack up Your Troubles", "Oh What A Lovely War" and "Keep the Home Fires Burning", intercut with satirical sketches and arranged in such a way as to map out the progress of the war.

CJB

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 11:57 AM

A brilliant film, with more feeling about it than all the modern songs about that appalling event

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 13 Nov 14 - 02:30 PM

Not the film, this is a sound recording of the recent stage production. Your thanks for the compliments on the film though - there are few left who did summat towards it, and as I did a teeny bit, I'd better speak for people far better than I.
The question was rather about the underlying State diktat of the day, although the film also picked up on the Vietnam War. The assumption of the power of the Civil Service to have its way unquestioned had reached the point where the Nation would no longer tolerate it. The Profumo Affair was going on in the background of the first production, and luxury products were heavily taxed (50%) as a form of substitute rationing on a very arbitrary basis. This would in due course become VAT. A similar sense was encapsulated at the same time as the film in Bill Pertwee's incessant attacks on Captain Mainwaring as "Napoleon": one never had to look far for someone from WWII who still thought he had the same rights to boss everyonbe around he had then.
The cutting edge of the stage show was not so much the songs as the real-life data portrayed alongside it. I guess they'll have to do it by voiceovers: the more stuck-up BBC Announcerish the better, the entire point is that this data was available at the time but was ignored as politically "inappropriate".

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Rain Dog
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 06:30 AM

There was a documentary about Joan Littlewood on BBC Radio 2 on Monday 10th November. It will be available on the BBC iplayer for 4 weeks


To commemorate Joan Littlewood's centenary, Catherine Tate hears from the stars of stage and screen who experienced the legendary directorial methods of the 'Mother of Modern Theatre'.

By the time 'Oh! What A Lovely War' premiered in 1963 the illegitimate daughter of a book-hating teenager in Stockwell had earned herself a place at RADA, formed her own Theatre company, been banned from the BBC and had three shows transferred to the West End.

Catherine traces Joan's personal struggles and creative triumphs, discovering how one woman shook the foundations of the British establishment and changed the face of theatre forever.

The Mother of Modern Theatre

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Thomas Stern
Date: 14 Nov 14 - 08:06 PM

Is the Stratford East production from the beginning of this year
going to be available on CD or DVD ???
I do not see it listed at Amazon, though the Joan Littlewood 1964 production recording, and the film soundtrack are available.

Thomas.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 15 Nov 14 - 01:17 PM

Alan Clark's first book, The Donkeys (1961), was a revisionist history of the British Expeditionary Force's campaigns at the beginning of World War I.

The book's title was drawn from the expression "Lions led by donkeys" which has been widely used to compare British soldiers with their commanders.

The book was considered to be the inspiration for the popular pacifist musical Oh, What a Lovely War! and Clark, after legal wrangles, was awarded some royalties. (Wikipedia)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 15 Nov 14 - 03:41 PM

Look, mate, we dealt with that crap last year. The history of OWALW is thoroughly established and you pervert it: I can only presume the rest of what you put in print here to is equally unreliable.
Putting up your own fallacious stalking horse and then shooting it down simply betrays you as a twit of the first water.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 02:18 AM

The Broadhurst Theatre Playbill for November 1964 credits Alan Clark.

What, then, was his contribution?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 02:30 AM

Rahere -- Purely for info, who is the 'mate' with whom you are getting so annoyed? And why? I am much exercised as to what you are getting so heated about.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 02:40 AM

You need to keep exercising. Good for you.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 06:28 AM

Henryp was mmy target, the poster immediately before mine.
You know I did a little bit in the doing of that film, and know the background. I in particular bear the opprobrium of Joan Plowright for what I did, having found those uniforms, so I know exactly where she was coming from. However much the Revisionists may hate the criticism, it is necessary and objective, and to argue differently is an attempt to limit our freedom of expression in reminding the Nation of the other side of the story, the bits they chose, curiously, to disregard.

I think it's time to go on the offensive, paying them back with their own currency. Prove your claims, that every man on the Western Front marched cheerfully into the teeth of the enemy's guns with narry a murmur of complaint.

Anyone else here held a post in a military high command? Be thankful that people like me exist there and are not afraid to hold our line, I was in no way untypical: the commanders now are very careful of our men. It's why only 453 men died in the Afghan war, which, I would remind you, was fought over a very similar area and for three times as line.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 06:33 AM

Thank you. I regret I have no way of knowing who is behind your nickname, or what your service history may be.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 09:26 AM

Has anyone seen my stalking horse? It was here just a minute ago.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 09:57 AM

... though I recall, some 50+ years ago, my late first wife had impacted wisdom teeth effectively removed at Barts. Were you by any chance involved in that operation?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 02:07 PM

Probably :) My avatar founded the place, and I post under his name because he started as an entertainer in the courts of the mighty and found a conscience. The fact that he employed one of the few professional farters on record as his assistant is a pure bonus.

Me, I was HQ Accountant, also covering Operations, for WEU, the European Defence Diplomatic HQ, and did things far beyond beancounting - there are many beancounters, but not many who've done what I have - and that's all you'll get on that subject. WEU implemented the Petersberg Tasks, laying the foundations and establishing the methods of peacemaking, which won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. In that role, one of the decisions I made made what became the Afghan War very likely, and I will NOT dishonour the 453 deaths which resulted by allowing fictions to be imputed if I can refute them. My Christian vocation was declared to the Organisation before I ever started, and that showed itself at the very start of my involvement in the Military, when finding my first uniform I also found the uniforms used in the filming of Oh! What a Lovely War!

My great-grandfather, Louis Nestor Guiot, was a Captain in the Belgian Army who won the Chevalier de l'Ordre de Léopold with Oakleaves on the field of battle of the First Battle of the Yser, twice, by order of the King of Belgium, commanding what was left of his Army. That's roughly VC and bar in UK terms.

I consequently have responsibilities both to my family and to myself not to allow the ghosts of the past to overshadow the present. The reasons Haig had were for his time. If you insist on not learning the lessons of that War, then you will be responsible for condemning our descendants to learn the lessons again for themselves. As someone who has knowingly taken that responsibility, as the least bad option, then I must do as much as i can to warn you it's a bad idea.

Having done what I've done, when the proponents of jingoism, who have not, persist in their pernitious mythology, I get irritated, because they're calling me a liar. I have put my hide in the way of harm, and so have earned the hard way the right to warn you against the siren song of those who not only have not, and therefore are speaking out of their arses, but who also have allowed themselves to be seduced by fife and drum. Yes, we need military in case we're wrong, but no, we do not need to deify them either. They start as ordinary folks and are trained according to their aptitudes. What we do NOT need is some polly who's got a dose of megalomania developing a Napoleon complex, as it's kind of rare to see them and theirs paying the butcher's bill themselves.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 05:09 PM

Moderator; I think that you can close this thread too.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Nov 14 - 11:46 PM

Thank you, R. Most enlightening. Some ancestral nachas, as they say in Yiddish. Your avatar was also, of course, a most humorous fellow!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:17 AM

Pretty disgusting behaviour, Henryp.
Firstly you want to throw your weight around bullying everyone into poppy worship, then you want the discussion closed down when you discover you've got someone on your case who actually knows what they're on about because they've done it, unlike most of the armchair warriors proposing the case.
There's an old music-hall song on the subject, "Two lovely mince pies" or summat like it, given we're not far off Xmas. You start it, you take your lumps. The point of the threads was to criticise your kind of behaviour, so take the criticism and learn from it. By going too far you play into the hands of the real pacifists, because those of us who feel armed force should only be an in extremis response - which is a bit like saying don't start punchups because nobody comes out ahead - have to demolish your case. Still, given the choice, I'd rather relate to a pacifist than a thug.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:18 AM

Moderator;

Like the No man's land protest thread, this thread too has departed from discussion about the topic.

You have closed the other thread; you could close this one too.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 04:34 AM

Any chance of closing Henryp?

People who glorify death and futility are usually rather disturbed. What is most disturbing is this specimen's shouting for closure when it realises not everybody is a sociopath in the way his or her comments come over as demonstrating.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:01 AM

Who glorifies death and futility?
Musket is in making shit up mode again.
This show mocks the men who did not think it futile to stand against and stop ruthless, cruel aggression.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:39 AM

The moderator chose to close the No man's land protest thread.

This thread has followed the same route.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:47 AM

"Alan Clark's first book, The Donkeys (1961), was a revisionist history of the British Expeditionary Force's campaigns at the beginning of World War I.

The book's title was drawn from the expression "Lions led by donkeys" which has been widely used to compare British soldiers with their commanders.

The book was considered to be the inspiration for the popular pacifist musical Oh, What a Lovely War! and Clark, after legal wrangles, was awarded some royalties. (Wikipedia)" - GUEST,henryp

Wrong Henry - The expression "Lions led by donkeys" was coined by Alan Clark in order to sell his book.

Google "The Donkey's" and the wiki link gives you this:

"Alan Clark based the title of his book "The Donkeys" (1961) on the phrase. Prior to publication in a letter to Hugh Trevor Roper, he asked "English soldiers, lions led by donkeys etc - can you remember who said that?" Liddell Hart, although he did not dispute the veracity of the quote, had asked Clark for its origins.[7] Whatever Trevor Roper's reply, Clark eventually used the phrase as an epigraph to The Donkeys and attributed it to a conversation between German generals Erich Ludendorff and Max Hoffmann:

Ludendorff: The English soldiers fight like lions.
Hoffmann: True. But don't we know that they are lions led by donkeys."[1][2]

The conversation was supposedly published in the memoirs of General Erich von Falkenhayn, the German chief of staff between 1914 and 1916 but the exchange and the memoirs remain untraced.[1] Clark was equivocal about the source for the dialogue for many years, although in 2007 a friend Euan Graham, recalled a conversation in the mid-sixties, when Clark on being challenged as to the dialogue's provenance, looked sheepish and said "WELL I INVENTED IT"."

Anyone thinking that the likes of "Braveheart", "Blackadder Goes Forth" or "Oh What A Lovely War" cast any light on the times or events around which they were based really needs to have their bumps read. Their perniciousness lies in the fact that they have established and perpetuated idiotic myths and falsehoods related to the actual events and in doing so they denegrate and dishonour the sacrifices made by far,far better men and women. While all may be considered "entertainment" - History they most certainly are not."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:59 AM

I think you will find it is little men who "denigrate and dishonour the sacrifices" not those who can see objectively.

Their deaths, if they mean anything, serve to prevent us seeing good in conflict. Sanitising the gross stupidity, callousness and criminal incompetence of the day may be entertainment to some but society is more advanced these days, thank you very much.

Comparing the views of historians and saying "every historian" followed by "oh, err.. every LIVING historian" followed by "well, nearly every historian" just makes defence of slaughter risible.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 08:57 AM

I agree there is no good in conflict Musket, but in 1914 and 1939 what choice was there but to stand against an invading aggressor?
I am grateful to those who made that stand for the better world I was born into.
Jim Radford put it well,
"Those of you who were unborn,
And live in liberty,
Should remember those who made it so,"

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 09:53 AM

"Wrong Henry - The expression "Lions led by donkeys" was coined by Alan Clark in order to sell his book."

I've no desire to be drawn into your hostilities, Terribus, but the phrase predates not only Alan Clark's book The Donkeys (1961) but the Great War too.

Clark invented not the phrase but its provenance! According to Wikipedia, he prefaced his book with a supposed dialogue between two generals and attributed the dialogue to the memoirs of German general Erich von Falkenhayn.

I simply noted that, again according to Wikipedia, the book was considered to be the inspiration for Oh, What a Lovely War! As the Broadhurst Theatre Playbill for November 1964 credits Alan Clark, it appears that he did indeed have some input.

I've no idea why you or Rahere should take such exception to the post and accuse me of inaccuracy. Should they be offered, your apologies would be graciously accepted. Carry on.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 10:11 AM

Only running from the simple question put to the Author Alan Clark i.e.
Question "Where did it come from?

Answer from Alan Clark "Well I invented it"

I've got no difficulty in understanding that, we know that the man was a dissembling liar, and I most certainly do not give much credence to a "so-called-historian" who simply makes stuff up. Particularly when many others take the trouble and do the work to get things right.

If the book was considered to be the inspiration for the play then it logically turns out that "Oh What A Lovely War" can only be classified as being shit based on shit.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 10:26 AM

No, Teribus! What you actually posted was;

Clark was equivocal about the source for the dialogue for many years, although in 2007 a friend Euan Graham, recalled a conversation in the mid-sixties, when Clark on being challenged as to the dialogue's provenance, looked sheepish and said "WELL I INVENTED IT"."

If you're not happy with the content of Wikipedia, then your argument lies with them, not me.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 11:07 AM

The bits I like are prefaced with "according to Wikipedia."

Eminent historians indeed...

😹



Keith. You can be grateful without making those leading them look better than they were... You make it sound as if only those who are sucked into the sanitisation of incompetence and indifference feel a debt of gratitude. Very shallow remark, even by your standards.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 11:13 AM

You say incompetence and indifference.
Every historian says the opposite.
You are fully entitled to imagine yourself better informed.
We are all fully entitled to see you as an ignorant, preening buffoon.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 12:06 PM

Here we go again, no wonder Richard Atternborough portrayed the cause of the war going round and round in circles on a merry-go-round.
However, when Henryp commented that this thread was lining up to be closed, he used a passive tense rather than taaking responsibility for his role in doing so.

I think I now have my signature

Make peace not war.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 02:52 PM

Every historian doesn't say the men were well led.

On the basis they weren't.

See Mudcat for details

zzz

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 03:12 PM

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash - PM
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 02:34 PM

Keith,

On the previous thread I quoted various historians who suggested that the leadership of the troops was less than competent.

You then said that "modern" historians had a different view. I did a bit of background work on some of the historians you had referred me to. (you had mentioned these people on a previous thread and pointed me in that direction)

May I be allowed to quote the one or two of the self same historians you referred to:-

David Stephenson, with regard to WW1 "a futile struggle for obscure and ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals"

Richard Holmes (himself once a brigadier)with regard to Gallipoli "I wanted to show just how lunatic the whole concept of the campaign was"

Peter Hart with regard to the Somme "Haig's Big Push was a human catastrophe" "Passchendaele came to epitomise the futility and pathos of the whole of WW1"

If you are going to argue a corner please, at least, ensure your information is correct.

There are always belligerent bastards around, like me, who will check your "facts"

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 05:42 PM

First your David Stephenson quote.
Here is the whole thing.
What he really says is the EXACT OPPOSITE of of what you dishonestly claim.

"With Cataclysm, David Stevenson draws on much recent work to provide a comprehensives account of the war, with a welcome interest both in the non-European theatres and in the home fronts. His book is also part of a more general attempt to rethink the meaning of the Great War and situate it in the history of the 20th century.

Like many of his fellow historians, Stevenson challenges much of the accepted wisdom – for example, that the generals had no ideas about how to break the deadlock – yet the prevalent view of the war remains under the influence of the highly critical literature of the late 1920s and early 1930s, with its emphasis on the horrors of the trenches and its portrayal of a futile struggle for obscure or ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals. How many of us saw Oh! What a Lovely War with a slight sense of superiority to the people of the past, so easily duped?"

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 06:08 PM

What Richard Holmes really said, according to the Guardian.
"Holmes is good on war and rearmament, as he should be, though some of his opinions are unexpected: he calls the Gallipoli campaign (more than 20,000 British dead) 'a relatively minor episode' and he thinks that Passchendaele (more than 500,000 casualties on both sides) was a 'grimly successful exercise of attrition by the Allies'. "

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Nov 14 - 06:54 PM

More dishonesty!
Peter Hart never made that quote either!

Here is an extract from a review of his book The Great War from War History Online.

"Hart does not duck some of the wider issues that are raised by the war. He writes from a tradition of British military history that for 30 years has sought to rescue the reputations of generals such as Sir Douglas Haig, the British commander on the western front for most of the conflict, and to show that the entire war cannot be summed up in the ghastly first day of the Battle of the Somme, when the British army suffered its highest-ever number of casualties."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:40 AM

"Sought to rescue"

Mmmmm

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 04:41 AM

sought to rescue

Mmmmm...



💤

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 05:27 AM

Yes, for thirty years British Historians have sought to rescue reputations traduced by revisionists like Clarke after Haig's death.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 06:04 AM

Who is Clarke?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 07:17 AM

Perhaps I might be allowed a brief mention of music on this thread.

I heard Coope Boyes and Simpson sing this Jim Boyes song last night.

We don't seek to lay the blame
Every year we stand in silence round this flame
Seeking only to explain
That we can't let what happened then happen again
A living monument to war
Lest we forget the lessons of before

It was a very affecting experience.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 07:44 AM

The best way to ensure it doesn't happen again is to accept what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again.

If it was well led we would risk repeating it

"again and again and again and again."

Prat

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 08:08 AM

Guest,henryp I would suggest that you look up the meaning of "To coin" something as in "To coin a phrase".

Alan Clark, did coin the phrase {something you say before using an expression that has been used too much} "Lions led by donkeys" to give title to and to denigrate those he mentions in his book.

He did invent the story that the phrase came from a discussion between to very senior German Officers. He did that and spread that deliberate lie in order to reinforce the message he tried to peddle in his book.

I personally do not think much of any historian who just invents stuff and then just sits back quietly collecting coin while his rather poor history is then used and abused until the misconception is reached where people think that the book covers the entire period of the Great War instead of only one year of it.

I think that you will find elsewhere I did turn up one possible origin of the phrase:

"The phrase Lions Led by Donkeys was used as a title for a book published in 1927 by Captain P.A. Thompson. The subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes."

Now then if the Allies were victorious in the Great War would that make them the ones who made the fewest mistakes? If so then they could not possibly be the donkeys being referred to in the title could they?

Yes Musket "sought to rescue" due to complete and utter clots such as yourself relying on fiction and your own imagination to provide you with information relating to historical events.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 08:59 AM

I wonder how many men would have died if they hadn't been so caring, professional and showed such wonderful leadership?

Have you any idea how absurd your idealistic romantic view is?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 09:11 AM

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 09:48 AM

"Absurd, idealistic, romantic view."

The view T and I have expressed is that of every living historian.
As such it is a lot more credible than your fantasies based on lies, myths and politics.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 10:06 AM

Rahere, Musket and Teribus

As I haven't offered any personal views on the conduct of the Great War, I am at a loss to understand how you can criticise my views.

From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 14 - 10:11 AM
Only running from the simple question put to the Author Alan Clark i.e.
Question "Where did it come from?
Answer from Alan Clark "Well I invented it"

Teribus, do stop squirming over your claim about the origin of the phrase 'lions led by donkeys'.

Clark did not invent the phrase. And, as you have now confirmed, it was already well-known when he published his book. Indeed, to call his book The Donkeys would have been pointless had it not been.

Returning to the thread for a moment, do you accept Wikipedia's claim that the book had an influence on the show? If not, why then did Alan Clark receive a credit in the playbill?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 10:29 AM

I beg your pardon - that was from me!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 10:40 AM

henryp - he called the book "The Donkey's" because in the Foreword to the book Clark inserted a reference to an imaginary conversation he dreamed up and attributed to two German Officer's. That is all I have ever contended. When asked for provenance for this quote he admitted that he had invented it. That is perfectly clear in my first post mentioning this.

Oh I am sure that the left-wing-luvvies who staged the show then made the film were influenced by Clark's appalling book - but Clark's book only dealt with the BEF under the Command of Sir John French in 1915 whereas the left-wing-luvvies translated that to cover the entire war and tar it with the same brush - that was the travesty - evidenced here by the number of complete and utter dolts who believe that OWALW is fact - it isn't, it never was, it was crap based on crap.

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

In 1961 a lot of those people who survived were still alive. What did they say about Clark's book ?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 11:45 AM

No, Teribus! You contended that Clark had admitted that he had invented the phrase itself.

Clark called his book The Donkeys, based on the well-known - as you have now admitted - phrase 'lions led by donkeys'.

Nigel Rees - in his book A Word in your shell-like (2004) - provides a long history for the phrase, certainly back to the Crimean War.

And Wikipedia even provides a record of its use in the Grosses Hauptquartier. Evelyn, Princess Blücher, published her memoir 'An English Wife in Berlin' in 1921. She recalled hearing German general Erich Ludendorff praise the British for their bravery and remembered hearing first hand the following statement from the German General Headquarters:

"The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:03 PM

Give them time.

It takes time for truth to overcome smug self righteousness.

EEEYYYY. HHOOOOOORRRR

🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:20 PM

From the same Wiki paragraph,
"At one time Clark claimed that Liddell Hart had given him the quote (unlikely as Hart had asked him where it came from) and Clark's biographer believes he invented the Ludendorff-Hoffmann attribution.[8] This invention has provided a major opportunity for critics of "The Donkeys" to condemn the work. Richard Holmes, wrote of The Donkeys "..it contained a streak of casual dishonesty. Its title is based on the 'Lions led by Donkeys' conversation between Hindenburg [sic] and Ludendorff. There is no evidence whatever for this: none. Not a jot or scintilla. Liddell Hart, who had vetted Clark's manuscript, ought to have known it."[9]"

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:24 PM

... fair play to anyone, and most certainly elderly blokes, with a good enough memory
for substantial knowledge about historians and their writings....

But ultimately, irrespective of arguements of which version of history is the 'correct' one..

The war still happened, it shouldn't have, and most likely it will happen again...

Humanity is such a bunch of self destructive war mongering pillocks...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 12:39 PM

Who apparently knew what they were doing and led their men commendably, right up to the waves of German guns.

We will never learn whilst making excuses for the ignorant callous fools who led their armies in WW1. I wonder if Günther A of Hertsberg is defending the Kaiser on Schlamm Katze website?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 01:39 PM

You are entitled to hold that view, but be aware that military historians have the opposite view.
Their view is based on a lifetime of research.
Theirs is the view T and I have put forward.
What kind of a person, in their ignorance, believes that all the historians are colluding to suppress the truth that has been somehow vouchsafed to him?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 18 Nov 14 - 03:52 PM

"All the" ??

Wow....

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 03:02 AM

henryp - go back and READ my post of 17 Nov 14 - 05:47 AM - the bits in Italics are quotes. I draw your attention to:

henryp: "The book's title was drawn from the expression "Lions led by donkeys" which has been widely used to compare British soldiers with their commanders."

So widely used in fact that nobody, not even Alan Clark himself, or his Tutor at Oxford the History professor Hugh Trevor Roper could provide any provenance for the quote. Previous examples and origins are attributed to variations of an old Arabian proverb which refers to "Lions led by sheep", which became "Lions commanded by Asses" during the Crimean War (1854) supposedly stated by a Russian Officer although there is no actual proof or verification of this, then the Franco-Prussian War by "The Times" in 1871 where it became "Lions led by donkeys (or jackasses)" describing not British but French Troops (This at least exists in print - The Times archives and in chapter three of the Book "Paris During the Siege" by Francisque Darcey). Now move on to 1901 where the the "Lions led by Asses" was attributed to a Colonel Grierson using it to describe Russian soldiers and their commanders during the Boxer Rebellion in 1901. By all means trot out the 1918 hearsay recollections of Evelyn, Princess Blücher, but Clark investigated this and could find no corroboration of it or any clue as who the supposed spokesman at German Headquarters was - certainly NOT Ludendorff who would be highly unlikely to describe his foes in such terms in April 1918 as recalled by Princess Blücher (Logically for a man in Ludendorff's position to do so would make himself out to be a complete and utter idiot to criticise in these terms the commanders of an enemy Army who, at the time the comment was supposed to have been made - 9th April, 1918, had successfully defeated your last ditch, all out offensive which Ludendorff had terminated four days earlier). Then there is the 1927 version and title of the book by Captain Thompson but as the subtitle of the book was - "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes." - and as we won the Great War then again logically donkeys do not win victories over armies commanded by superior leaders.

Teribus direct quote from Wiki:

"Alan Clark based the title of his book "The Donkeys" (1961) on the phrase. Prior to publication in a letter to Hugh Trevor Roper, he asked "English soldiers, lions led by donkeys etc - can you remember who said that?" Liddell Hart, although he did not dispute the veracity of the quote, had asked Clark for its origins.[7] Whatever Trevor Roper's reply, Clark eventually used the phrase as an epigraph to The Donkeys and attributed it to a conversation between German generals Erich Ludendorff and Max Hoffmann:

Ludendorff: The English soldiers fight like lions.
Hoffmann: True. But don't we know that they are lions led by donkeys."[1][2]

The conversation was supposedly published in the memoirs of General Erich von Falkenhayn, the German chief of staff between 1914 and 1916 but the exchange and the memoirs remain UNTRACED.[1] Clark was equivocal about the source for the dialogue for many years, although in 2007 a friend Euan Graham, recalled a conversation in the mid-sixties, when Clark on being challenged as to the dialogue's provenance, looked sheepish and said "WELL I INVENTED IT"."

Take a look at those dates and study the career progression of Falkenhayn and you see he was nowhere near German Headquarters in Berlin in April 1918. So we have a rumoured, unsubstantiated remark made about an Army and its Commanders who at the time were performing remarkably well against the best the Germans could throw at them - doesn't make much sense does it? Especially when in less than 4 months German soldiers were surrendering in droves to the commanders and men of that self same army and Ludendorff was muttering (Both verified and substantiated) about "The Black Day of the German Army".

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 03:13 AM

GUEST - 18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.

I would recommend that you go to Youtube and watch the 1964 BBC Documentary Series "The Great War". Watch it from start to finish and you can hear the recollections of the men who served and lived through it.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 04:52 AM

On the episode shown last week Robert Graves sang the final verse of Old Barbed Wire.
Musket, yes all.
(Or have you found a renegade now?)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 07:24 AM

From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 14 - 10:11 AM

Only running from the simple question put to the Author Alan Clark i.e.
Question "Where did it come from?
Answer from Alan Clark "Well I invented it"

Not so, Teribus! The invention is yours. You have paraphrased - wrongly -this recollection of a conversation in your own words.

From: Teribus Date: 18 Nov 14 - 10:40 AM

henryp - he called the book "The Donkey's" because in the Foreword to the book Clark inserted a reference to an imaginary conversation he dreamed up and attributed to two German Officer's. That is all I have ever contended.

Again, not so, Teribus! Clark called his book The Donkeys after the phrase 'lions led by donkeys'. The preface offers an explanation.

You have even provided the following statement; Prior to publication in a letter to Hugh Trevor Roper, [Clark] asked "English soldiers, lions led by donkeys etc - can you remember who said that?

This demonstrates that the phrase was already familiar to both Alan Clark and Hugh Trevor Roper. In that case, Clark clearly did not invent it!

Teribus - you have tripped yourself up over and over again. In what cause, I cannot say.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 08:03 AM

...errmmm.. what this actually demonstrates is that no amount of historians in a room will ever get round to changing a light bulb.....

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 08:13 AM

He did not invent the phrase you clown he invented the so-called provenance for it - as anybody with even the most basic understanding of english comprehension would be able to deduce.

He INVENTED the conversational exchange and put it in the Foreword of his book to lend strength to the content and support his chosen title for his appallingly poor work, which received horrendous peer reviews and critiques from historians of the day.

As far as can be substantiated at no time at all did any senior German General Officer or senior German Staff Officer ever make any statement referring to British Troops as being "Lions led by Donkeys" with regard to the First World War - If you have substantive PROOF (i.e. that which can be verified), that any did then please produce it.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 08:51 AM

No, Teribus! You contradict yourself at every turn.

It was YOU who said that that Clark invented the phrase. In fact, you invented the following conversation.

From: Teribus Date: 17 Nov 14 - 10:11 AM

Only running from the simple question put to the Author Alan Clark i.e.
Question "Where did it come from?
Answer from Alan Clark "Well I invented it"

I've no desire to take part in your hostilities. I'm not going to descend to personal insults. But there is no constructive purpose in engaging with you.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 09:22 AM

GUEST - 18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.

Terebus: "I would recommend that you go to Youtube and watch the 1964 BBC Documentary Series "The Great War". Watch it from start to finish and you can hear the recollections of the men who served and lived through it."

I watched it when it was first broadcast, sitting with my grandfather who served in the ranks for the whole war. His perception - I have no idea if it was formed at the time or if he was influenced by later reading - was one of generals well behind the front, on both sides, playing a game of chess, each piece representing 10s of thousands of men. It was expressed with despair. His emotion whilst watching was an embarassment for a young person.

He thought the leadership was better in WW2. From what I read and hear it is vastly better now. It seems to be a trend - even by WW1 the "no great mischief if they fall" attitude (look it up) seems to have gone.


back to your books guys

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 09:41 AM

Just to add that although those who fought have gone there is still a generation who as kids in the 1950s were told about the people who made those poppies that had a wire and blob of pitch, and neighbours who were sat outside their houses on sunny days, with stumps clad in rivitted leather, like the clogs they had on their feet when they still had them.

ceramic poppies !

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 10:25 AM

"I watched it when it was first broadcast

So did I.

"sitting with my grandfather who served in the ranks for the whole war. His perception - I have no idea if it was formed at the time or if he was influenced by later reading - was one of generals well behind the front, on both sides, playing a game of chess, each piece representing 10s of thousands of men.

Crock of shit - where did you dig that from "Blackadder Goes Forth"?? Won't even start to pick it to pieces.

"It was expressed with despair. His emotion whilst watching was an embarassment for a young person."

Really?? Why?? Because his views were completely at odds with those of the veterans who were interviewed? Because that would have been the case - But there again had you watched the documentary you would have known that - wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 11:00 AM

Where did I did that from ? First hand from a veteran, as I said. I heard it and so your opinion of it sheds an intersting light, for me, on your opinions.

The people behind "Oh! What a lovely War" were doing it a time when there were plenty of people around to pass comment based on first-hand experience. I don't know what my grandfather's view was, but as a blue card carrying reader of the Daily Mail I doubt it was unthinking acceptance.

Cosy little argument you can have when those who remember the mud, and the rest, are all gone.

I suppose you could say that they were all too close to it to have an objective view - the standard way for [some] academics and armchair experts to minimise the value of first-hand experience "Ah yes, but you were there, you will have a biased opinion".

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 11:37 AM

.. so.. really...how many historians does it take to change a light bulb...???

..the actual amount of 'em makes no difference..
.. they'll all be forever waiting for someone else to change the bulb,
so that only long afterwards can they research and write their own opposing controversial viewpoints of the event...😜

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 14 - 02:39 PM

It was a Musket.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 01:58 AM

Put simply GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM. do not believe a single word of your little story - If it had any shred of truth in it at all you would never have had to ask your first question.

But from another thread on the subject:

Here is the list of the Historians who trashed Alan Clark's work (Which apparently inspired OWALW according to the popular train of thought and eventual credits and royalty payments), none of them have ever been accused of being incompetent:

Brian Bond is a British military historian and professor emeritus of military history at King's College London. Bond served as a member of council of the Society for Army Historical Research and as President of the British Commission for Military History.

Sir Hew Francis Anthony Strachan FRSE FRHistS is a Scottish military historian, well known for his work on the administration of the British Army and the history of the First World War. He is Chichele Professor of the History of War at All Souls College, Oxford, a brigadier of reserves, and a council member of the Royal Company of Archers, the Queen's Bodyguard for Scotland.

Gary Sheffield is an English academic at the University of Wolverhampton and a military historian. He has published widely, especially on the First World War, and contributes to many newspapers, journals and magazines. He frequently broadcasts on television and radio. Sheffield studied history at the University of Leeds under Edward Spiers and Hugh Cecil. He followed his basic degree course with a research MA. In 1985, he became a lecturer in War Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, and studied at King's College, London under Brian Bond for a part-time PhD awarded in 1994. In 1999 he became a senior lecturer in the Defence Studies Department of King's College London and Land Warfare Historian on the Higher Command and Staff Course at the UK's Joint Services Command and Staff College. In 2005 he was appointed Professor of Modern history at King's College London. Since 2009, Prof Sheffield has been a Vice President of The Western Front Association.

Richard Holmes, was a British soldier and noted military historian, particularly well-known through his many television appearances. He was co-director of Cranfield University's Security and Resilience Group from 1989 to 2009 and became the Professor of Military and Security Studies at Cranfield in 1995. Of "The Donkeys" Holmes wrote the following:

"..it contained a streak of casual dishonesty. Its title is based on the 'Lions led by Donkeys' conversation between Hindenburg [sic] and Ludendorff. There is no evidence whatever for this: none. Not a jot or scintilla. Liddell Hart, who had vetted Clark's manuscript, ought to have known it."

Note: Basil Liddell Hart wrote to Alan Clark and asked him for a the source of the "Lions led by Donkeys" quote – Clark never replied (And well we know why).

John Alfred Terraine, though not permanently associated with any academic institution, was a leading British military historian and founding President of the Western Front Association from 1980 to 1997, after which he became its Patron. "One obituarist wrote that for sheer scholarship, the quality and accessibility of his writing and for his debunking of historical myths, Terraine was one of the outstanding military historians of the 20th century". He was for many years a member of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies; he had been awarded the Institute's Chesney Gold Medal in 1982. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society in 1987.

Robert Norman William Blake, Baron Blake was an English historian. Tutor in Politics at Christ Church, Oxford, and in 1968 was elected Provost of The Queen's College, Oxford, a post held until retirement in 1987.

Hugh Redwald Trevor-Roper, Baron Dacre of Glanton, was an English scholar and historian of early modern Britain and Nazi Germany and Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University (He was Alan Clark's History Tutor at Oxford).

Alan John Percivale "A. J. P." Taylor FBA was an English historian who specialised in 19th- and 20th-century European diplomacy. Both a journalist and a broadcaster, he became well known to millions through his television lectures. His combination of academic rigour and popular appeal led the historian Richard Overy to describe him as "the Macaulay of our age".

Sir Michael Eliot Howard OM CH CBE MC FBA is a British military historian, formerly Chichele Professor of the History of War, Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, was the Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military and Naval History at Yale University and founder of the Department of War Studies, King's College London. Of Clark's book Howard wrote the following:

"As history, it is worthless", criticising its "slovenly scholarship".

The phrase "Lions Led by Donkeys " was used as a title for a book published in 1927 by Captain P.A. Thompson. The subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes."

Now tell me Guest who was it that achieved VICTORY after four years of war again? Which Army according to Captain Thompson (Who like your "Grandpa" HAD BEEN THERE) made the fewest mistakes??

Here are the figures for the principal combatant nations engaged on the "Western Front" from the outset:

Britain - Population 45.4 million, % deaths 1.79% to 2.2%

France - Population 39.6 million, % deaths 4.29% to 4.39%

Germany - Population 64.9 million, % deaths 3.39% to 4.32%

Straightforward military deaths:
Britain - 888,246
France - 1,397,800
Germany - 2,037,000

OK you tell me in which nation's Army would YOU have stood the best chance of survival?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 03:14 AM

Terebus. I have already given my view of 'historians' who treat first hand accounts that contradict their views as unreliable.

My first question has not been answered.

Let's change the questions to put us back on topic. When "Oh! What a Lovely War!" came out there were till many people around who took part in that war - what did they think about OWALW ?

Not an academic argument between historians for its authors - they could be challenged, or supported, by participants.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 03:52 AM

GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM. - 20 Nov 14 - 03:14 AM

When "Oh! What a Lovely War!" came out there were till many people around who took part in that war - what did they think about OWALW ?

Why not ask a sensible question. No-one can answer your question, the only people who could answer it are now all dead.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 04:07 AM

A bit like all those who could laugh at your gullibility are all dead too.

Touché


I'll have a laugh for them.


😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 05:05 AM

Musket, you old rogue, that guest was so obviously you.

There are tens of thousands of letters and diaries available for study.
Obviously all shades of opinion appear but the historians who study them agree that most believed the war was right and supported the leadership.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 05:16 AM

"There are tens of thousands of letters and diaries available for study."
And you have read none of them - and apparently, you have now disowned the conclusions of your former hero, Max Hastings, who has, and condemns the role that Britain played in the war as far as leadership was concerned
"but the historians who study them agree that most believed the war was right and supported the leadership."
No there is not, and, as you don't read books - only cut-'n- pastes you have carefully selected, you wouldn't know if there was a consensus
"No-one can answer your question, the only people who could answer it are now all dead."
The ones who did give an opinion contrary to your own on the war, were rejected out of hand as liars by you and Keith - that much we do know
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 05:22 AM

Jim, Max Hastings agrees with the other Historians that the army was well led.
Of course I have not studied the archives.
That is what Historians do and I read their findings.
I have been reading the History of this since I was a boy long before there was an Internet Jim, but it is useful to post quotes and links to educate you people in what the historians now know.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 05:29 AM

Hastings in the Guardian.
" Haig was not a fool, indeed he administered Britain's huge armies in France with notable competence."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 07:11 AM

1: ""There are tens of thousands of letters and diaries available for study." (Keith A of Hertford)
And you have read none of them

Oh do come along now Christmas - You can include yourself and the vast majority of the population of the British Isles in the category of those who have never read that material - Keith A however does identify the only group who would have studied them because for the most part they would be the only ones with access to study them - Historians with a reason to study them - If that is too logical an approach for you then too bad, but I would have thought from your own personal experience of studying and researching your own particular area of interest you would be honest enough to give those historians credit for their work.

2: More historians back up what both Keith and I are saying than don't. If you want to dispute that then come up with names and reference work to prove it.

3: ""No-one can answer your question, the only people who could answer it are now all dead." (Teribus)
The ones who did give an opinion contrary to your own on the war, were rejected out of hand as liars by you and Keith."

What I state there is a statement of fact, all those alive in 1961 who saw OWALW and who served in the First World War ARE all dead so how can they answer the question and yes I do believe that GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM is a liar and that his story is a fairy tale. Take some time and watch the 1964 BBC Documentary on the Great War and judge for yourself.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 07:43 AM

" You can include yourself and the vast majority of the population of the British Isles in the category of those who have never read that material "
And I make no claim on how many people believe what as you pair do
The interview we did with a veteran and his account of why he joined and how he and his mates felt about having been tricked into being there and their attitude to the officers were dismissed by you pair with "soldiers tell lies" and "not representative".
Neither of you have come up with similar experiences, notr have you produced facts and figures - only unverified claims.
Your star "expert" as it turns out, says the opposite to what you are claiming, so both of you shuffle around him as if he wasn't once the Oracle of W.W.1. - clay feet or what.
Neither of you responded to Patrick Magill's first hand account, and Liddel Hart's account, based on his experiences as a soldier have been written off as "revisionist"
You have chosen not to comment on the fact that Sassoon was locked
in a mental asylum and was only released when he agreed to stop his anti-war campaign.
You have ignored the Paxman programmes which covered the recruitment tactics and the fact that one of the most active in that field became a millionaire out of sending so many young men to die, and later ended up in jail as a criminal.
The fact that all are now dead is irrelevant to this argument.
You, like Keith, chose the hitorians to suit your own prejudices and ignore what has been a long-established fact - World War One was a conflict of empires, so much so that it, and the fact that the victors, by their appeasing fascism, allowed yet another bloodbath to take place, eventually brought the Imperial system crashing about their ears.
Incidentally, I didn't bother responding to your denial that "Gallant Little Belgium" had anything to do with the events.
In reality, it didn't, but the picture of a helpless country at the mercy of 'The savage Hun', was very much a part of persuading so many young men to their deaths, despite the fact that the country, under Leopold, had slaughtered 10 million of its subjects in the Congo.
"Hastings in the Guardian."
Predicable to the last, you totally ignore the summary of what Max Hastings said about the war - so, one more timeA
Max Hastings on the British Military
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 08:05 AM

OK Terebus, since there is no point in arguing who is or is not a liar let's look at it a different way.

You have missed an easier way of pushing my grandfather's (correctly reported, so far as memory allows) perception out of the argument,

I can't be sure if his simile was critical of the generals or not. It could have been a recognition of what top military strategists have to do. Maybe it was frustration rather than despair. It could have been disgust though.

In written history, as on the internet, personal experiences allow a reality check.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 08:34 AM

Give us a break Musket.

Jim, your link is not to a summary of his views on the war.
It is to one review in the Spectator of a book that is only about the outbreak of war anyway.
Here he speaks for himself,
"Gary Sheffield and John Bourne reject this view (critical)of both Haig and the British Army. They also argue that it is foolish to confuse arguments about the merits of Haig's generalship with strictures on his limitations as a human being - his supposed callousness about casualties and his penchant for Palace intrigue. Most of the great commanders of history have been four-letter men. All that should matter to posterity is whether they served their societies well, by being good at their jobs."

"I agree with Sheffield and Bourne, that it is wrong to calumniate Haig merely because, to a 21st-century eye, he seems an unsympathetic human being. Montgomery in the Second World War possessed far greater vanity and ambition. Monty was much more articulate, but even less sensitive. He has been spared the excoriation of posterity, however, because he was careful with the lives of his men, and won battles.
Haig led a British Army to victory in the summer and autumn of 1918, when all the "frocks" - the politicians at home whom he so disdained - were convinced that the war would drag on until 1919 or even (Winston Churchill) 1920. The trouble was, success came to Haig's armies too late, and at too high a human cost, for anyone to feel grateful to their commander."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 08:42 AM

Doesn't begin to answer the points I made Keith
You are carefully selecting something that deals with one general (who was widely referred to as 'The Butcher of the Somme', and have once again chosen to quote a historian who has been an employee of the British army to back up one singly aspect of the British leasership
In the past, you have ignored a list of hundreds of historians who have all held differing opinions on the war and continue to claim a consensus
As you don't read (despite your claims of "a lifelong interest") you have no knowledge of the subject, and you continue to refer to the soldiers ow accounts as "lies"
You are a flag-wagging clown
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 09:02 AM

He was only called butcher after his death.
You have not found a single Living historian who supports your views.
If you now have, please give us a quote.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 09:17 AM

oh for eff's sake, all this cranky bickering over conflicting accounts of a vile cataclysmic war that happened 100 years ago....

..if only such supposedly intelligent people spent as much time and effort arguing to prevent similar atrocious wars
ever happpening again...!!!???

.. it's despairing...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 09:39 AM

A A A Seh!

That guest isn't me. I call him or her Terribulus, not terebus.

Mind you, guest does have the odd point..

For the record, whilst both my grandfathers were of that generation, (both born in 1891 coincidentally) they were pit moggies so in a reserved occupation. I doubt guest is either of the other Muskets either, we all post as Musket below the line.

I'm not interested in apology on the basis I take anything you say with a large pinch of snuff at the best of times.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 09:56 AM

"He was only called butcher after his death."
It would have been treasonable to refer to him as such during the war and it would have been a no-no to call him what he was after the war.
Keeping diaries was forbidden, so any soldier who had any sense would have been very careful what he put in them while he was serving on the front
"You have not found a single Living historian who supports your views"
By "living" you mean those who came along a half a century or so later with their various agendas
You have dismissed Liddell Hart, who was a serving soldier - numerous others you have dismissed as "revisionist" and the soldiers I have cited still stand as "liars" in your book.
In retur, you have given us Max Hastings, a "historian" whose views contradict your claims and Gary Sheffied, a British army employee
Stop hiding behind historians you haven't read
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 10:27 AM

"In written history, as on the internet, personal experiences allow a reality check."

Depends on the person and depends on the experience.
Waterloo Campaign: Three people Wellington, Captain Kincaid of the 95th Rifles and Rifleman Costello of the 95th Rifles all were there, their experiences were very different who was in the best position to write about what actually happened?

Christmas:

"And I make no claim on how many people believe what as you pair do"

I haven't got a clue as to how many people think as I do - I am not in the least bit interested - but one thing I am pretty certain about is that the general consensus among historians is that Britain's First World War Generals were nowhere near as as bad as some, such as yourself, are prepared to paint them. Certainly the results they got meant that the massive increase in size of the British Army between 1914 and 1918 was handled extremely well, the casualty figures were lower than any of the other combatant powers, the Army suffered no total breakdown in terms of moral or discipline and by the summer of 1917 it along with the Commonwealth forces fighting alongside it was the only Allied Army in France prepared to undertake offensive operations. Those by the way Christmas are all extremely well documented facts and serve as indicators of how well the British and Commonwealth Armies were led - refute them if you wish, but I do not think you will.

Most of the rest of your post is simply a rehash of stuff that has already been addressed in other threads and I simply cannot be bothered digging up old replies. But IIRC your old soldiers experiences related to his memories of thousands of his personal friends getting shot at dawn, conscientious objectors being sent to France and executed when in fact none were,...oh yes the Musket Red Cap thing where they stood behind the troops in the trenches and made sure they went over the top and shot them if they didn't - again something that never happened.

By the way if you did know anything about Magill you would have known that he never served in France under Haig as BEF Commander. He left France at the back end of 1915 and never set foot back there again. The remainder of his war was spent writing propaganda for MI 7b.

As for Liddell Hart his war was restricted to two brief spells in France in 1915 and once in 1916 on the Somme - he was wounded on both occasions. Once back in England he was mainly employed training recruits. After the war he rewrote the Infantry Training Manual, his mentor was General Sir Ivor Maxse who commanded troops at the Battles of Hamel and Amiens, it was Maxse's experiences and application of tactics that Liddell Hart used to write the theories for which Liddell Hart later became famous for. Liddell Hart's own experiences didn't even enter into it. Liddell Hart's work was used by Chamberlain to bolster the argument for Appeasement - In short Liddell Hart was WRONG, WRONG and WRONG.

Who is our "Star Expert" by the way? Having had to study this period of history my reading list is quite extensive.

Interesting link on Hastings - because that is what it is a review of what someone else thinks Hastings is saying not what Hastings himself says.

Further up this thread Keith as provided a link to a BBC piece about the 10 most popular myths spouted about the Great War debunked by Dan Snow:

Myth 1 - Bloodiest War in history to that point - It wasn't

Myth 2 - Most soldiers died - They didn't the Crimean War was worse

Myth 3 - Men lived in trenches for years on end - They didn't

Myth 4 - The upper class got off lightly - They didn't fatalities among officers were 70% higher than for ORs

Myth 5 - "Lions led by donkeys" - Not true

"During the war more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or captured. Most visited the front lines every day. In battle they were considerably closer to the action than generals are today.

Rarely in history have commanders had to adapt to a more radically different technological environment.

British commanders had been trained to fight small colonial wars; now they were thrust into a massive industrial struggle unlike anything the British army had ever seen.

Despite this, within three years the British had effectively invented a method of warfare still recognisable today. By the summer of 1918 the British army was probably at its best ever and it inflicted crushing defeats on the Germans.

Myth 6 - Gallipoli was fought by Australians and New Zealanders - It wasn't UK losses were four to five times those of either the Aussies or the Kiwis

Myth 7 - Tactics remained unchanged - Nope they constantly evolved to meet the situations faced. Most innovations introduced during the war were pioneered by the British.

Myth 8 - No one won - Not so the war was a decisive win for the Allies

"Germany's battleships had been bottled up by the Royal Navy until their crews mutinied rather than make a suicidal attack against the British fleet.

Germany's army collapsed as a series of mighty allied blows scythed through supposedly impregnable defences.

By late September 1918 the German Emperor and his military mastermind Erich Ludendorff admitted that there was no hope and Germany must beg for peace. The 11 November Armistice was essentially a German surrender."

Myth 9 - The treaty of Versailles was very harsh - "The Treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.

It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway."

Myth 10 - Everyone hated it - Two personal sources of information my paternal grandfather (Sherwood Foresters) and my next door neighbour "Pa Collier" (KOSB) who lived through Gallipoli both said that they regarded it as the greatest experience of their lives and that in similar circumstances if given the choice they would do exactly the same.

Dan Snow:
"Like any war, it all comes down to luck. You may witness unimaginable horrors that leave you mentally and physically incapacitated for life, or you might get away without a scrape. It could be the best of times, or the worst of times.

Many soldiers enjoyed WW1. If they were lucky they would avoid a big offensive, and much of the time conditions might be better than at home.

For the British there was meat every day - a rare luxury back home - cigarettes, tea and rum, part of a daily diet of more than 4,000 calories.

Remarkably, absentee rates due to sickness, an important barometer of a unit's morale, were hardly above those of peacetime. Many young men enjoyed the guaranteed pay, the intense comradeship, the responsibility and a much greater sexual freedom than in peacetime Britain."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 11:14 AM

"I haven't got a clue as to how many people think as I do "
You keep claiming a "consensus" - or your mate does - are you disassociating yourself from his claims?
"As for Liddell Hart his war was restricted to two brief spells in France in 1915 and once in 1916 on the Somme "
Which is twice more than any other historian
"He left France at the back end of 1915 and never set foot back there again."
If you knew anything about him, you would know he was wounded out after the battle of Loos - my reference to him was his description of the disillusionment that had already set in among the soldiers as early as 1915 - but then again "soldiers tell lies", don't they?
far from there being a "consensus" by historians, this is the actual state of the historians view of the war
Simon Heffer
I produced a list cotaining around 100 modern historians all involved in current research and mainly at odds with each other
Your list of "myths" are not mine - straw man as far as I'm concerned.
As far as I am concerned, it was a bloodbath in which millions of young men were tricked into giving their lives by a whole lot of tricks and by circumstances beyond their control - there is little if any evidence of them joining in any significant numbers out of support for either the war or for the glory of Empire.
The "liar" we recorded said he and his mates joined on the promise of a short, easy war that would be over by Christmas, and a chance to see the world - he was sixteen.
The "liars" quoted on Paxman's programmes included those who managed to be sent home on leave to find a total lack of awareness that there was a war on - if they wren't disillusioned when they arrived, they certainly where when they went back.
It's always easy to glorify and defend slaughter when you and yours aren't or weren't involved
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 12:16 PM

....so... after all this wealth of historical evidence...

Any future productions of "Oh! What a Lovely War!"
really should drop any lingering left wing/liberal sense of despairing cynicism and irony,
and actually sing out joyfully in celebration of what was in effect
actually a lovely war...???

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 12:40 PM

Think of all the jobs it created, cutting the grass at the war graves...

Zzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 01:32 PM

Jim, Hatings does not contradict my views.
Sheffield is a doctor and a professor and an eminent academic professionall.
You can not dismiss him because he once lectured at a military college.

Musket, it would have been too much of a giveaway to use the same nickname for T, but no one is fooled.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 03:14 AM

By all means Musket let's look at the jobs it created and the political, social and economic changes it brought in. Take a good look at how it managed to shrink the world.

Your reference to grass cutting is beneath contempt.

OWALW should be left as it was - largely forgotten - crap based on crap - it is a complete and utter travesty that insults the memory of the generation who endured loss and fought in the First World War.

Simon Heffer - Read his piece in the New Statesman - it would appear from that, that he and I are in agreement on many things related to this topic.

"As far as I am concerned, it was a bloodbath in which millions of young men were tricked into giving their lives by a whole lot of tricks and by circumstances beyond their control - there is little if any evidence of them joining in any significant numbers out of support for either the war or for the glory of Empire."

In the Summer of 1914 the British Army including all Reserves and Territorials numbered roughly 400,000 men. By December 1914 roughly an additional 1,300,000 men had volunteered for service - What would you call a significant number Christmas? I would venture the opinion of an increase in strength of over 300% pretty significant.

"The "liar" we recorded said he and his mates joined on the promise of a short, easy war that would be over by Christmas"

Another of your dearly cherished MYTHS Christmas. Here are the words of the man "who took Great Britain and her Empire to war" the then British Foreign Secretatry Sir Edward Grey:

"The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time"

That was said to a friend and colleague on the eve of Britain's entry into the First World War. First published in Grey's memoirs in 1925, the statement earned wide attention as a correct perception of the First World War and its geopolitical and cultural consequences.

So much for promises of it being "over by Christmas". Again old ground that has been raked over before - you were shown to have been in error then by repeated examples of leading figures - yet IIRC you were unable to identify anyone in the military or political establishment who is on record of making any such promise. Don't feel too bad about that Christmas neither could Paxman.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 04:13 AM

"Jim, Hatings does not contradict my views."
Yes her does, but you wouldn't know as you haven't read him anyway
The pair of you still refuse to respond to your disgusting suggestion that those who were disillusioned with the war were either liars or misfits
Patriots - I've shit 'em
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:31 AM

Neither liars nor misfits Jim.
Just a tiny minority.
Did you see the picture I posted of the thousands of veterans thronging around the station in a spontaneous welcome for Haig in 1919?
Did you read about the vast outpouring of national grief at his death?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:41 AM

Hastings and I have the same views, which as far as we have established are shared by all WWI historians.
I have quoted him directly many many times.
You have put up one opinion expressed by a Spectator reviewer about a book that was not even about the whole war but just the outbreak of it.

If you can not find one single historian who supports your view while we can produce any number, then you have lost this argument and it is done.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 05:45 AM

When our say Hastings has the same view as you, would that be when he contradicts himself, supports executions of your own soldiers or when Poirot calls him a fool?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:04 AM

"Neither liars nor misfits Jim."
In response to numerous examples of soldiers stateing thier disillusionment, particularly in relation to the veteran we recorded your reaction was "soldiers tell lies"
You have no idea how many people went or returned inspired by patriotism - there are no figures and if there were, you don't read, so you would not know.
You make all this up to suit your own twisted beliefs; you can't even respond honestly to your 'Hastings' defence beeing blown out of the water
The pair of you ar anachronistic jingoist throwbacks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 06:35 AM

Hastings does not do any of those Musket, and he is just one of many if not all Historians who have established that the overwhelming majority of the people, including soldiers, believed in the war.
You even heard it from Paxman Jim.
If you can not find a single Historian to put up against all those mentioned, you lose.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 14 - 07:28 AM

"The pair of you ar anachronistic jingoist throwbacks"

If so Christmas, we are far better informed "anachronistic jingoistic throwbacks" who can at least muster our facts correctly and accurately and who can actually produce substantiated evidence to support our view.

The likes of yourself, Musket, and others rely on unsubstantiated stories and snatches from works of fiction. In a formal debate we would crucify you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

😹😹




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

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

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

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

Or would that not help ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hang on? Who wrote that post above?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

also from 1964..

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

"King & Country" (1964)

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

Category: War

Director: Joseph Losey.


A good solid movie drama...???

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

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

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

Try Brian Bond for a start:


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, so nt conclusice then?

😂😂🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

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

Not



Conclusive


Grrr

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

All the historians....

Where did they agree, at their AGM?

Hah! Hah!

😂😂😂😂😂😂

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK then Christmas shall we review what has been said

Jim Carroll - 21 Nov 14 - 09:48 AM

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

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

Teribus - 21 Nov 14 - 09:59 AM

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

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

Jim Carroll - 22 Nov 14 - 04:27 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Cabinet Secretary Maurice Hankey wrote of Kitchener:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford historian Margaret MacMillan:
(Another establishment lackey?)

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

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

Catriona Pennel from her WWI History.

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

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

Pennell

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

So I think .. whatever Keith says I think?

Telepathy and ignorance, what a wonderful combination.

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

thought not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get my fish from the fishmongers.

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

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

"You lose." What a wonderful statement.

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

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

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

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

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

He claims that Kitchener was forced to resign - WRONG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pennell again.

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

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

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

Oy! Christmas NO!!!!

etc etc.

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

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

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

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:24 AM

How can anyone not be self righteous when faced with ignorant c...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:28 AM

Sorry, I'll start again..

How can anyone not be self righteous when faced with ignorant c..

Well, I am right most of the time, but I doubt I would be comfortable with being referred to as self righteous.

Says a lot about you.

Most of which, most people here have guessed anyway.

So let's get this straight. Anybody who thinks WW1 was anything other than a successful campaign where everything went to plan, men were well led, no need for red tops patrolling behind the lines because everybody was on board, no need to execute your own soldiers, no need to hand out white feathers blah blah blah.

We are all ignorant.

Safety in numbers eh?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:34 AM

"How can anyone not be self righteous when faced with ignorant clowns who think they understand History much better than the Hisorians!?"
Probably in the same way the people claim to understand history without ever having read it - you tell us
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:49 AM

I am ignorant about many things, but on this thread I have only put up the views of Historians.

They have become my views because only a self-obsessed buffoon would think they know better than the historians, as you self obsessed buffoons do.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:50 AM

You were doing alright up to the first comma. Keep practicing, you'll get there.

🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 08:54 AM

Jim, I have been reading the History of this all my adult life.
That is why I can quote the words of Historians to support my views.
It is where I got my views.

You two can find nothing and no one to support you except each other.

You lose, and unless you can produce something to support yourselves, we are finished here.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,of 18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 09:27 AM

We need to differentiate between history as what scholars write about history and history as what actualy happened. They are different, which is why we have, for example, 'Marxist historians'.

If there was a consensus between scholars they would be out of a job so far as that topic was concerned.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 10:17 AM

Musket - "So let's get this straight. Anybody who thinks WW1 was anything other than a successful campaign where everything went to plan, men were well led, no need for red tops patrolling behind the lines because everybody was on board, no need to execute your own soldiers, no need to hand out white feathers blah blah blah.

We are all ignorant."

Care to show me any evidence to support the idea that anybody on this thread has said or thought that:

1: WW1 was a totally successful campaign where everything went to plan?

2: WW1 was a successful campaign throughout where men were well led?

3: Anybody said that there were no red caps patrolling behind the lines?

4: Anybody said that no soldiers were executed?

5: Anybody said that no white feathers were handed out?

You will be pushed to find any evidence of that, but there again you have moved the goal posts a bit haven't you?

1: YOU have contended that WWI was a disaster from start to finish and that British generals in particular were incompetent idiots - That is demonstrably untrue and that is what you have been told and given proof of

2: By and large British and Commonwealth troops were generally well led during the course of the First World War and their casualty figures when compared to those of the other 1914 combatant nations supports that contention.

3: According to you red caps were lined up in the trenches behind British troops prior to any attack being mounted with orders to shoot anyone who did not advance or who turned back - That contention is a myth, it never happened, you were given the chance to provide proof of even one single instance of it happening - we are all still waiting - we will wait for a long time because it never happened, for anyone in the British Army to do that would be illegal.

4: Just over 306 members of the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces were executed during the War - out of an Army of some 5,300,000. Sorry Musket that amounts to 0.006% of the men under command - WOW moral and discipline must have shot to hell eh? Stafford Hospital in 3 years killed how many in their A&E department 1,200 wasn't it?

5: What had white feathers got to do with anything or anybody in charge of running the war in Great Britain? Answer: nothing.

Basically on practically everything to do with this discussion you are incredibly ill-informed and pig-ignorant.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 10:49 AM

Guest Musket, if there is only one History.
You have been able to find no historians who support you.

I give you the Historians' words and you do not accept them.
To continue is pointless.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 10:57 AM

No "if"

Guest Musket, there is only one History.
You have been able to find no historians who support you.
Historians differ on some things, but not this.

I give you the Historians' words and you do not accept them.
To continue is pointless.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 10:58 AM

"Jim, I have been reading the History of this all my adult life."
Boys own and Hotspur history doesn't count - your entire input into these discussions are glened from the web - you show no knowledge of having read a single serious book (don't count BNP and Ukip handouts as reading)
You have recently gleaned quotes from four historians - three establishment mouthpieces and fourth one poorly digested by you.
A typical example of your selective and half-digested technique was Max Clifford, but a better one was your magnificent selection of Christine, who you used to exonerate Britain from blame for how the Irish Famine was handled, only to find she was a staunch supporter of the 'Irish Holocaust' school of thought - can still see the skid-marks and smell the burning rubber from your u-turn.
Let's not disturb Colonel Mainwaring while he's still up to his neck in muck and bullets on the Somme - who knows, if we're good he'll move on to Waterloo an then - Battle of Hastings maybe.
War gaming knows no bounds
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 11:46 AM

Jim, I do not claim to have read much about the famine, but I certainly have on WWI.
Hastings, Sheffield and Todman are eminent and respected historians.
I did not digest the words of Macmillan and Pennell, I quoted them in context.
There are more.
If you still can not find a single one who believes your shit, this is over and you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,vetrean
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 12:08 PM

It's November- isn't it time for an Armistice?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 01:07 PM

"Hastings, Sheffield and Todman are eminent and respected historians."
Hastings is a tabloid journalist who is highly critical of the British military, the other two are militarary employees
Doesn't matter, you've only scavenged from them, you certainly haven't read any of them otherwise you wouldn't have made the Kinealy-like foot-in-mouth with Hastings
As veteran (are you one of those "liars" Keith has been talking about0 has said - time for a truce.
Goodbyee - don't cryee
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 02:30 PM

Jim, the BBC thinks they are the best.
They are the most well known and most published on this subject.
Pennell and Macmillan the same.
Likewise Peter Hart, Snow, Brown and all the rest.
Not one single Historian supports your case and unless you can find one, you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 02:32 PM

Wipe the poo baby dear from your bummee 🎵🎶

Anyone up for a visit to the war graves? We can sit and with due melancholy read from Keith and Terribulus's posts.

They will be so glad to know the truth, and how necessary it was to be sent over the top, years after the waves of men tactic had been seen to be suicidal.

About the time of machine guns, to be precise.

Still, just so long as they were well led by competent, caring senior staff eh?

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:05 PM

"Jim, the BBC thinks they are the best."
What it boils down to Keith, is that you prefer to take the selections you have cut an pasted written in the main by establishment historian nearly a century after the events (because they have been carefully selected to appear to coincide with your own jingoism) than the description given by those who fought, of their officers, their reasons for joining up and the way they felt about the war, especially when they returned home
You have chosen to describe those who fought as "liars" and "out-of-step" when their reminiscences do not follow the official line.
Personally, I find this shameful, but I have come to expect no less from you and your ilk
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:06 PM

Musket, the Historians say different.
I believe the Historians.
Have you found a single one who supports you?
If not, you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 03:13 PM

I have quoted many.
You can not find one.
You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,of 18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:16 PM

@Musket. Keith may have left a comma out. His muddled view ("there is only one History") is what I suspected.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 14 - 06:17 PM

Or is he the one who thinks I am you ?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 01:08 AM

But like history, it can only be clear, unequivocal and accurate, eh?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 02:06 AM

Excuse me Musket but what "waves of men tactic"?

What such a tactic is, is a frontal assault by densely concentrated infantry formations against an enemy line, without any attempts to shield or to mask the attacker's movement.

Now which British General used that "tactic" during the Great War?

European Armies (French; German; Russian; Austro-Hungarian; Italian) used such tactics initially because they had the manpower - The British Army certainly in the opening two years of the war did not.

Others who have used the tactic have been the Japanese, Soviets, Chinese, the Viet Cong and the Iranians. Candidates for this were remarkably easy to select from the armies of totalitarian states during the Second World War as their armies contained what they called punishment battalions, something the British Army has never had.

Minefield to clear? Easy just order your Punishment Battalion to advance directly over it, those men clear the mines allowing your next wave of soldiers to advance. In this Musket you get the kernal of your "Red Cap" myth you seem so keen on perpetuating. Wherever a Soviet or German Punishment Battalion was positioned an NKVD or SS Unit lined up behind them to force them forward and while there is no evidence or examples of British Red Caps ever doing this instances of this sort of thing happening on the Eastern front during the Second World War are many.

Oh and Keith is right there is only one history but that doesn't stop there being many interpretations of it by people with vastly varying skills, knowledge and abilities when it comes to examining the events. In the case of yourself, Christmas and Steve Shaw you are all hidebound in your mindset of today's mores, memes and attitudes, hellbent on your insistence that they somehow could have ever been applicable and adopted by those in charge of events and having to deal with real problems over 100 years ago. You have displayed little or no skill in understanding the events, the problems faced, or the solutions available to those involved. All that coupled with a woeful lack of knowledge. While Keith and myself quote from considered historical sources you quote from fiction, Christmas bleating "but they were there" with monotonous regularity - ask any Policeman about the reliability of witness statements, twenty witnesses to any event and you get twenty different versions of what they have all just seen - but "They were there".

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,of 18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM.
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 03:24 AM

The 'only one history' view cannot be relied on in a discussion that may cross education systems (e.g. the internet). I was taught, quite clearly, that history was the things and actual events, not someone's interpretation or a narrative put together at a later time from a particular perspective.

However, in some places it is taught that 'history' is the historian's narrative, not the actual events. So you can have "A history of ..." - note the indenfinite article.

In either case what we read cannot be relied on as a correct account of past events.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 03:30 AM

"You lose."
Four are not many compared with the hundred plus you described as too many.
You have chosen to ignore those 100 plus and reject the testimonies of those who were there as "lies"
Yup - seems you've beaten those "liars" hands down
"ask any Policeman about the reliability of witness statements,"
Lairs again eh - those who described their disillusionment, bad leadership and having been conned into enlisting must have been either mistaken or making it up and we have to rely on those who came a century later to tell us what really happened!!!
Thanks for repeating Keith's squalid attack on the veterans - it puts this argument squarely where it belongs - the official military version versus actual experience
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 03:43 AM

Perhaps I should have added, ask any victim of police harassment how the official account given by a policeman often differs widely from what really happened - or all our bobbies as wonderful as our generals?
Suppose they are really!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:09 AM

Great Christmas pleased to see that you got the point on the eye witnesses - "they were there" - and all saw different things - which actually reflect what actually happened, where it happened and why it happened - nine times out of ten your eye-witnesses won't have a clue despite them "Being There".

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:16 AM

You begin to understand now how Turkey manages to keep their atrocities in Armienia out of their public's sphere of reality. All it takes is a few revisionists willing to reinterpret and a few shallow fools to take it all in.

Has anybody with a bit of intelligence got a view to offer us that supports the awful shit Terribulus and TC Keith seem to be rather taken by?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:21 AM

What's up Musket, run out of relevant reading material? Having had the complete and utter bullshit you have been spouting exposed for precisely what it is you are now having to resort to deflection and distraction? Dear oh dear - better get back to telling us all what folk music is.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:38 AM

I have quoted the best known and most respected.
There are more but none who think the army was badly led or that people including soldiers supported the war.
That is the "one history"
If it is not, show us some dissenting quotes.
You have had over a year now.

If there are none, you have lost the argument.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:47 AM

None that think people including soldiers supported the war?

Get a grip man, you are supposed to be supporting revisionists, not denouncing them!

If it's all the same to you, contemporary historians, first hand accounts, fields full of dead men and the draconian methods used to coerce men are still relevant in my opinion. Revisionists have not, based purely on what I have read, made a case. The spat between Michael Gove and Tony Robinson was rather telling.....

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:55 AM

Thanks Musket.
I omitted the negative.
There are none who support you.
On those issues they all agree with me.

We do not need two simultaneous threads on this and the show has been dealt with.
I am leaving this thread, but unless you can find something, anything to back up your silly claims, the debate is over anyway.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 04:58 AM

"Great Christmas pleased to see that you got the point on the eye witnesses "
You apper not to have got the point about "official" versions being deliberately concocted to protect establishment reputations
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 05:08 AM

There was no debate to begin with. A jingoistic education secretary didn't like how kids were being taught that those in control are fallible. There are enough side stories about the war that a tired old hack can exploit and a few bored profs jumping on the bandwagon, and there you go.

As you saw up the thread, the people you quote also said the exact opposite, trying to be balanced academics. Except the hacks. Of course.

And you love how it sanitises military leaders.



I still like the "you lose" stuff though. Nice to know what you are dealing with eh?

🐴🐴🐴💩💩💩

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 05:09 AM

Lost the plot again Musket?

Look at these four different periods and snapshots:

1918 to around 1928 - The history and the mémoires as written by those who took part - they roughly agree with what historians are saying now.

1928 to 1939 - First "revised" and critical works generally in the form of mémoires of political leaders deflecting blame from themselves (Lloyd George) and people peddling and pandering to a policy of Appeasement (Basil Liddell Hart)

1960 to 1968 - Second "revision" occasioned by 50th anniversary anti-war hysteria, anti-establishment "Kool" and basically a load of twaddle (e.g. crap such as Alan Clark's "The Donkey's" & OWALW)

1994 to Present - Third "revision" occasioned by the deaths and disappearance of those who fought and lived through it along with the approaching 90th and 100th anniversaries - This came down firmly on the side that the second and third "revisions" were populist, literary, mythological based crap driven by alternative agendas of those doing the writing and that the first take on things wasn't too far off the mark (Not surprisingly).

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 05:21 AM

"You appear not to have got the point about "official" versions being deliberately concocted to protect establishment reputations"

And your examples of those are?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 06:06 AM

Musket, the views I expressed have been accepted by historians for over thirty years.
That Times Higher piece was twenty years old.
You think it is about Gove.
You really do know nothing.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 07:57 AM

The recent sanitising is recently contrived. The older stuff you refer to also gives the other views and tries to balance. Others have quoted a few above. Read them. I debate, not enter into a Google contest.

All your precious historians give a far more balanced view than your cherry picking. My concern with the political angle is that Gove and Co were also promoting out of context snippets. Their favourite hack, Max Hastings completely prostituting historical narration.

There again, he does support the executions of soldiers... I doubt he would question or analyse the measures put in place to coerce a generation to near fucking genocide.

💩😞

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:06 AM

Who put measures in place to coerce others into what genocide Musket?

You're beginning to froth just like Steve.

The casualty rates you have been given - The UK's were roughly half those of either Germany or France yet it was OUR Generals who were the incompetent fools.

German armed forces 1914 - 4.5 million by 1918 they had mobilised roughly 11 million - so they roughly doubled in size

Austro-Hungarian forces in 1914 - 3 million by 1918 they had mobilised 7.8 million so they too had just over doubled in size

Russia 5.9 million in 1914 by 1917 that had just over doubled in size to 12 million

France 4 million in 1914 just over doubled in size to 8.4 million

Great Britain had armed forces of 0.9 million in 1914 by 1918 had increased almost tenfold to 8.9 million.

So not only did our Generals develop and perfect the tactics and weapons required to break the stalemate of trench warfare on the Western Front then go on to spearhead the most successfully offensive campaign ever conducted by the British Army in its entire history. Hold down our casualty rates to roughly half of those of our allies and of our enemies. They were responsible for overseeing the largest expansion of any of the 1914 combatant powers at the same time and it was OUR Generals who were incompetent fools - You really do have to be joking - as someone else asked what planet are you on?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 09:11 AM

Oh, so we were only half as incompetent as other forces. Thanks. I'm sure that'll be comforting for the skeletons. Shall you tell them or shall I?

🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 10:58 AM

"I still like the "you lose" stuff though. Nice to know what you are dealing with eh?"
Yeah - think we can enter him into 'Hertford's Got Talent' - bound to be a winner!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 11:08 AM

To my recollection the only talent in Hertford worked behind the bar in The Dog and Whistle. EEH! she were luvvly.

Is that pub still there?

Come to think about it, is..?

Our bass player said he'd cross the Sahara just to drink her dirty bath water.

Enough to turn a right on feminist like me into a misogynist old man.

Sorry, where were we?

Oh yes. She said "you lose." Must be a form of greeting down those parts. (Up those parts. I am at Kings Cross awaiting my train back oop North.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 11:22 AM

Anyway. This is a thread about Mrs MacColl MkI's excellent portrayal of the war, lest we forget.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 12:09 PM

If you enter into a debate with someone who can substantiate everything he says while you can only assert and bluster, you lose.
You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 12:30 PM

Yep, must be a form of greeting thereabouts...

Mind you, as a Sheff Wed fan' I'm sadly somewhat used to hearing those words.

Have you ever entered into a debate Keith? Who with? What happened?

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 12:51 PM

As Michael has also observed, you seem incapable of debate Musket.
You just make assertions and demand belief.
As here, you resort to ridicule and abuse, but never anything to support your views which are in fact just prejudice and preconception.

You have stated views that you can not support and which are contradicted by all the people who have made a study of the issue.
So, you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 25 Nov 14 - 02:34 PM

If you want to compare with something, compare the WWI dead with the 375 dead in three times as long a similarly-sized strop in Afghanistan involving around 100 000 Brits? Yup, they were homicidal maniacs, just not on quite the same scale as those Teribus compares with. I'm using the current set of data because we have an accurate and detailed list to work with.

375 dead? Yes, I subtracted the 60 who died from causes other than enemy action from the supposed 435, the suicides, the 10 who died from "friendly" fire, the fraggings, the deaths from poorly-designed kit. The 14 guys who died when a 40 year-old Nimrod blew up after refuelling in midair, because the MOD hadn't bothered to sort the refuelling system still leaking like a bloody sieve four years into the War, ignoring the "lessons" supposedly learned using them in the Falklands War. The Nimrod was a derivative of the de Havilland Comet, the first ever passenger jet whose design dates back as far as 1943 and whose first series was withdrawn from service within a year of entering service in 1954 because the designers had to learn the hard way about metal fatigue. There are those who say they died from enemy inaction from the same school of blithering incompetents we're discussing here. And if you want me to get really agressive on that count, there's another 34 dead in Iraq and Afghanistan from the MOD insisting on their using Snatch Landrovers, despite the resignation of people like the SAS' Major Seb Morley over the issue. Or the 28 who died in Warrior IFVs, also used in a context they were not designed for. My bet for the most ridiculous of the deaths among the 435 attributed to my soul is the poor guy who died in a jet-ski accident in Cyprus on R&R on the way home. Perhaps we should add Kirsty MacColl in too...

To bring this back to the original point, the same can be said of the dead in WWI who did not die of enemy action, but from disease caused by the conditions they were forced to live in, one third of those who are numbered among the Glorious Dead, grosso modo 300 000. And you cannot attribute those deaths to enemy action. These are figures, reasons and blames anyone in a Command situation must carry engraved on their soul, lest they witlessly add to the count.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 02:56 AM

Musket - 25 Nov 14 - 09:11 AM - What an idiotic post - at least you are consistent:

"Oh, so we were only half as incompetent as other forces. Thanks.

Tell me why is your glass always half-empty? Using the same reasoning you could equally state that they were twice as competent as any of their contemporaries in command of the largest armies of the day, indeed the largest armies the world had ever seen.

Tell me Musket how do you talk to and comfort a skeleton? Do you do it often? Perhaps you got some practice in at Stafford - well you are banging on about incompetence aren't you?

If you wish to compare GUEST Rahere then compare like with like (World War One to Afghanistan - are you f**kin serious??). But as you appear to like digging up figures for Afghanistan and Iraq can you furnish us with the figures for the number of soldiers, Royal Marines and SF who rode about in Land Rovers who didn't get killed, who completed their journeys and their missions successfully. Perhaps you could go through the same exercise for those who were equally safe and successful whilst being transported in Vikings or Warriors who did not get killed.

Rather liked the comment that those killed in the Warriors were killed because they were engaged in operations the Warrior was not intended for:

The two Warriors hit by "friendly fire" during Desert Storm were part of an armoured formation moving across open terrain in accordance with orders that they had received to do so - OK then GUEST Rahere WHAT IS IT that these Warrior AFVs are supposed to be capable of doing?

The investigation of the most recent incident of British soldiers being killed in a Warrior AFV (Blown up by a massive IED) revealed that those soldiers would have died even if they had been sitting there in a Main Battle Tank so large was the charge that was used. The main contributing factor to their death by IED was the fact that when patrolling that stretch of road they stopped in the same place regularly - i.e. their enemy knew where to plant the charge and they knew where they could hide to hit the command detonate button.

Two facts of life - there are no unsinkable ships and there are no mine-proof vehicles.

By the way Rahere do you attribute the 50 to 100 million who died because of the "Spanish" Flu pandemic as being down to British Generals as well?

I dare say if you compare the mortality rates from various diseases in the early 1900s to the mortality rates from the same diseases today you will find an amazing difference - all a matter of understanding of the disease, its treatment, the medicines, the facilities and procedures available and used in its treatment. All of that plus the ancillary, peripheral things that help, such as better communications, better roads, better transport, better nutrition.

Considering that the First World War was the most horrendous armed struggle the world had ever seen at that time yet 9 out of every 10 British/Commonwealth soldiers who either volunteered or was conscripted survived it - Very easy with 20 x 20 hindsight to decry what others did and how others reacted when faced with real and unimagined problems 100 years ago only makes those leveling the criticism in retrospect with 21st century attitudes and perceptions appear to be downright foolish - sort of like the American tourist at Windsor Castle remarking how stupid it had been of the British Royal family to build their principal London residence so near to the airport.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:08 AM

I said earlier in the thread that Terribulus should go on the stage.

I should add that he or she should wear a red nose and a 100 year old general uniform. After all, if you must talk like a cunt it helps to look like one.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:18 AM

Could you perhaps think of another cuss-word just for a change, Popgun dear? This interminable iteration of 'cunt' is getting more than somewhat boring...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:30 AM

"Could you perhaps think of another cuss-word just for a change"
Second that - would only add, sexist and offensive.
Shows a definite lack of imagination
"you lose. You lose."
Ran into Simon Cowell at our local session last night - he says he's happy to put your name down on his list if you contact him
Any chance that you'll desist from making these discussions into a game-show - doubt it somehow?
Your obsession with "win and lose" places you right up there with the airheads - wonder which of your history books you picked this up from
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:18 AM

A debate is won or lost Jim.
If you can not support your case, you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:39 AM

"you lose."
That makes 20 times you've said this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 06:40 AM

No one supports terrorism.
Wild accusations, abuse and insults, but no debate.
You lose.
How many now Jim?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 07:14 AM

"I'm reading comments that offend the memory of a whole generation slaughtered without regard to them as humans"

Oddly enough Musket so am I.

I am reading idiotic and totally unfounded comments by complete and utter clowns who pour scorn and denigrate and disparage the moral values, patriotism and sense of duty of a whole generation who responded to their country's call to arms. Calling them all to a man, simpletons, idiots and fools who were too thick to know what they were doing - Damn right you are being offensive

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 07:24 AM

Mmmm... "Simpletons, idiots and fools." If you say so, although you would never hear me insult them like that.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 08:27 AM

"Prick" -- Makes a change, at least, Poppie.

I myself make it a principle, held for the last 4 years, to avoid that kind of locution, & that kind of abuse, on this forum, because it gets so very tedious, and IMO reflects pejoratively on the inventiveness, and the writing style, of the perpetrator. But such as you, who appear committed to such ways of going on*, and, lamentably IMO, incapable of expressing yourselves without such resort, would do well to vary your epithets and denunciatory terminology , sufficiently at least to enable the rest of us to remain awake whilst otherwise fully appreciating the cogency and effectiveness of the points with which you are so kind as to regale us, rather than bored into a state of unconquerably soporific ennui.

≈M≈

*[Did you, I wonder, as I have mentioned before, go on like this in the course of that brilliant career in public leadership of which you never tire of informing us?]

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 08:50 AM

Four years eh? So I can be a silver tongued fucker for the next seventy years and still frolick on the same moral high plane with you four years after that?

I'll tell you what me old footballer. Something about stones and glass houses before taking the piss eh?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 09:09 AM

"You lose."
Twenty one and counting and you've still not provided evidence of a consensus
Simon Cowell beckons!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:02 AM

I have provided evidence of a consensus by posting lots of historians agreeing with me, and you have confirmed it by failing to find a single one who contradicts me.
Will you produce such a quote now?
If not, you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 11:42 AM

What about stones & glasshouses, Poppy? Have been on this forum 5 years, & sedulously avoided obscene abuse of the sort you are perpetually parroting for all but the first of those years. Where do 70 years come in? Were you as confused in all those exemplary years of such sterling public service as you appear to be just now, one must wonder? You really are a caution, my dear old dilli-billi-duckli-pooze. Why not try a nice hot cuppa* & then a nice long lie-down, my ickle sweeting?

≈M≈

*Vilely polluted with cow·juice if you must!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 12:10 PM

Teribus, the world has moved on and you were left behind, that's all.

You're from a generation of military which was still under the thumb of the old school, and it shows. Since your day, the art of soldiering has moved on: you were trained in extreme force (I know, my very first exercise was the hunting force for green beret candidates) and nothing much else, most certainly not the level of control now required, not that finesse is an RM stock-in-trade even now. The teaching of avoiding the Red Fog of War came in in my time, not yours, c1977. In your time, nobody would have needed the kind of justification Blair had to fabricate for the Gulf War, he needed it because he needed to be able to convince the military top brass he was acting legally, and therefore they were too. The same thing works right down the tree: you rough up a prisoner, you end up in jail. In your day, it was normal (I know first-hand how you RMs worked in 1968, I bear the scar to this day). Tough tittie, that was then, this is now.

And that is why this is changing. We live in a world where the knowledgable living are far more valuable than the valiant dead, let alone what I have just shown was yet another lie from your school. You don't answer my points, you wriggle and twist and you're not worth arguing with, you're too old and mind-numbed to change. It's like arguing with a Crusader, all self-justification and gung-ho over-there. And as irrelevant to the world we now live in, were it not that your mindset actually creates the kind of jihadi extremist we're trying to stop. That makes you your own worst enemy and it's time for you to stop.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 12:13 PM

If Keith were any use, he'd recognise that he might be agreeing with his sources, rather than the other way around. A long list of historians following him? Just possibly, his case officer trying to plumb the depths of his megalomania.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 12:40 PM

Ragere, I have stated over and over that I formed my views by reading the Historians.
Tim, and Steve have different opinions that are contradicted by Historians.

On the history of WWI, I believe the Historians know more than those three.
What do you think Ragere?

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

"On the history of WWI, I believe the Historians know more than those three."
You appar to be getting in a right mess with your historians, but keep it up - all good entertainment value
"you lose."
Twenty three on both threads now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 03:50 PM

No one has yet found a Historian who supports you or contradicts me.
That is because there are none.
You can not produce any evidence in support of your case so obviously, you lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 14 - 05:50 PM

Unless you people can produce anything other than assertion and abuse, I am done with this.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 02:13 AM

Let's see now... The rest of what Keith's precious "historians" say plus what the other 99% of historians say plus the evidence amply available to form your own opinions.

There. That's enough to be getting on with.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 03:30 AM

There has been a GUEST posting (26 Nov 14 - 12:10 PM ) to which the only response can be WTF??? as it seems to address nothing stated and has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion - My guess is the unidentified GUEST is chippy former beancounting NCO Rahere.

"Red Fog of War" what the fuck are you wittering on about you clown.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 04:43 AM

That was such an obvious accidental omission that anyone not wanting to score points would have just read on and ignored it.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 05:19 AM

When you can't win the race at the chequered flag, you can still score points whilst losing, according to Williams, Ferrari, Terribulus.....

He picks you up on the slightest thing to deflect the weakness of his assertions.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 05:49 AM

99% Musket?
I will come back if you produce any, but not for just assertions.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 05:51 AM

If I can't be arsed, do you promise?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 06:22 AM

No.
Do it.
Produce some or just one of your 99%.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 06:27 AM

If you can't promise, you can piss off.

however, just for you

If Keith is right, this doesn't exist

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 06:33 AM

A link to the the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, because my case was that no one died.
If that is your idea of debate I will stay away.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 07:50 AM

No Keith I think it is Musket's firm belief that an army can only be adjudged to have been well led in any particular conflict if it suffers no casualties (i.e. No wounded; No dead)

And the prat has the nerve to witter on about "reality"

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 27 Nov 14 - 08:39 AM

Really? Well if you say that's what I think, who am I to argue? In order for you to understand me you have to sink me to your ignorant level I suppose..

I recall all the well run, governance rich, assurance strong hospitals I assessed that had well motivated staff, few vacancies and excellent patient feedback. And it was true in some cases in some categories. Except the teams I led were there because the coroner was concerned about all the Clostridium difficile related deaths.

You know what? If historians in the future dig out the records, they too will scratch their heads over Maidstone, over Basildon, over Stoke Mandeville. Till they came to what we found. You see, we started at the cemetery and worked backwards. There was a time WW1 studies did similar.

Given the thread title, it is nicely ironic that I am reading some Len Deighton at present.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 02:15 AM

"I recall all the well run, governance rich, assurance strong hospitals I assessed that had well motivated staff, few vacancies and excellent patient feedback............... the teams I led were there because the coroner was concerned about all the Clostridium difficile related deaths.

...................Till they came to what we found. You see, we started at the cemetery and worked backwards. There was a time WW1 studies did similar."

Ho hum Musket another reality check for you.

1: YOU didn't start at the at cemetery and work backwards - the Coroner did - you started, or should have done, with the autopsy/post mortem reports and worked back to where those bodies had come from. After all Musket where would they have looked under your system if they had all been cremated?

2: While I can compare the 375 deaths of British soldiers on active service (Note: Active Service as opposed to being at war as in 1914) in Afghanistan being killed in action in Afghanistan over the course of 13 years to the additional deaths to the expected norm of 1,200 people who died attending the A&E department of Stafford Hospital over the course of four years and then make a decision call on which place was more dangerous to be in and in which place you stood greater chance of dying. In studying a conflict or a war (i.e. events where fatalities among your enemies is the planned object and among your own troops are fully anticipated and where sudden and violent death is considered to be the norm) then starting at cemeteries does not really help you.

3: In the early stages of this thread I stated the following:

"The British & Commonwealth Armies in general throughout the entire course of the war were well led in comparison to the armies of any other combatant power and far from that being based on "unqualified assertion" that can be proven by examination of whatever metric you would care to use to judge success."

So let us use your preferred metric for success and start at the cemeteries and look back from there:

Here are the statistics relating to those who ended up in cemeteries for the principal combatant nations engaged on the "Western Front" from the outset:

Britain - Population 45.4 million, % deaths 1.79% to 2.2%

France - Population 39.6 million, % deaths 4.29% to 4.39%

Germany - Population 64.9 million, % deaths 3.39% to 4.32%

Straightforward military deaths:
Britain - 888,246
France - 1,397,800
Germany - 2,037,000

OK then Musket which of the principal combatant nations engaged on the "Western Front" from the outset ended up requiring the least amount of space in these cemeteries you would be looking at?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 04:13 AM

Two dozen already
This kind of mindlessness needs all the abuse it can get
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 28 Nov 14 - 11:22 AM

What's all this shit about coroners and cremated? Are you being literal through bloody mindedness or lack of mental capacity? Either way it isn't impressive. The investigations I either carried out or assisted in came from either coroner rule 43 (now superceded) or concerns from NPSA (now NRLS.) Dead bodies and the work of coroners were irrelevant other than cause for investigating systemic issues. This work is carried out these days by CQC n England if such things interest you.

Last week you decided to compare wartime leadership with health care leadership. I totally agreed with you, which seemed to piss you off. I then (above) took the analogy further to say cemeteries full of dead soldiers or full of dead patients and everybody saying how good the leadership was. Grounds for concern.

I don't investigate incompetence in military circles but for me, the huge daily casualties, red tops patrolling behind the lines, the lies being spread to encourage faith in the military and the white feathers all add up to enough to investigate.

And people have.

And incompetent indifferent leadership has been found wanting.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Broken Poppies
Date: 29 Nov 14 - 05:43 AM

I don't think folks here mentioned the astonishing display of 800,000+ red ceramic poppies that were in the moat of the Tower of London until recently.

These were purchased in their thousands by members of the public for £25 of which only a small amount went to Forces charities.

However apart from the small proceeds of each one to charities, there were two other scandals.

1/ At the time of the display the Tower of London hosted an International Arms Dealers event -

"Guests, who included senior officials from the Ministry of Defence and foreign security companies, paid up to £3,000 for tables at the LCCI's Defence and Security Dinner but were told they would be advised on its location after registering.

"The Tower of London was accused of 'crass insensitivity' for hosting the £240-a-head black tie dinner for weapons manufacturers at the Tower of London, where poppies from the Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red memorial are still being removed.

"Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against the Arms Trade, told the Independent: 'On Remembrance Day, the Tower of London was a focus for remembering the horrendous loss of life in the First World War."

"'It is disturbing that just weeks later it can play host to the very arms companies which profit from perpetuating war and conflict today.

"'It is crassly insensitive and in extremely bad taste that this historic monument would do this so soon after providing such a high-profile focal point for Remembrance Day.'"

Arms Dealers at Tower of London

and

2/ Yodel the courier company have been delivering numerous broken poppies due to the appalling handling by their staff - one of which (at least) was been filmed throwing said package over a garden fence.

"Dozens of ceramic poppies which were planted at the Tower of London to commemorate those who died during the First World War have arrived at customers' homes broken into pieces.

"Disappointed customers who bought one of the £25 red blooms - designed to represent an individual British or Colonial death - have been faced with missing parts, smashed petals and shattered edges as the ceramic flowers arrived on their doorsteps.

"In one shocking incident, a courier was caught hurling a poppy package 25ft over a garden fence when he was unable to reach the customer's front door."

Broken Poppies Delivered By Yodel

CJB

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 06:14 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04p5q8c/songs-of-praise-remembrance-sunday

23 minutes in a children's choir sing the poem In Flanders Fields, by a Canadian Army doctor in WWI.
Heartbreaking.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 14 - 06:17 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04p5q8c/songs-of-praise-remembrance-sunday

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 02:23 AM

That's interesting. Can we say "all the poets" in the same way you say "all the historians"?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 02:35 AM

Broken Poppies' posting more or less sums up what the lads where sent to die for - profit and the continuance of war.
Keith and will glorify that fact by ignoring it.
Now that's what I call "heartbreaking", but then again , it takes all sorts....
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 04:38 AM

They fought to save Europe and their homeland from a militaristic tyranny.
You should be grateful.
I am.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:41 AM

Brian Bond - A Victory worse than a Defeat?

Well worth the read.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:30 AM

Didn't realise you had to admire the mistakes and arrogance of the Ruperts in order to be grateful for the sacrifice.

I still think it ironic that Keith can say what he does and still be comfortable with the word "sacrifice."

Terribulus. A bit short by your standards? I actually like the idea that you type away for ages, fuming like a half pay Colonel writing to The Times, when once you have posted it, no bugger bothers reading it through anyway.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:49 AM

The historians are clear that the leadership was good.
What is your assessment worth, because it is only yours.
No living historian takes your view.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 09:24 AM

They fought to save Europe and their homeland from a militaristic tyranny.

That would be news to the millions of Congolese massacred by Leopold's Belgium and the French colonialists, or the Jewish population of the Pale obliterated by Tsarist Russia. Brave Little Belgium probably killed three times as many Africans as the Nazis did Jews.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 10:00 AM

Shhh... He's delicate.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 11:02 AM

Germany carried out an actual genocide in its African colonies.

British people went to war to halt an invader threatening Europe and Britain.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 12:14 PM

Like I said. Shh..

Keith differentiates between colonial powers. It would destroy him to realise we just about perfected concentration camps in The Boer War, or that the best way to command respect in India was to tie a few natives to the mouths of cannons.

Two legs good. Four legs bad eh Keith?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 01:09 PM

"Germany carried out an actual genocide in its African colonies."
So did 'Gallant little Belguim - to the tune of 10 million deaths and innumerable thousands of rubber workers having their hands removed for failing to meet their quota.
Britain continued to carry out atrocities in its colonies, in India and Ireland, to name just two, in order to hold onto them as did all other colonial powers
World War One was a fight for colonial power
"They fought to save Europe and their homeland from a militaristic tyranny."
Meaningless Imperialistic cliché
You choose not to comment that the powers that be in Britain commemorated the anniversary by holding an arms fair to sell weapons to some of the words worst despot - "land of hope and glory, mother of the free" eh, what??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 01:54 PM

I am telling you why the British people went to war.
You clearly think they were wrong to do so, but you will not find many historians who agree with you.
The consensus is that the people were right and it was a necessary war.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:14 PM

I am telling you why the British people went to war.

Indeed YOU are. But that don't make what you say true, even if Mr. T backs you up...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:31 PM

That is why they went to war.
If you had read anything of those times, you would know that.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 05:43 PM

Have you read those books yet, Keith?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 02:35 AM

Greg F:

The reasons Keith gave for Great Britain's entry into the First World War are perfectly correct. Your:

"That would be news to the millions of Congolese massacred by Leopold's Belgium and the French colonialists, or the Jewish population of the Pale obliterated by Tsarist Russia. Brave Little Belgium probably killed three times as many Africans as the Nazis did Jews."

I do not think for one nano-second that millions of massacred Congolese (Actually massacred by Leopold - NOT - Leopold's Belgium, you see King Leopold of Belgium regarded what was known as the "Belgium Congo" as being his own personal private property) were in a position to give two flying f**ks as to why the British entered the fray in August 1914 - same to be said for the entire population of metropolitan France (In 1914 Great Britain was bound by no formal military alliance to either France or Russia) or all of those Russian Jews.

As far as "Brave Little Belgium" goes it should be remembered Greg F that "Brave Little Belgium" was formed after a revolution in 1830 which saw the southern provinces of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands break away and declare independence. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands refused to sign the Treaty of XVIII Articles in 1831 and negotiations were entered into which resulted in the Treaty of London in 1839 which the Dutch did sign along with the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the Austro-Hungarian Empire; Prussia and Russia. ALL signatories promised to guarantee Belgian Sovereignty AND Neutrality.

The "country" was allowed it's existence because it suited the national interests of THE principal victorious combatant of the Napoleonic War - Great Britain.

It suited Great Britain's national interest to have a small neutral country "parked" immediately opposite the entry to the Thames.

It suited Great Britain's national interest that the sovereignty and neutrality of that small country was guaranteed by all the powerful states of Europe, because as long as Belgium remained independent and neutral Great Britain really did not have to worry too much about Europe, and Great Britain between 1839 and 1914 was rich enough and powerful enough to expect that all the signatories to the Treaty of London (1839) would honour their obligations under that Treaty.

So to put in a way that would be acceptable to you - Great Britain entered the First World War on the side of the French and the Russians in order to protect what she saw as her own vital self/national interests. Much better for Great Britain to fight Germany with Allies in 1914 than attempt to fight a much more powerful Germany on her own later.

Great Britain fought the First World War to protect her own national integrity and in order to protect and preserve her empire - roughly the same reason that Great Britain has fought any war in Europe since 1690.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 03:09 AM

"Great Britain fought the First World War to protect her own national integrity"
Britain fought to continue to "Rule the waves" - no amount of jingoistic bullshit alters that fact.
The Empire they were defending was as rapacious and despotic as any other on the planet - only bigger - "on which the sun never set, nor the blood ever dried"
Both of you clowns continue to ignore that the establishment chose to mark the hundredth anniversary of the war by hosting an arms fair - an insult to the dead and a clear statement of how they still feel about the promises of "a war to end all wars" and "a land fit for heroes to live in"
The only nod in the direction of a tribute to those who died was a watered-down anti-war song with its anti-war message surgically removed - an insult to them and us.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 03:15 AM

Don't worry, this thread will be over by Christmas.

💀💩

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 03:46 AM

"Don't worry, this thread will be over by Christmas. "
That's what they told the lads who died in their millions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:46 AM

"Great Britain fought the First World War to protect her own national integrity"
Britain fought to continue to "Rule the waves" - no amount of jingoistic bullshit alters that fact."

So you deny that Germany invaded Belgium and France and was sweeping towards the English Channel leaving a vicious occupation in its wake?
That is why the people were so willing to fight to defend Europe and Britain.
The Historians say they were right.
Jim says they were wrong, but who is Jim?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

Now that is what I call a mental leap!

To begin a sentence with "so you deny" and then put words in the mouths of others makes wonderful reading, but for all the wrong reasons.

Reading Keith A of Hertford is a bit like hearing a child argue in favour of the existence of Santa Claus. Dogged and blind repeating of a few bits of circumstantial evidence that make his mind up, and nothing, nothing alters that.

This is, I suppose why religion is still fashionable despite the increasing sophistication and general intelligence of people and the falling need for reliance on superstition.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:02 AM

Guest, Jim said "Britain fought to continue to "Rule the waves" - no amount of jingoistic bullshit alters that fact."

History says Britain fault to resist the invasion and occupation of Europe by military might.

If he believes one, he does not believe the other.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:28 AM

"The Historians say they were right."
Ho hum - hiding behind what you have not read again - and still no comment on selling arms to despots to honour the victims of the "Geat" war
We'll meet again, no doubt - maybe in a field of ceramic 800,000 poppies costing £25 a throw - money well spent, no doubt!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 05:40 AM

Oh Dear Christmas!!!!

"Britain fought to continue to "Rule the waves" - no amount of jingoistic bullshit alters that fact.

Britain in 1914 did not need to fight to "Rule the Waves".

"The Empire they were defending was as rapacious and despotic as any other on the planet

The empire they were defending in 1914 was actually costing Great Britain money and had been doing so since about the 1870. Go through the list of Dominions, former Colonies, Possessions, Protectorates and Territories and you will find that most became independent peacefully and that they were all democracies when they became independent and most retained voluntary ties through the Commonwealth of Nations with Great Britain (Even countries that have never had any historical ties to the UK).

"Both of you clowns continue to ignore that the establishment chose to mark the hundredth anniversary of the war by hosting an arms fair"

How wonderful for you Jim to be able to attribute titles and powers to bodies as it suits your convenience. The 100th Anniversary of of the start of the "Great War" occurred on the 4th August 2014 it was marked by the "establishment" (i.e. by the Government of Great Britain) by:

1: "A candlelit vigil at Westminster Abbey"

2: "The Commonwealth Service at Glasgow Cathedral"

3: "A Ceremony at the St Symphorien Military Cemetery in Mons, Belgium."

No mention at all about an arms fair. But there again that is not surprising Jim is it - I deal in fact you deal in fiction.

I believe that what you are incorrectly and inaccurately referring to was the "Defence and Security Dinner" held inside the Tower of London and hosted by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry's defence and security committee group - they are not "the Establishment" - If you were to tell them so they would be as amazed as would the British Government (Who ARE the Establishment). This dinner was held as it was the previous year in the Tower of London on the 28th November which is the 100th anniversary of "F**k knows what and the following aspects of related to the First World War:

- New York Stock Exchange reopens for Bond trading
- 1916 First German Air Raid on London
- 1918 Abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Prussia & Germany

The Tower of London is an Armoury. one of the oldest in the country - So pretty appropriate place I would have thought (Crass and insensitive would have been inside Coventry Cathedral)

The Tower of London has hosted the same dinner on previous occasions

"The only nod in the direction of a tribute to those who died was a watered-down anti-war song with its anti-war message surgically removed - an insult to them and us."

All of which again had S.F.A. to do with the "Establishment" the song was watered-down by the artist with no complaints or protestations of righteous indignation from the person who wrote the song.

Sorry not even close Christmas - Try again.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:05 AM

"Britain in 1914 did not need to fight to "Rule the Waves"."
Yes it did - what was happening in Europe was undermining the status-quo of Imperial authority - you've already accepted it was a war to defend the British Empire - make up your mind Turpitude (or should that be Terpsichore, the way you dance from one position to another?)
"The empire they were defending in 1914 was actually costing Great Britain money"
So the Empire was actually a charitable foundation - Oh f. f. sake - are you for real?
The British Empire, from its income from the colonies and the power and influence that brought, was the wealthiest in history and recognised as such.
Are you suse your real name isn't Terry Pratchett - he writes hilarious fantasy and he has announced he has Altimeters, which might just account for your constantly forgetting to respond to the fact that the powers that be though selling arms to despotic regimes was a fitting way of remembering the dead of W.W.1
Thanks for the giggle - made my day, it really has
Jim Carroll
By the way, Eric Bogle made his position on the use of his song quite clear - reproduced several times - Altimeters kicking in again?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:39 AM

"Britain in 1914 did not need to fight to "Rule the Waves"

Then tell me Jim, in 1914 what navy in the world could seriously challenge the might and power of the Royal Navy.

"what was happening in Europe was undermining the status-quo of Imperial authority - you've already accepted it was a war to defend the British Empire - make up your mind "

Everything you say there is perfectly true - however it is only your inability to understand the situation and grasp the detail that trip you up and cause you to ask me to make up my mind when in fact there is no point of conflict in the two statements that I have made - Go away and think about it - In 1914 Great Britain did not need to fight the "Rule the Waves" because no-one could realistically challenge her at sea, Great Britain's Empire on the other hand was under a very real threat if Germany, in defeating Belgium and France, took over their colonies as Germany fully intended to do as well as annexing Belgium which would have put German Battleships within fours hours steaming time from positions from which they could have bombarded London.

"The empire they were defending in 1914 was actually costing Great Britain money"

Read: Naill Ferguson's Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 0-7139-9615-3.

"'The 19th-century empire undeniably pioneered free trade, free capital movements and, with the abolition of slavery, free labour. It invested immense sums in developing a global network of modern communications. It spread and enforced the rule of law over vast areas. Though it fought many small wars, the empire maintained a global peace unmatched before or since."

While private enterprises and companies were making money out of the Empire Christmas - The British Government, which was not in business, found itself spending more and more on the Empire - Now if you cannot see the difference between the two then there is indeed no hope for you.

"the fact that the powers that be though selling arms to despotic regimes was a fitting way of remembering the dead of W.W.1"

Please define - the powers that be

What arms were sold at this dinner?

Which despotic regimes were present at the dinner?

What was the "official" connection between this dinner and any commemoration for the dead of the First World War?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 07:40 AM

"Yes it did - what was happening in Europe was undermining the status-quo of Imperial authority - "

The invasion of European countries by an invading army was threatening to destroy the "status quo" of the whole of Europe and Britain.

Britain was right to stand against them.
That is what the people said then, and what the historians say now.

But, Jim knows more than the historians or the people actually there.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 08:19 AM

"But, Jim knows more than the historians or the people actually there."
Do your historians have anything to say about the Government's support for selling arms to despots during th remembrance centenary.
Keep it up Keith, you're doing wonders for your credibility
"what navy in the world could seriously challenge the might and power of the Royal Navy."
Imperialistic posturing - quoting the line of a song, but thanks for the Blimpishness
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 08:20 AM

Can our pro war mongers explain what the fuck any of their bluster and waffle has to go with BBC Radio 2 and Oh What a Lovely War?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 08:34 AM

Yo, T-Bird!

You obviously have the same reading comprehension difficultues as Keith - I didn't make any of the quoted statements you attribute to me.

But rabbit on, lad, its really quite amusing.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:17 AM

Historians are not talking about current arms sales, funnily enough.
As Musket says, what has it to do with the subject anyway?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:20 AM

Which "historians", Keith?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:27 AM

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,

And Bond (T's link)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 09:31 AM

And pray tell, which of the books of each of the "historians" on your list have you actually read?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 10:55 AM

Oh, and Keith: do those 21 names comprise "all historians"??

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 12:00 PM

"Saul David....."
Have you no self respect
You scramble around the net gathering names you haven't read and claim that they support your case
1 the overwhelming majority have not referred to anything under discussion here
One blames French and says Hague was ok
One has embarked on a series on the Imperial nature of the war.
Max Hastings has already been castigated by the conservative Spectator
The rest of them are totally silent about the reasons for joining, the nature of recruiting, th military cock-ups covered by the Paxman programmes, the deliberate sacrifice of young lives for useles stretches of mud...... NOT ONE OF THEM DENY THE IMPERIALIST NATURE OF THE WAR.
and still you remain silent on the insulting fact that while the commemoration wa taking place the Government was facilitating arms fairs
As I said - you're a joke
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:53 PM

None of them ascribe an imperial nature to the war.
Greg, remember not one of you have found one single historian who still believe those old discredited myths you people still hold dear.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 14 - 06:56 PM

Greg, remember not one of you have found one single historian

Untrue.
You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:28 AM

Ehmm Jim regarding the following statement and question:

""Britain in 1914 did not need to fight to "Rule the Waves"

Then tell me Jim, in 1914 what navy in the world could seriously challenge the might and power of the Royal Navy?"

I know that you rarely if ever actually deal in facts but the first part of that - in 1914 - was a simple statement of fact reflecting the reality of the age, a reality that had existed historically since the 21st October 1805.

The second part is a simple straightforward honest question that once again you have ducked, if it is indeed "posturing" as you claim (You do tend to claim rather a great deal Christmas without ever providing any substantive evidence to back up those claims) then here is your chance to prove me wrong - the floor as they say is yours, but I will make a prediction - you will provide nothing, you will continue to ignore the question just as you did the one about your previous claim about Kitchener being forced to resign (Remember that one??)

By the way Christmas the other question you ducked (And you do duck so many of them) related to your definition of "the powers that be" - Care to enlighten us as to exactly who they are? We all know the organisation responsible for organising and hosting the dinner was the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Reported Fact - Even in the Guinard) so where does this come from?

" the insulting fact that while the commemoration wa taking place the Government was facilitating arms fairs."

Christmas, since when has the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry formed and been recognised as being the Government of the United Kingdom?

"Can our pro war mongers explain what the fuck any of their bluster and waffle has to go with BBC Radio 2 and Oh What a Lovely War?" - One Musket or probably several

Think it has something to do with the fact that some think that this play and latter film represented what actually happened during the First World War, others, myself included, pointed out that it didn't, that it was crap based on and inspired by, crap (Alan Clark's book "The Donkeys") and "all this bluster and waffle" as you call it has been backed up by well documented facts and the considered opinions of historians who have spent a great deal of time and effort studying a great deal of evidence (written, visual and audio) sourced from people who were actually present at the events they were writing about.

All neatly summed up in the printed version of the Kings College Lecture delivered by Professor Brian Bond that I provided a link to previously. I understand your question Musket and more importantly the reason why you felt the need to ask it - after all you did admit yourself that "you didn't read anything"..

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:32 AM

Another "you lose" to add to your tally Jim!

We seem to be losing at the rate incompetent generals lost men under their care...

Actually, we're not even close.

💀

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:20 AM

I must be bored. I just read Terribulus's last post.

Last post seems rather apt, don't you think?

Fascinating to read a post pointing out what I read, what I missed and oh, how I wouldn't have the views I have if I had read what Terribulus has read.

Perhaps one day Terribulus will realise that reading and forming an opinion is different to repeating the opinion of the author.

Especially when the author doesn't quite, exactly, wavelength and all that, say what Sergeant Terribulus and Private TC tell us they say.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:48 AM

Britain fought to maintain its Imperial supremacy - nothing to do with your point about Naval power, which, as are all your points, a red herring (no pun intended)
You have come some distance in your belligerent defence of Britain's part in the sacrificing of so many young lives in defence of The Empire (your feeble minded friend still has some way to go) - that is what World War One was about - the continuance of the exploitation of large sections of the planet.
As far as your hero Kitchener was concerned - the fiasco of 'the wrong sized shells' forced him to offer his resignation - that's what I remember - that his resignation was rejected on the basis that it would have been a political embarrassment to have accepted it at the time, i beside the point.
The man became a liability and, as Lloyd George pointed out in his memoirs, the government was happy to see him go - the conspiracy theory that his death might have been deliberate is part of his legacy, as were his concentration camps.
Kitchener was a military thug and he brought that thuggery into Word War One.
Seven years before the outbreak of war his behaviour was noted and condemned by The Hague Convention - but then again, we all have our heroes
Jim Carroll

The Hague convention of 1907 denounced Kitchener's encirclement and closure policies, stipulating that a conqueror shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country, and condemning collective punishment procedures, asserting, no general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:31 AM

The Hague Convention is interesting. The butchers and callous bastards governing forces in WW1 cut their teeth in The Boer War and their education was The Crimean War and Indian Mutiny.

I visited the war graves at Spion Kop the other year, and like the medical orderly who helped clear up the mess, I too felt a sense of betrayal of "other ranks.". In fact, when the medical orderly went on to say that western civilisation would be a good thing, you tended to know where old Mahatma was coming from...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:48 AM

Britain declared war because neutral Belgium was invaded.
That is the fact.
Britain was obliged by treaty to do so.
That is the fact.
The people overwhelmingly supported it.
That is the fact.
The British army is considered by military historians to have done well under competent leadership.
That is the fact.

Greg lied when he said it was untrue he had failed to find any supporting historian.
All of you have failed in that.
That is the fact.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:38 AM

"Britain declared war because neutral Belgium was invaded."
Of all the countries you could mention Belgium was the most murderous of colonies - the fact that the British establishment peddled "gallant little Belgium" a a reason for going to war was typical of the con of recruitment.
"Britain was obliged by treaty to do so."
As a signatory of that treaty Britain was duty-bound to condemn the Congo massacres but instead it adopted the policy of "I'll ignore your crimes against humanity if you ignore mine".
That remains the fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 06:22 AM

The red herring was introduced by you Jim the red herring was the snide - "Rule the waves" dig - All I pointed out was that in 1914 not a single country in the world had a navy capable of taking on and defeating the Royal Navy. Glad that that one has been put to bed.

Great Britain fought to maintain and protect her Empire - WOW - as a statement of the blindingly obvious that takes the biscuit - of course Great Britain fought to maintain and protect her Empire that after all is what all countries with empires do - Putin at this very moment is struggling with every fibre in his being to re-establish Russia's lost "empire".

Ah yes your "wrong sized shells" MYTH - tell us again what shells were the wrong size Christmas - we've pounded this one out before and you were proved as wrong on this as you were on the "Kitchener forced to resign" MYTH - Wasn't the wrong sized shells you prat it was the wrong type of shell and in 1915 that should have surprised no-one. Unfortunate fact of life Christmas, when you get pulled into a war that you didn't specifically prepare for, you have to go with what you have got, not what as it turns out in hind sight what you should have had. During the First World War that was true in 1914 and in 1915, after that things started getting turned round most of that being due to Kitchener - who was responsible for building Great Britain's first citizens army - the Army that ultimately defeated the Germans in 1918.

By the way Christmas - we've done this before as well but as usual you failed to answer - exactly why would you and how would you force someone to offer/threaten to resign when you know that it would be both unthinkable and impossible for you to accept that resignation? As with much of your thinking and your statements - It just does not make any sense at all

Concentration camps?

The ones first introduced by the Spaniards in Cuba in 1896 - which resulted in ~300,000 dead?
The ones subsequently introduced by the Americans in the Philippines in 1898 - which resulted in ~200,000 dead?
Or the ones adopted by the British, under Lord Roberts, in South Africa in 1900 - which resulted in 45,000 dead?

Odd thing about those "inhuman" British "concentration camps" Christmas - roughly the same number of British troops died in their tented camps as Boer prisoners did in theirs. Poor diet and insanitary conditions leading to disease and death - mind you considering the populations of both they stood better chance of survival than the poor in certain towns and cities in England at the time particularly after administration for the civilian camps was taken over by the British Proconsul in South Africa Alfred Milner.

Did these "concentration camps" work? Did they do what they were supposed to, i.e., shorten the war? Yes they did, a peace was sought by the Boers because they could not continue because of the policy of clearing the land (It could not support their guerrilla war) and the public outcry in Great Britain against the camps turned the populace against the war at home.

All the above were established to control civil populations in time of war - the Soviet Gulags and Nazi Concentration camps were established to control dissenters, political opponents and ethnically cleanse entire groups from their respective societies in time of peace.

But in the deflection from the discussion of the First World War Christmas has just thrown in another red herring.

By the way Christmas please do tell us what "thuggery - thug Kitchener" brought into World War One (Absolutely dying to hear what complete and utter tripe this is going to turn up).

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:18 AM

Would anyone in Britain even have known what went on in the African colonies of other nations?
I doubt anyway that Belgian colonies were worse than those of other European countries, and certainly not worse than German ones.

Whatever your view of Belgium,
Britain declared war because neutral Belgium was invaded.
That is the fact.
Britain was obliged by treaty to do so.
That is the fact.
The people overwhelmingly supported it.
That is the fact.
The British army is considered by military historians to have done well under competent leadership.
That is the fact.

Greg lied when he said it was untrue he had failed to find any supporting historian.
All of you have failed in that.
That is the fact.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:20 AM

Is this flurry of contributions from anonymous GUEST mean that the multiple Muskets have gone?

But I really did get a tremendous chuckle out of this one though:

"04 Dec 14 - 04:31 AM

I visited the war graves at Spion Kop the other year, and like the medical orderly who helped clear up the mess, I too felt a sense of betrayal of "other ranks.". In fact, when the medical orderly went on to say that western civilisation would be a good thing, you tended to know where old Mahatma was coming from...

Awww WOW what perception, what empathy, what bullshit. The smarmy attempt to infer gravitas and meaning due to being well travelled, coupled with detailed knowledge and the ability "put one's self in place" is amazingly immature, especially when the author of the above makes it patently clear that he doesn't even know the name of the medical orderly he so knowingly refers to. :

It is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - there was no "old" Mahatma - YOU PRAT - Mahatma is a TITLE it means "Great Soul".

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 07:47 AM

More made up bullshit from:

Jim Carroll - 04 Dec 14 - 05:38 AM

"Britain declared war because neutral Belgium was invaded."

As Great Britain had undertaken to defend Belgian sovereignty and territorial integrity in 1839 that is basically correct.

"Of all the countries you could mention Belgium was the most murderous of colonies - Shouldn't that be colonists Christmas??

Irrelevant the Treaty of London (1839) guaranteed Belgium's sovereignty and her neutrality it had nothing whatsoever to do with Belgian colonies none of which existed in 1839.

"the fact that the British establishment peddled "gallant little Belgium" a a reason for going to war was typical of the con of recruitment."

Really?? British Army of ~440,000 in July 1914 was overwhelmed by over 1.2 million volunteers by December 1914. Britain did honour her treaty obligations to Belgium exactly as she had warned Germany that she would. The 1.2 million men who flocked to the colours to enlist were not duped by anyone peddling them any line about Belgium they volunteered because they saw it as their duty in light of the fact that the BEF had suffered losses against the enemy and those losses needed to be made good.

"As a signatory of that treaty Britain was duty-bound to condemn the Congo massacres but instead it adopted the policy of "I'll ignore your crimes against humanity if you ignore mine".

Typical example of Jim Carroll MUS (Made Up Shit) Now I am really going to love this. OK then Jim here is the full text of the Treaty of London

Treaty of London 1839 - Full Text

Please read it and point out to us all where in that treaty, which article signed by the Dutch; Prussians; Austrians; Russians and Great Britain obligates Great Britain, or indeed any signatory to condemn massacres in as yet unknown colonies at some undetermined time in the future.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:13 AM

By gum, there's some irrelevant digs going on here.

Perhaps Terribulus and TC could address the points rather than the side splitting hilarious comments? On second thought, perhaps not. Comedy is far better than discussing incompetence, arrogance and blunder. Dereliction of duty dontcha' know?

So, was Lord Roberts a success for not killing too many hairybacks or a failure for not killing enough?

Does addressing Ghandi by title rather than birth name make any difference to his experience of the British army? (Good point, been there myself for that matter.)

Does mentioning the awful conditions British soldiers endured make the military leaders look good or bad?

I could go on, but Terribulus has lost the plot so not worth trying to reason with him. He has been hanging around Keith too long, seems to have affected his reasoning.

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 08:18 AM

Nothing there about WWI Musket.
Do you actually know anything about it?
Anything you can substantiate?
Anything you are capable of debating?

If not, ... ....

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:18 AM

Was that addressed to me or Terribulus?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:32 AM

Ah well at least we now know who the prolific GUEST poster is.

Attention to detail GUEST, or Musket, attention to detail - in life as in business it is of vital importance - and you think for one single moment that you could run me ragged - you are being minced here, reduced to posting irrelevant inanities.

If that is all that you are capable of then witter on.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 09:59 AM

?


Check your dispenser. Did you take all your tablets this morning?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 10:59 AM

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 11:26 AM

So.. You have demonstrated that you forgot to take your tablets?

You have waffled away, confusing what one person says with another, putting yourself in the odd position of defending Keith, for which I make allowances, and seem to spend time cherry picking accounts, evidence and recollections.

None of which can explain the situation, whereas incompetence, indifference, revision and the need to save reputations seems to be a fair assessment.

Not to mention corroborated.

This "historians" concept. What is it? An oracle, crusty err crystal ball, religion, set of stone tablets? Do you and your TC mate bow at its altar?

You certainly seem to show faith, and faith has no part to play in reality.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 11:41 AM

More twaddle Musket?

Loved this little crack made by Brian Bond in his King's College Lecture about the left-wing luvvies who made OWALW. To paraphrase what he said it was something in the order of not really knowing how to finish it the way they wanted as it didn't quite reconcile with the fact that at the end of the First World War the victory celebrations took place in London and Paris and not Berlin and Vienna. Wuuuunderful Daahling, simply wuunderful - F**KIN PRICELESS more like!!!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:18 PM

Left wing...

Ah. That's better.

It's "truth" to support your loony right v left black and white view of the world.

Normal people are too sophisticated to look at left v right. It's the politics of little people.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:19 PM

"This "historians" concept. What is it? "

Intelligent, open minded folk who wish to educate themselves about history, read the findings of historians.
That is the concept.

Obviously it does not apply to Lefties who just know how it must have been according to their old class war politics.
The Lefts that time forgot.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:34 PM

old class war politics.

OLD? OLD??Hey, Sunshine, the class war is alive and well in both the U.K. & the U.S.

The uber-rich bastards are winning hands down in the U.S. & I suspect its the same in Blighty.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:58 PM

"Wasn't the wrong sized shells you prat it was the wrong type of shell"
I'm sure that made a great difference to those who died because of the cock-up - doesn't make the slightest difference to the fact Kitchener was forced to tender his resignation (despite your attempts to exonerate him here)
What thuggery did the clown who made the cock-up bring in - the conscientious objectors who were shipped off to Europe (as you gloatingly pointed out) would have all been executed had Kitchener remained in office - as I said, he was a military thug as his earlier record indicated
"Gallant little Belgium" dispatched ten million of its colonial citizens in pursuit of rubber (over one third more than the number of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis)
The fact that Britain should not only honour a treaty with such genocidal thugs and stay silent, then persuade British youth to give their lives in support of such a regime, using Belgian gallantry as a slogan somewhat places Keith's 'War against German tyranny in context
Belgian atrocities in the Congo took place five years before the war broke out - ample time for Britain to condemn them and review its treaty.
What exactly are you going to "love" - the fact that Britain stayed silent - the fact that they remained friends with such genocidal powers or the fact that they persuaded British youth to die defending such monsters?
Not legally obligated to object to genocide - for fuck's sake, what kind of a defence is that - do you really live in a world that does not intervene in the slaughter of ten million people - or nor even comment on it unless legally obliged to do so?
You people really are knuckles-along-the-ground morons, aren't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 01:15 PM

Ah, both our foamy mouthed sycophantic corporals are using the word "left" as an insult.

Answers so much and at long last ends this thread, or at least any moral argument.

It's all about politics after all.

Of the Michael Gove variety it seems....

And here's me, a dodgy dirty rotten stinking capitalist as well. Can a man have no identify?

💷💷💷💷

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 01:35 PM

Done elsewhere Christmas but in brief:

1: "Wrong sized shells" v "Wrong Type" British Army 1914/1915 trained to fight a war of fire and manouevre as such their "field artillery" was too light and the supply of shells they had were predominantly shrapnel not high explosive - both killed the enemy by shrapnel was no good at demolishing barbed wire.

2: At no time at all was Kitchener EVER forced to tender his resignation. Appointed as Secretary of State for War on the 5th August 1914 the day after war was declared and he remained in that post until the 5th June 1916 the day he died - So tell us again Christmas when was he forced to resign?

3: "What thuggery did the clown who made the cock-up bring in - the conscientious objectors who were shipped off to Europe (as you gloatingly pointed out) would have all been executed had Kitchener remained in office - Ehmmm hate to point this out to you Jim but Kitchener died just around the time that the conscientious objectors you refer to arrived in France were they were sentenced to hard labour - not death.

4: "The fact that Britain should not only honour a treaty with such genocidal thugs and stay silent, then persuade British youth to give their lives in support of such a regime,"

Who was supporting any regime?? In 1941 should Churchill have refused to provide assistance and support Soviet Russia - by that time Stalin had murdered more of his own people than any Belgian had Congolese.

As Churchill said at the time - "War makes strange bedfellows"

5: "Belgian atrocities in the Congo took place five years before the war broke out - ample time for Britain to condemn them and review its treaty."

So we are now debating on the basis of what you in 2014 think should have happened as opposed to what actually did happen. Care to tell us how Great Britain could have "reviewed" this treaty - wouldn't that have required the agreement of all the other signatories and IIRC there were quite an number of them. The treaty of London 1839 is still in force today and was last invoked on the 24th May 2005 in an EU dispute between Belgium and the Netherlands.

6: The British Army fought to protect the national interests of Great Britain.

7: "Not legally obligated to object to genocide - for fuck's sake, what kind of a defence is that - do you really live in a world that does not intervene in the slaughter of ten million people - or nor even comment on it unless legally obliged to do so?

Totally irrelevant Christmas because you see us people as you go on to describe us live in the present day in 2014 not back over 100 years ago in 1914. If you wish to judge people on the moral mores and memes of today then fill your boots - all it does is make you look an idiot - back to the American tourists at Windsor Castle again - "Hey honey why do you think the King and Queen of England built this place so close to the Airport?"

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 01:45 PM

Its been a while since I asked what any of this has to do with the artistic merit of the BBC commissioned piece of work based on "oh What a Lovely War."

There again, the minute I saw it, I knew two things.

Before long, the usual suspects will have turned it into a sycophantic defence of the lessons we should have learned, claiming there was nothing done wrong to learn from.

The names of the two contributors who will scream everything from the colour of the bands around the helmets of military police to how to address an Indian political leader, in order to sanitise the shameful approach of the butcher of The Somme and his rotten crew.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 01:48 PM

Teribus, the Philippine-American War began in 1899, not 1898, and concentration camps were not set up till the very end of 1901. They existed for about five months.

The number of fatalities within the camps can only be estimated. However, historian Glenn Anthony May indicated by reference to parish records that the total must be far closer to 25,000 than to the figure of "~200,000" that you assert. (I'm extrapolating "25,000" rather generously from May's sample.)

The number of "excess deaths," those that could not have been expected on the basis of peacetime mortality rates, was of course lower still.

May taught at the University of the Philippines and had interviewed a number of elderly survivors of the camps. His examination of original Filipino records led him to abandon his original estimate of some 150,000 deaths - an example of how serious scholars are always ready to "revise" historical conclusions in the light of significant new evidence.

See "Glenn A. May, "The 'Zones' of Batangas," Philippines Studies 29 (1981), 89-103.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:31 PM

"Wrong sized shells"
Wrong type of shells - that's ok then
"At no time at all was Kitchener EVER forced to tender his resignation"
"According to Paxman he was, if he wasn't he should have been for issuing "the wrong type of shells"
"Kitchener died just around the time that the conscientious objectors you refer to arrived in France"
Yes he did - hate to point out that he was demanding that conchies should be shot and those who were shipped off would have been brow bread - also in Paxman
"As Churchill said at the time - "War makes strange bedfellows""
Oh - the war started five years earlier than we thought then - Leopold was carrying out his massacres well before the outbreak of war - silence from those who later sent young men to their deaths for "gallant little Belgium"
Whether treaties were reviewed or not, Britain had a duty to oppose what was being done by one of its allies - give us a break - you've shot your load over this one with your "not in the treaty" crassness
"Great Britain"   
Didn't mention the term - I said Britain and have been saying it was a conflict of Empires.
Campaigns were being carried out - notebly by Mark Twain, to stop the slaughter in the Congo - no response
One of the ploys of recruitment was a humanitarian appeal on behalf of "gallant little Belgium"
Gloves are great for protecting knuckled dragged along the ground, I;m told
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 02:55 PM

There was overwhelming support for the war from day one, before any recruitment campaigns.
The people thought the war was necessary and modern historians say they were right.
Jim thinks he knows better than both, and that is the impasse again.
No point in continuing.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:28 PM

No point in continuing. sez Keith.

This gent. is starting to remind me of the policemens' chorus in The Pirates Of Penzance:

POLICE        All right, we go.

ALL        Yes, forward on the foe!

GENERAL        Yes, but you don't go!

POLICE         We go, we go

ALL        Yes, forward on the foe!

GENERAL        Yes, but you don't go!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM

i suggested there is no point continuing, but you and others keep coming back.
I will try again.


There was overwhelming support for the war from day one, before any recruitment campaigns.
The people thought the war was necessary and modern historians say they were right.
Jim thinks he knows better than both, and that is the impasse again.
No point in continuing.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:42 PM

I suppose "the people" whatever that means, did think the war was necessary. After all, Keith believes anything so long as it is, if I recall, post 1970, from what his personal rules call historians, alive, eminent and on his approved list.

If they meet that criteria, they can say the hundreds of thousands of men were well led to the point of dying and Keith would believe it.

Oh.....

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:48 PM

From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM

Q.E.D.

(With thanks to W.S.Gilbert.)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:46 PM

There was overwhelming public support for the war.
That is what I meant by "the people"
Do you challenge that fact?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:56 PM

More W.S. Gilbert, as expected.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 06:54 AM

Lighter thanks for the correction and the information.

Christmas:
1: "Wrong type of shells - that's ok then"

Well yes basically it is if that is all you have then that is what you fire at the enemy. In 1914 Britain's army was tiny, primarily because unlike Germany Britain had not spent the last 20 years preparing an army for war. Between 1914 and much of 1915 the only place making artillery shells for the British Army was the Royal Arsenal Woolwich. Our pal Kitchener had warned the politicians the day he took over as Secretary of State for War that Great Britain would have to raise and equip an army of millions - and guess what Christmas that cannot happen overnight - so let us stick to dealing with reality - you fight with what you've got and that is what Sir John French did, and he fought because he had to, it was not a matter of choice.

2: "Britain had a duty to oppose what was being done by one of its allies"

Tell me Christmas what alliance are you talking about? What ally are you talking about? Belgium was never an ally of Great Britain's until German troops invaded Belgium and violated her neutrality, which Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, France, Russia and the Netherlands had solemnly sworn to respect and uphold under the terms and conditions of the Treaty of London 1839. In 1914 Great Britain was bound by no formal military alliances.

3: There is no such country as Britain, never has been such a country. Main Island of the British Isles hosted three nations, the English, the Welsh and the Scots. In the reign of Edward I Wales became a Principality under English rule. In 1603 a Scottish King succeeded to the throne of England, in 1707 the Act of Union joined the two nation states of Scotland and England to form the country known as Great Britain. Ireland joined in 1800 to form state officially and correctly known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and that was what it was known as in 1914.

4: "Campaigns were being carried out - notebly by Mark Twain, to stop the slaughter in the Congo

Ah Mark Twain - all on his own was he? Ever hear of Roger Casement who at the time was a member of the British Colonial Service?

" In 1903 the British government commissioned Casement, then the British consul at Boma in the Congo Free State, to investigate the human-rights situation in that Belgian colony of Leopold II.

Casement traveled for weeks in the upper Congo Basin to interview people throughout the region, including workers, overseers and mercenaries. He delivered a long, detailed eyewitness report to the Crown that exposed abuses: "the enslavement, mutilation, and torture of natives on the rubber plantations," the Casement Report of 1904.

Casement's report provoked controversy, and some companies with a business interest in the Congo rejected its findings, as did Casement's former boss, Alfred Lewis Jones. In the longer term, Casement's report would prove instrumental in gaining international pressure that forced Leopold in 1908 to relinquish his personal holdings in Africa.

When the report was made public, opponents of Leopold formed interest groups, such as the Congo Reform Association, founded by E. D. Morel with Casement's support, and demanded action to relieve the situation of the natives. Other European nations followed suit, as did the United States; and the British Parliament demanded a meeting of the 14 signatory powers to review THE 1885 BERLIN AGREEMENT defining interests in Africa. The Belgian Parliament, forced Léopold to set up an independent commission of inquiry. In 1905, despite Léopold's efforts, it confirmed the essentials of Casement's report. On 15 November 1908, the parliament of Belgium took over the Congo Free State from Léopold and organised its administration as the Belgian Congo."

So Christmas don't you dare say that the British Government stood back and did nothing - as well documented evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise.

5: Something that I think I should point out and emphasise:

During the Great War from 1914 until half way through 1916 every single man that served in the British Armed Forces were volunteers, they were not recruited as those who had served before had been recruited, they volunteered, they WENT in droves to Army recruitment offices. The primary reason at the time between August and December 1914 was that the BEF had been in action in France and had lost men at Mons, Le Cateau and on the Marne - roughly 1,200,000 men from Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland, entirely of their own free will joined up to serve their country and fill the gaps left in the ranks and increase the Army's strength..

In this the volunteer armed forces of Great Britain were unique as all the armies of all the other combatant nations used the system of universal conscription - their young men had absolutely no choice whatsoever - all had done their "national service" and all served time in their army's "reserve" so that when war came their armies numbered in millions - millions of men who had absolutely no choice.

In 1916 when the British Government introduced conscription it was far from universal and only applied in England, Scotland and in Wales.

It was under the leadership of those OWALW pours scorn and ridicule on that Great Britain's first ever citizen army of some 5.3 million men was created in under two years.

It was under the leadership of those OWALW pours scorn and ridicule on that Great Britain emerged from the Great War as the only country whose Armies had not mutinied in the field and whose civilian population had not once ever rioted against their Government.

It was under the leadership of those OWALW pours scorn and ridicule that that first ever, hastily raised citizen Army defeated what at the time was considered to be the best and most powerful Army in the world - and they did it in 100 days.

Were things always perfect? - No of course they weren't.

Were mistakes made? - Of course there were.

But none of that detracts from what was accomplished - and quite frankly if none of you are honest enough with yourselves and are too mean in spirit to give credit where credit is due - then all I can say is that I am very, very pleased to say that I do not walk in your shoes

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:39 AM

Giving credit when it is due does not extend to saying the end justified the means.

The means included white feathers, jingoism, red caps patrolling, court martial, execution and waves of men sent over the top to wear down the German gunners.

And that's before we get to the debacle at Galipoli.

(By saying conscription in Great Britain only extended to England, Scotland and Wales so was far from universal? Any chance of naming any part of Great Britain that isn't in England, Scotland or Wales?).

You swap terms around in order to confuse. The only people confused however are those, (of which you make 50% yourself) who insist that the slaughter was planned that way and we should see it as a good thing.

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 08:18 AM

Excuse me but just by way of clarification who was it that said:

"conscription in Great Britain only extended to England, Scotland and Wales so was far from universal?

In the post below this was said:

"In 1916 when the British Government introduced conscription it was far from universal and only applied in England, Scotland and in Wales."

Looking up the term "universal conscription" I have found that it means that everyone within whatever the stated age range is conscripted provided they are medically fit to serve.

Conscription when it was first introduced by the British Government during the First World War applied only to single men between the ages of 18 and 41 and as such was not "universal" but "selective".

The British Government of the day could have introduced conscription through the whole country including Ireland and the colonies, although not in the Dominions or in India. But it didn't.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:33 AM

"and guess what Christmas that cannot happen overnight"
Yeah - always blame the ones that went before - the Tories are still doing it.
Doesn't matter one way or the other - as the Paxman programmes pointed out, your pal (not mine, no time for military thugs) was forced to tender his resignation over the matter, no amount of bluster on your part changes that.
"Ever hear of Roger Casement who at the time was a member of the British Colonial Service?"
I'm well aware of Casement and his humanitarian work on behalf of the Congolese - all of which was also ignored by the friends of "gallant little Belgium"
You pair have consistently presented the war as one against German tyranny - there was nothing to choose between any of the empires - they were all predatory tyrants - stop erecting straw men.
We've been over why people joined up - you pair of despicos have described soldiers accounts of their reasons as "attention seeking lies" which places you where you both belong - rammed firmly up the backside of the establishment.
What was accomplished - you have to be joking!!
A generation gave their lives to protect the Empire and a rigid class system.
The Empire - after more sacrifice on the part of those who are expected to make such sacrifices - eventually nose-dived and good riddance.
The heroes returned to mass unemployment, hunger marches and an establishment which was happy to appease fascism until eventually "we started all over again" - as Bogle also says.
Those who actively opposed fascism on the streets of Britain (members of my family among them) were met with baton charges and jail sentences.
My father returned from Spain to find he had been awarded a police record as a "premature anti-fascist" and was blacklisted from work.
Even while the war was being fought, some of the 'great and good' were setting up shadow governments in preparation for when "herr Hitler" won the day - led (maybe not so) ironically by the 12th Duke of Wellington.   
Some ******* achievement!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 04:10 AM

Meant to say - Twain's significance in pointing out the Belgian massacres was in the publication of his 'King Leopold's Soliloquy' which starkly set out the Belgian massacres in gruesome detail - still a horrific read over a century later - and totally ignored by the "opposers of German tyranny.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:46 AM

Did he resign then Jim?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:33 AM

Wha?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:32 AM

(kitchener)was forced to tender his resignation over the matter,

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:53 PM

So - still haven't a clue what you're gibbering about - did who resign from what?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 03:57 AM

You said Kitchener "was forced to tender his resignation over the matter."

Did he resign?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:35 AM

"Did he resign?"
If you bother to read what is written, the British Government refused to accept his resignation because of the embarrassment it would have caused to have done so.
Shortly afterward Kitchener was drowned leading to rumours that his drowning was deliberate - rumours still circulating 20 years ago when we visited Orkney.
The whole affair has been covered in various discussions here - it seems you don't read these postings, just as you don't read history - wake up at the back there!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 02:22 PM

So he was forced to tender his resignation, and then forced not to resign.
Is that it?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 02:33 PM

moron.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 03:48 PM

From The history learning site:

The Cabinet was in agreement over a withdrawal from the Dardanelle's – all except Kitchener. He considered withdrawals to be a sign of weakness that would encourage the enemy. It was the same approach that had led to a breakdown in his relationship with Sir John French at the start of World War One. Many in the Cabinet felt that Kitchener had served his purpose but now had to move on. They pressed Asquith to either sack him or push him into resigning from the Cabinet. Asquith was in a difficult position because Kitchener was still something of a talisman to the public and a sacking would not be greeted well. Kitchener spared Asquith this problem when he offered to resign in November 1915. Asquith refused to accept it believing that his public aura, regardless of Northcliffe's campaign, far outweighed the thoughts expressed by his Cabinet. However, Asquith did remove from Kitchener more of his responsibilities so that by the end of 1915, he was only in charge of administering the War Office. He finally resigned from the Cabinet when senior army commanders were given free access to the Cabinet – previously they had to go through Kitchener, which to some extent gave him control over who in the army met with the Cabinet and who did not.

It is actually quite simple. The cabinet wanted him to go. Asquith didn't but he did remove some of his responsibilities.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:45 AM

" He finally resigned from the Cabinet when senior army commanders were given free access to the Cabinet"

If this is indeed true then there must be a date for this resignation.

His only appointment was that of Secretary of State for War so that must have been the Cabinet Post he resigned from. Any idea who his successor was?

The official dates for those holding the post of Secretary of State for War during the Great War are as follows:

Herbert Asquith - Secretary of State for War 30.03.1914 to 5.08.1914

Herbert Kitchener - Secretary of Sate for War 5.08.1914 to 5.06.1916 (Died as a result of enemy action)

David Lloyd George - Secretary of State for War 6.07.1916 to 5.12.1916

Earl of Derby - Secretary of State for War 10.12.1916 to 18.04.1918

Viscount Milner - Secretary of Sate for War 18.04.1918 to 10.01.1919

I would suggest that The History Learning Site article linked to is wrong and the information given is incorrect. Anyone wishing to refute that statement please come up with the date of Lord Kitchener's resignation.

Look at the gaps between each succeeding Secretary of State for War - either immediate hand-over or at most a few days delay, with the exception of Kitchener where the position lay vacant from the 5th June until the 6th July while a successor was sought. Which sort of pours doubt on everyone being eager to get rid of Kitchener - logically if you are keen to get rid of someone in an organisation you line up the likely replacement before you get rid of the incumbent, and that demonstrably was not the case when Kitchener died suddenly with the loss of HMS Hampshire.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:09 AM

But it is a history site. Written by a historian. It HAS to be believed surely?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:16 AM

Oh - and it it quite easy to keep a title and be relieved of the responsibilities it covers. Keeping his title but being relieved of the responsibilities is, to my mind, worse than being sacked.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:42 AM

The History Learning Site was not "written by historians" at all.
Every page was written by one retired school teacher "from his own knowledge"!!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM

Ah, ok, so it is written by someone who has read a few history books but does not really know what they are talking about? Well, I do apologise for misleading anyone and assure you that it was unintentional. I wonder where I got the idea that it was OK to spout opinions about history after having read a few history books?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:57 AM

I quote actual historians and would never put up stuff like that as evidence of anything.

You people and your guests are just frantic for anything to support your case.
A year of desperate googling and this is the best you can find!

You lose.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM

It has been shown that one part of "The History Learning Site" article on Kitchener was a load of bollocks - unless of course you can come up with a date for his non-existent resignation so what makes you presuppose that the rest of it is factually correct?

At the outset Kitchener was given three jobs to do and due to the presence of practically all the ablest men in the British Army in France Kitchener had to buckle down to his tasks with no Staff. After the campaigns of 1915 it was clear that the British Field armies required heavier guns and a great deal more High Explosive ammunition - to ensure that this work proceeded the British Government created the Ministry of Munitions and as that required experience related to manufacturing and production as opposed to soldiering a Minister for Munitions was created and that reduced Kitchener's assign tasks from three to two.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:16 AM

"So he was forced to tender his resignation, and then forced not to resign.

Is that it?" - Keith A of Hertford (07 Dec 14 - 02:22 PM)

Yes that is what Jim Carroll does appear to be saying.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:18 AM

How about: In 1915, his political reputation was badly damaged as the Gallipoli campaign began to collapse and the Shell Crisis hit. The latter, a scandal resulting from a belief that the British Army was short on shells, led Asquith's government to collapse. In the coalition government that was formed, Kitchener was retained but responsibility for munitions production was transferred to David Lloyd George. Following the crisis, he travelled to the Mediterranean to inspect the conditions at Gallipoli and other installations in the region. It was hoped that Kitchener could be persuaded to remain in the area as commander-in-chief.

That December, Sir William Robertson was named Chief of the Imperial General Staff on the condition that he was granted the right to speak for the army in the Cabinet. As a result, Kitchener was reduced to overseeing manpower and recruitment.

From about education and by Kennedy Hickman . This is getting be be really good fun. There is a sweepstake running at work to see what excuse is next. I have drawn 'He wears an anorak' but I think 'He is an American' will probably win.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:25 AM

"It was hoped that Kitchener could be persuaded to remain in the area as commander-in-chief." I am immediately suspicious of a historian that writes things that probably have an implied meaning but don't say what.

Is that "Good chap, hope he stays to sort things out" or "Let's hope he does not come back" ?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:27 AM

Damn! It was Lorraine in the post room that had "Suspicious on a historian who implies things". It was £50 as well!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 11:13 AM

I suppose it's handy if you want to say that a historian supports the view you are presenting. Keith ?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:47 PM

"So he was forced to tender his resignation, and then forced not to resign."
What are you on Keith?
You claim that the Paxman programmes backed your claims, yet it appears you didn't watch them.
Sigh......
Following the wrong shells fiasco, Kitchener tendered his resignation.
Having blown up his image as a hero following the Omdurman (described as an execution, not a) Battle, the establishment decided it would be too much of an embarrassment to allow Kitchener to resign, so they refused to accept it.
Rumour has it that they chose to 'off him' in Orkney instead.
I'm sure there are numerous cut-'n-pastes I could scoop up which cover this (if I were set on'the glittering prizes' as you appear to be) - but why bother - you can easily get your Ouija board out and ask one of your phantom historians - I'm sure one of the six might know.
Isn't it covered by your voluminous library of history books
'Nothing remains the same but change' as they say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:09 AM

To continue the Kitchener cut'n'paste game, I found these two:

1: "On 2 June 1916, Lord Kitchener personally answered questions asked by politicians about his running of the war effort; at the start of hostilities Kitchener had ordered two million rifles from various US arms manufacturers. Only 480 of these rifles had arrived in the UK by 4 June 1916. The numbers of shells supplied were no less paltry. Kitchener explained the efforts he had made to secure alternative supplies. He received a resounding vote of thanks from the 200 Members of Parliament who had arrived to question him, both for his candour and for his efforts to keep the troops armed; Sir Ivor Herbert, who, a week before, had introduced the failed vote of censure in the House of Commons against Kitchener's running of the War Department, personally seconded the motion."

So the man who was the driving force behind the bid to censure Kitchener in Parliament ended up seconding a Parliamentary vote of thanks to Kitchener after Kitchener had been given the opportunity to explain the position to politicians who wished to question him. Tell me again who was it that won the Great War - IIRC the victory celebrations were held in Paris, in London and in New York, NOT in Berlin or in Vienna.

2: "Since 1970, the opening of new records has led historians to rehabilitate Kitchener's reputation to some extent. Robin Neillands, for instance, notes that Kitchener consistently rose in ability as he was promoted. Some historians now praise his strategic vision in World War I, especially his laying the groundwork for the expansion of munitions production and his central role in the raising of the British army in 1914 and 1915, providing a force capable of meeting Britain's continental commitment."

In other words if Kitchener had not done what he did between 1914 and 1916 Great Britain and the Allies would not have won the First World War.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:56 AM

Aye and if I hadn't had scratched my balls I'd have not bought a guitar.

(If Kitchener hadn't this that and the other... Hilarious .)

We won in many ways in spite of not because of strategic decisions.

By the way, noted another "you lose" in the latest Dr Goebbells communique. How many is that Jim? You seem to be keeping count of Keith's la la land posts.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:15 AM

Another non contribution from Musket.
Knowing nothing, its all he can do.

You have read quotes of historians confirming my 3 simple claims.
You have found no historian rushing to challenge them.
You have found no historian who has said different for decades, because there are none.

So we have to decide who knows more.
The actual historians, or our sad old Trots who think its still the 1930s.
(and all their "guest" supporters)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:23 AM

"Following the wrong shells fiasco, Kitchener tendered his resignation."

No I think he offered to tender his resignation, no letter of resignation was ever written (That is a matter of record - see relevant cabinet Papers for the period), Asquith told Kitchener that his resignation would not be accepted and Kitchener remained as Secretary of State for War.

So yes, Jim Carroll is putting forward the idea that Kitchener was - "forced to tender his resignation, and then forced not to resign" - this apparent misunderstanding can be easily cleared up by Jim Carroll clearly stating that Lord Kitchener, Secretary of State for War never resigned, and was never forced to tender a letter of resignation, a fact borne out by the dates he served in the British Cabinet as Secretary of State for War. It would be like someone attempting to state with total conviction that Bob Dylan didn't write "Stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues again" and maintaining that line irrespective of what evidence is produced that clearly shows otherwise.

Like most American historians writing about Great War events prior to their rather belated entry into it they get muddled.

Lloyd George took over responsibility for "Munitions" in 1915, not really surprising as it was a situation resulting from pre-war thinking that was manipulated by Lloyd George and Lord Northcliffe in order that Lloyd George could advance his political career at the expense of Asquith and Kitchener. Asquith ultimately resigned Kitchener did not.

A couple of things that none of the people talking about this "wrong shells" scandal have seen fit to mention:

1: Much chatter about Kitchener and the wrong type of shells (Shrapnel in plentiful supply but not enough High Explosive shells) yet nobody talks about the lack of a key ingredient in the manufacture of artillery shells - the propellant called Cordite - One of the fields in industry that Germany excels in to this very day was in the manufacture and production of chemicals - and pre-World War One the main supplier for Cordite was guess where? - Germany. By 1916 it was discovered that to get the acetone needed to manufacture cordite you harvest horse chestnuts and boil them down.

2: With a media baron in his pocket (Or perhaps it was the other way about) Lloyd George became bulletproof - There was a "shell scandal" in 1915 that was blasted all over the press - yet a year into Lloyd George's running of the Ministry of Munitions there was no scandal over the fiasco related to British fuses fitted to shells fired on the Somme where if memory serves me only one-third of British shells failed to explode - we ended up using French fuses that were much better and far more reliable. OK then so who was to blame for the failings in British ammunition in 1916 and why no outcry? Certainly nothing to do with the British Military they did precisely what they have always done i.e., get on with the task in hand with the tools that they were given.

Tell me again who was it that won the Great War - IIRC the victory celebrations were held in Paris, in London and in New York, NOT in Berlin or in Vienna.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:29 AM

It would appear that scratching your balls is all that you are good at - why not stick with what you do best.

And no - generally if you do make strategic mistakes in an all out war you generally lose it.

"Tell me again who was it that won the Great War - IIRC the victory celebrations were held in Paris, in London and in New York, NOT in Berlin or in Vienna."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:48 AM

"No I think he offered to tender his resignation, no letter of resignation was ever written"
Of course this was the case; it may have been a short cut on my part to say he resigned - of course he didn't - he was not allowed to for the good of the war effort.
The principle remains the same - his incompetence led to his position being untenable - the Government decided that his actual resignation would be detrimental to the War, so he stayed where he was.
All this was covered by Lloyd George's attacks on Kitchener - all statements at the time of the events were political and military face-saving, just as the present defence of Kitchener as the saviour of the war is word-juggling semantics.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:59 AM

Lloyd George had a serious axe to grind.
He had his own failures to hide, and Kitchener made a good scapegoat.
Slandering the dead.

"However, since 1970, new records have opened and historians have to some extent rehabilitated Kitchener's reputation. His strategic vision in the World War is now praised, especially his laying the groundwork for the expansion of munitions production and his central role in the raising of the British army in 1914 and 1915, which provided an army capable of meeting Britain's continental commitment."

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Herbert_Kitchener,_1st_Earl_Kitchener.html

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:27 AM

Slandering the dead indeed. I guess Lloyd George must still be alive?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:36 AM

Reading Keith's latest, you are led to believe that if you aren't hunting the Internet for desperate half quotes to justify your warped views, you are posting a non post.

I've news for you. Some come here to debate. You come to stifle it.

Try fucking off. You ruin Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:44 AM

I do debate.
I made my case and backed it with quotes of actual historians saying exactly what I said, because I learned it from them.

Your only response is to assert it is all false and to call me silly names.
You can find no single living authority believing those same old discredited myths.

Debating is more than just making statements and insulting anyone who dares question your omnipotence.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

"Kitchener made a good scapegoat."
Do you honestly believe an arrogant Blimp like Kitchener would have meekly offered his resignation to appease a vengeful politician - I really wasn't that sort of feller as the history books show (when you get round to reading them)
If you are suggesting that the Prime Minister of Britain was carrying out a vendetta against on of his Generals, don't you think this shoves the morality of the war even deeper in the mire and making the massive sacrifice made by those fighting an even greater one - the lads on the front giving their lives while the politicians and military are at each other's throats.
We also have the fact of the squabbling among the military hierarchy, French being a case in point.
Paxman dealt adequately with soldiers coming home on leave to find that the civilian population (or the wealthier of them) acting as if there wasn't a war on, the better off being able to get all the food they wanted.... and all the rest of the corruption and indifference to the slaughter of a generation.
Now you have underlined the perspective of self-serving politicians and Generals slugging it out while the lads were dying at Paschendale and on The Somme - a real land fit for heroes eh?
All this, of course, makes 'Oh What a Lovely War' - all that
It is noteworthy that your latest trawl of the internet presents Omdurman as being a feather in Kitchener's cap rather than the butchery it was
You seem to be prepared to go the whole six yards in defending this obscenity, and the further you go, the further you prove what an obscenity it really was - warring politicians and military, incompetent administration, greed and corruption....
Oh What a Lovely War - as somebody once said.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:13 AM

"Slandering the dead."
By calling them liars - wasn't that you and Colonel Blimp
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 11:54 AM

Interesting essay on Haig, click here. , from a 2007 edition of Military History magazine.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:13 PM

gillymor, Jim put that up ages ago.
He had no idea who the writer is/was.
Have you?
Most likely some random blogger.
Historians always acknowledge their work.
That is shit.

And, you do not need to post everything on every thread!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:48 PM

"gillymor, Jim put that up ages ago.gillymor, Jim put that up ages ago."
Doesn't matter who he is - what he wrote was published in 2 historical journals
I put up list of over 100 historians - you refused to even read it because it was too large
You have selected your six on the basis that they are saying things you want to hear - not on qualifications it really doesn't work like that in real life
You chose a tabloid journalist to represent your case - blew up in your face.
You chose 2 army employees to represent your case - very trustworthy!
You chose a armaments entrepreneur to represent your case - he would say that, wouldn't he?
You have now settled on a comic radio personality to represent your case
Are you for real?   
Who the **** are you to dismiss statements because you don't recognise the name of the author - you don't readso wou wouldn't recognise a statement as reliable if it bit you
You are a jingoistic clown
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

More than six Jim, and they are recognised as the leading historians of WW1
Your hundred is just a fantasy.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:30 PM

"More than six Jim"
Nope - and if there were you haven't read any of them, so what's the odds?
"Your hundred is just a fantasy."
No it is't, but even if it was, how would you know - you refused to read it?
You have a summary of the Paxman programmes - say which of them agree with your position, as you claim
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:12 PM

Paxman said that Britain had no choice but to fight, that the people accepted the need to fight, and that the army was competently led.
Those are the only claims I have ever made.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:54 AM

"Paxman said that Britain had no choice but to fight,"
Nobody has ever argued that they didn't - that is a red herring
You claimed that Paxman has agreed with everything you said - I have given you a list of some of the things which were covered by the series and asked you if they are what you are claiming - you decline to respond - the sign of "someone who has made a lifelong study of the subject" I don't think!!
To say that the only claim you have ever made is that Britain had no alternative is a very stupid lie - you have defended every aspect of this bloodbath, the reasons for the war as "a fight against German tyranny", the "conscious support of all who enlisted", the conduct of the leadership.... every murderous aspect of it.
You have called soldiers who said they thought they and their mates were tricked into it "out of step" or "attention seeking liars".
You have refused to respond to the massive waste of money (€20) spent in 'honouring the fallen' and the contempt shown to their sacrifice by allowing arms fairs to tale place.
You have sided with one of the most bloodthirsty of generals in the war and instead, have blamed personal disputes with politicians - the irony of which doesn't seem to have struck home yet.
Your claim was that the Paxman series backed up your claims - you have a chance to show they did by responding to what was stated by the programmes - as I said, more to come.
Your claim on the series is like your claim on every other (all six) historian you put up - non existent, you made it all up by taking something that looks about right out of context and suggesting that that particular writer backs everything you say.
You are a phoney, and. like every mindless flag-wagger, you really are not very bright.
Put up or shut up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:14 AM

I claimed but 3 things.
Had to fight.
Peoples' support.
Well led.
I have put up historians on each, plus the Paxman progs., and am willing to repeat.

Not on this thread any more.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:26 AM

I don't think the "mindless flag-wagger" bit does much to support an already well-explained point of view. It suggestes that there is an underlying political argument here and maybe some "history" that goes beyond this discussion and its neighbours.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:49 AM

Mindless flagwagger?
I am just repeating the historians.
Really.
That is it.
I think that those people who reject the historians do have an agenda.
A political one.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:49 AM

" GUEST,gillymor - 09 Dec 14 - 11:54 AM

Interesting essay on Haig, click here. , from a 2007 edition of Military History magazine.

What a great pity that the extremely well documented actions of Haig and his Staff and factual reality and results obtained totally blow the content of that essay clear out of the water - isn't it GUEST,gillymor.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:20 AM

The author was ashamed to put his name to it, so clearly no historian.
Probably put up just to stimulate discussion.
Read the comments.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:28 AM

"The author was ashamed to put his name to it, so clearly no historian." How do you know that, Keith? There are many reasons for not putting ones name to something. What makes you think it was shame? And seeing as there was no name how do you know they are not a historian?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:07 AM

"The author was ashamed to put his name to it, so clearly no historian."
What a crass statement
"I am just repeating the historians."
No you are not - you are throwing up names and claiming support - nothing more
You have claimed Paxman backed your case - you have been given examples of statements in the programme - you refuse to respond
"Had to fight.
Peoples' support.
Well led."
All covered and called into question by Paxman - all unanswered by you.
Paxman covered all the differing reasons young men (boys sometimes) joined up - you insist that they joined up dedicated to the war and returned the same.
You have been given actual instances of veterans who have written or spoken of their being conned or blackmailed with 'white feathers' or have gone off with commitment and returned disillusioned - "misfits or attention seeking liars all" according to you.
These would include the last survivor of World War One, Irish poet Patrick McGill and the Liverpool docker we spent three days recording - all dismissed.
You hitched your wagon to Paxman yet refuse to respond to what the programmes said - you have yet to deal with those who came home on leeave and were disillusioned and the ignorance and indifference of those at home and the fact that the Military locked Sassoon in a lunatic asylum to silence his descriptions of the war.
You ignored the corruption connected with recruiting, the racketeering connected with food rationing, the inadequacy of home defences.....
You refuse to respond to the contradictions of your own statement describing the warfare between the Prime Minister and his generals, or the behind-the-scenes disputes among the military staff - straight out of 'Oh What a Lovely War'
You ignore the fact that your dissident historians have described themselves as out-of-step in attempting to correct the popular view.
You have attempted to manipulate history in order to show that what soldiers said about their experiences were lies and that historian who were writing at the time of the war, or in the immediate period following were all wrong and on;ly those coming a century later and still living are to be believed EVEN THOUGH NO CONSENSUS VIEW OF THE WAR EXISTS
You are a coulpe of weirdos
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:18 AM

I am not just throwing up names, I am quoting named historians.
The quotes support my views because that is where my views came from.

If you want me to repeat the quotes I will.

Of course historians acknowledge there work.
That was just some random blogger making outrageous claims to stimulate discussion.
Can any of you find one single historian who holds those views?
One that can write his own name?
No you can't.
Ask yourself why.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:22 AM

The question still stands. How do you know it was shame that made them withhold their name? You you should either provide proof or withdraw that.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:27 AM

"Their" work.



Carry on.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:37 AM

Out of interest, what is taught in schools about WW1? Anyone know?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:37 AM

The anonymous writer is welcome to his opinion, but the idea that Haig was neurotically obsessed with cavalry has long been exploded.

And consider the level of insight in this quotation:

"At the end of the war, after all, the army he commanded—and had almost ruined—was, if not victorious, then plainly on the winning side."

Facts: the British Army was indeed "victorious" by any standard. And rather than merely being "on the winning side" (as if the French, Belgians, and Americans had done all the work), the British Army was the primary instrument of German defeat, particularly in blunting the German offensive of March, 1918.

And how did Haig "almost ruin" it, since in the course of the war the British Army had become ever more proficient in battle? Indeed, British casualties were enormous, but German, Austrian, Russian, and French casualties were considerably greater. By the writer's own standards, that alone makes their generals far worse.

A vast butcher's bill was the inevitable nature of a largely stalemated war that should have been ended through negotiation by all governments involved within weeks of its outbreak. Aside from the initial aggression by Austria and Germany, *that* was the greatest scandal of the war. (Not that negotiations would have gone anywhere, since the aggressors were bent on crushing Serbia, Russia, Belgium, and France, and were undeterred even after three more years of carnage....)

Haig was a general, not a diplomat. The war wasn't his fault. He was neither a military genius nor an idiot, and nobody has yet suggested what other tactics were open to him. Passive resistance perhaps?

The Haig-bashers rarely bother to match his record as "the worst general of the war" against the records of others, including the losers. How about Falkenhayn, who determined to "make France bleed to death" by turning Verdun into an instanchable wound? Falkenhayn was responsible for 150,000 German deaths in a "strategy" with little purpose other than mass killing. Or the military dictator Ludendorf, who couldn't beat the Allies in 1918 even with an infusion of hundreds of thousands of troops from the Russian front and even more command experience than Haig?

Yes, the Great War was a disaster for the claims of western civilization. But Douglas Haig bears no special responsibility for that. Others might have done better, that's true of almost any historical figure. And in the case of Haig, one wonders "But who? And how?"

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:50 AM

Very well said Lighter, very well said.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:42 PM

I would agree with that Lighter as long as it is accepted that while Haig may well have been 'the best of a bad bunch' there was still a massive loss of life that should never have happened. Whether anyone else would have done better is, of course, academic but the tragedy that befell all those families was real.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:21 PM

Thanks, Teribus.

> the tragedy that befell all those families was real.

Indeed it was. And there would have been none of them had Germany and Austria (and later the Ottoman Empire) not chosen a policy of conquest knowing full well what they were unleashing on their own people as well as on the "enemy." (Italy and Japan later joined the Allies for crass territorial gain as well.)

And I've suggested that most of those family tragedies could have been avoided by international governmental resolve in the autumn of 1914.

But of course there was no such resolve for peace, because no nation wanted to lose or look like a loser.   

Even in 1916 (after the Somme and Verdun, to take the most familiar examples) President Wilson's call for peace talks (while America was still neutral) fell on deaf ears.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:40 PM

"I am not just throwing up names, I am quoting named historians."
No you are not - you are claiming their support for your views,
"No you can't."
Yu have been given dozens by those who go in for that sort of thing - you have rejected them as "leftie" or "Trotskyst" or "out of date" or "revisionist" or "anonymous"
You were given a list of over a hundred historians who are all working on different aspects of history and all coming to different conclusions - you stated that you would not even look at it because there were too many
It has been pointed out that your six have said themselves that they are in the minority, yet you still claim they prove your case.
You were given a list of points made by historians o the Paxman series (some of them on your own list) all contradicting your claims - you refuse to even acknowledge those points
You are a moron
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:00 PM

Jim, it just makes you look silly saying I have not quoted historians with quotes that support my views.
I have done it so many times.

If your "hundred" historians are not a fantasy, name just one of them with a quote that contradicts me.

Confident prediction, you can't produce even one.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 01:23 AM

Yet another good post Lighter.

The main stumbling block to any diplomatic in late 1914 or early 1915 and in 1916 was the German insistence that "Peace" would only come if they retained the land that they at that time held. Such a condition was obviously impossible for both France and Belgium to accept.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:39 AM

"Jim, it just makes you look silly saying I have not quoted historians with quotes that support my views.
I have done it so many times."
Where have yo - give your quotes or your links to having done so.
You have gone from critically supporting every single aspect of the war to, when your ridiculous sycophancy for the establishment line has been exposed for what it is, reducing your claim to three points ""Had to fight, Peoples' support, Well led."
You have moved from "all historians" to "all living historians" to "most historians" to.... I'm not sure how far back you've retreated t to the present time.
At first Hastings was your star witness.... The Spectator put paid to that with their condemnation of his contempt for the British military.
Now, you have resorted to supplying a list of names of historians who, you claim, support all your arguments.
You have carefully chosen bits and pieces from a tiny handful of historians (there are several hundred of them working on various aspects of 20th century war history), on a tiny handful of aspects of World War One (there are many aspects of the war under discussion - the causes, the run-up, the preparations for war, recruitment, conditions at home, the conduct of the war....) and used those handful of out-of-context quotes to claim that everything you have put up is supported by all historians - and you are arrogant and stupid enough to call me "silly".
I have no doubt that there are some historians who support the official establishment view of the war - which is the one you have put up - (don't you always?) - it would be ttupid to suggest otherwise - among your handful of historians are two historians who have been employed to teach history my the military establishment and one who is part of the Arms industry.
All the historians you have named have have stated that they are dedicated to changing the popular view of history, that (contrary to your argument) it is they who are swimming against the stream, not those of us who accept what we have been taught in school or arrived at through our personal experience or our reading - you dont read - you have not put up a single quote from your own knowledge or from your reading - not one - all have been dredged from the internet to prove a previously held view based on your right-wing patriotism (don't have any problems saying this Mike, if you are looking in - Keith has chosen to reject contrary evidence because it comes from "Lefties" as if we are living in his extremist dream State where the left have no right to an opinion).
You have bent history to fit your blimpish jingoism.
If your ghost army of historians support your case, show us where they do with quotes, with links to quotes, with actual evidence and not just a list of meaningless names.
You chose to avoid what you can't hand;le- your claim of lying, attention seeking soldiers, the implications of your claim that Lloyd George blamed Kitchener to hide his own cock ups, the points raised by Paxman programmes on recruitment, unpreparedness, indifference to the war back home, the suppression of war critics like Sassoon, profiteering......... right through to the obscenity of £20m spent on glass poppies and arms fairs to glorify what has been long recognised as beginning of the death of the British Empire
You want to show us we are wrong and prove you "have won" (about 25 times now - an obsession in anybody's book), show us which historians have overwhelmingly supported your three points, what they have said and how they have shown the world they are wrong
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:48 AM

Jim, from the start I have only claimed those three things.
I have quoted several historians for each of them.
You still have not found a single living historian who disagrees.
There appear to be none.

My post, replying to you over a year ago.
24 Nov 13 - 04:52 AM
"Perhaps you might think on about the substance of what the consensus is you keep bleating about because be buggered if I can itemise it."

Once again!
1. Britain had little choice but to stand against the invading German armies.
2. The people understood and responded by volunteering.
3. Despite some disasters as the new warfare was mastered, the British Army was well led.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:47 AM

"Jim, from the start I have only claimed those three things"
]You are lying
From day one you have defended every single criticism of the war - without exception
You have now been cornered into three points and you re are not even prepared to produce evidence for those now
You can repeat your claims as often as you wish but until you produce evidence of them instead of adding yet another claim - that you already have, you will have confirmed the view everybody has of you - that you are a fld-wagging moron - that
that's how "silly" we look - the pair of you are on your own.
Now - your evidence and links to your being right in everything you claim.........
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:03 AM

Keith is now stating his three points in such weasely way that I don't see the point in arguing with him.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:07 AM

You are wrong.
Those 3 points were and are my whole case.
I have been telling you that for 14 months but it does not suit you to listen.

I have quoted numerous historians on each of those 3 points.
None have been found by any of us who disagree, although some historians once did.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:10 AM

Keith A of Hertford is perfectly correct in stating the three points that he has defended now for well over a year in threads related to the First World War. In debate and in support of those points Keith has submitted relevant quotes from Commentators and Historians and by supplying links to relevant documents, articles and histories.

The list of historians given supporting those three contentions of Keith's is way beyond a "mere handful"

"All the historians you have named have have stated that they are dedicated to changing the popular view of history"

Yes and high time that they did as what you call "the popular view of history" is based on such twaddle as OWALW, Blackadder, the partial output of a handful of poets, military theorists with a theory to push that was actually pioneered by the very men they pour scorn on, two politicians seeking to polish their own egos and images at the expense of someone who could not defend himself and a pacifist left wing historian who did not have the access to material currently available to latter day historians who disagree with the aforementioned's "popular view of history".

Ever heard of the expression, "Don't come the old soldier with me"? Whenever used, what's the context? Ever heard of, "Someone shooting a line"? What are they doing? What are they doing for?

By the way no implication about it, Lloyd George in his memoirs blatantly shifted blame from poor and bad decisions that he had made and assigned the blame to Kitchener and to Haig.

I watched each of the Paxman programmes and they did bear out and support all three of Keith's contentions.

"the obscenity of £20m spent on glass poppies"

Now you have been asked to provide evidence that the Royal British legion spent £20m on glass poppies but as yet you have come up with nothing - good reason for that isn't there Jim?

To put all reading out of their misery from the Royal British Legion's website:

"POPPIES IN THE MOAT

From 5 August 2014 to 11 November 2014, a major artistic installation entitled 'Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red' saw the Tower of London's famous dry moat filled with over 800,000 {888,246 to be exact} ceramic poppies, creating a powerful visual commemoration for the First World War Centenary.

The ceramic poppies were on sale for £25 each with net proceeds, hoped to be in excess of £15 million, being shared equally amongst a group of carefully selected Service charities — The Royal British Legion, Confederation of Service Charities (COBSEO), Combat Stress, Coming Home, Help for Heroes and SSAFA (formerly the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association).

All poppies were sold by late October and the installation has now been dismantled, with poppies being delivered to those who ordered them."

So if they cost the British Legion £20 million like Jim says that would work out at £22.52 per poppy wouldn't it.

Now if the British Legion is selling the poppies for £25 each they would take in £25 x 888,246 = £22,206,150 of which £15,000,000 is going to charity.

Well perhaps Jim can tell us how if they cost £20 million and only brought in £22.21 million in sales where the shortfall of £12.79 million is going to come from to give to charity. Jim won't tell us of course because his - "obscenity of £20m spent on glass poppies" - is yet another prime example of Jim Carroll's Made Up Shit.

From reading the article from the Royal british Legion's website the following becomes obvious:

888,246 ceramic poppies sold for £25 each = £22,206,150
Six nominated Service Charities receive = £15,000,000
All costs associated with the ceramic poppies = £7,206,150
Say 10% of that covers the admin and transport = £720,615
Cost of making 888,246 ceramic poppies = £6,485,535
Cost of an individual ceramic poppy would be = £7.30

The above accounts for no contingencies, no spares and no breakages.

Mr Carroll - not only are you embarrassing yourself you are also just havering.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:42 AM

"Those 3 points were and are my whole case."
You have defended every aspect of the war - you have dismissed actual accounts of those who fought and you are still refusing to put up links and quotes to your claimed support from "historians" - and will continue to do so
"embarrassing yourself"
No I am not - I have put this grotesque display next to the hypocrisy of arms fairs - at best, the poppies are an empty gesture, prettifying war, coupled with the arms fairs, they show contempt for those who died
Ukip style display
Perhaps it's worth reminding you that you pair of clowns stand alone in this argument - "the rest of the world's mad apart from us patriots!" - and not a sign of embarrassment
And you compound your disgusting attitude by denigrating those who fought as liars and the establishment unassailable - as usual
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

You have defended every aspect of the war - you have dismissed actual accounts of those who fought and you are still refusing to put up links and quotes to your claimed support from "historians" - and will continue to do so

No-one wants to see them again Jim.
It was only a couple weeks ago I answered the same request.
How many times do I need to show you?

I only tell you what is in the history books Jim.
I am sorry if it seems to contradict what you have been told by people.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:30 AM

"No-one wants to see them again Jim."
How do you know - another of your historians tell you?
You are on your own - you have put up no historians to back yur cae and the only way you can make your case is by inventing experts and calling those who were there "attention seeking liars"
You answered my request by putting nothing up and you ill continue to do so
Link us to proof of your case - doesn't get more difficult
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 12:05 PM

Anyone read Hattersley's "The Edwardians" yet?

Sorry if he's not on Keith's list, but he is still alive.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:12 PM

Please tell us what the book says that is relevant to our discussion Scot Bloke.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:37 AM

Keith, GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland is Musket.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:40 AM

Thanks, I know.
Silly game.
Why is it tolerated I wonder.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:24 AM

The tolerated part I do not know about, but the reason for it is simple - it is the only way the fat git can demonstrate that someone else agrees with his views - pity that it is so plainly him talking to himself - bit pathetic really.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 03:01 AM

Of course he's Musket. But we all post as ourselves occasionally.

What does that have to do with anything?

Keith knows everything every living historian says, so for now we will look at the claim men knew exactly what they were letting themselves in for.

I personally haven't read it, but a quick look at the synopsis and even I agree that Keith cannot keep using his "the historians" without looking at what historians actually say. I assume McMusket has read it, hence the warning shots between our filing clerks in the Mudcat ministry for propaganda.

Well?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 03:06 AM

"Please tell us what the book says "
You have reduced your argument to open farce Keith - you have not read a book, you have rejected reading lists because they are "too large", you have never quoted from a book and now you are asking for a reference to book....
Your performance here has become a display of self-abuse.
"that someone else agrees with his views"
Unlike you pair, of course, who have won the overwhelming support of everybody here!
You've moved on from Laurel and Hardy to The Two Stooges
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:07 AM

The Royal British Legion spent £20m on glass poppies - source please Jim

Just asking to demonstrate that you are incapable of ever admitting that you have made a mistake, that you totally lack integrity and are not beyond telling blatant lies to support your rather dubious points of view.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:16 AM

Jim, the Musket Bloke referred to that book.
I asked its relevance.
Why attack me for that, and why keep saying I am unread when I have had to tell you what the current history books say?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:14 AM

"Jim, the Musket Bloke referred to that book."
You don't read books
You have never given an indication of reading books
You described a reading list of historians as "too long" how are you going to manage with a complete book.
"The Royal British Legion spent £20m on glass poppies - source please Jim"
When you turds qualify your accusation that all soldiers are liars (except the ones that agree with you) I'll qualify what you want, until that time, and until Keith provides his links, it really is your turn to respond to the points made,
I have never mentioned The Royal British Legion by the way - I referred to the stated cost of the poppies as a display, what they signify and whether the money wouldn't be better spent - I also pointed out the hypocrisy of them alongside the holding of arms fairs to sell weapons to extremist states and whather this was a fit way to commemorate the making of such a massive sacrifice by Britain's youth..
You people really are the pits
One of you doesn't read yet bases his entire argument on names of historians (six in all) who he claims validate his jingoism
When you are given reports from soldiers who joined up whose reasons for enlisting conflict with your own, you describe them as liars and go on to suggest that all soldiers are liars "coming the old soldier"
Digressing somewhat, I saw a remarkable film at the beginning of the week, 'The Imitation Game', based on the work of Alan Turing, the man who cracked the Enigma machine, and probably shortened W.W.2 in favour of the allies by several years.
When his work was finished Turing was arrested for being a homosexual and given the alternative of being chemically castrated or going to jail (Ake would have been up on his feet cheering the judge).
He chose the former, the castration process ruined his health so he could no longer work and he committed suicide - it seems this is the treatment meted out to war heroes, by the establishment and their supporters
Sorry about that - just thought I'd put you pair into context.
In order to make your case, soldiers are made liars, historians are dismissed by you on the basis that they are dead or their politics are to the left of Nigel Farage and the rest of us "make ourselves look silly" by opposing what you pair of clowns have to say.
Funny old world - certainly as far as you pair of entertainers are concerned.
Now Keith - how are we doing with those quotes and links? - the tension of whether you are going to make a fool of me is proving unbearable!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:49 AM

Source for £20 million being "the stated cost of the poppies as a display" By the way who paid for that if that was "the stated cost of the poppies as a display"

Example of Jim Carroll demonstrating that he is incapable of ever admitting that he has made a mistake, that he totally lacks integrity and that he is not beyond telling blatant lies to support his rather dubious points of view.

Squirm all you want Jim - you are not getting off this particular hook.

888,246 ceramic poppies sold for £25 each = £22,206,150
Six nominated Service Charities receive = £15,000,000
All costs associated with the ceramic poppies = £7,206,150

That was directly from the Royal British Legion website so who was it levied the £20 million cost you invented and who paid it - or was just some more of your "Made-Up-Shit"?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:05 AM

From another thread and a man far wiser than me -

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:05 AM

Omar Khayyam ( or rather Edward Fitzgerald) got it spot on:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

Maybe stopping the Great War once it was clear it was a futile conflict was too difficult to achieve, but drawing this futile squabble on the Mudcat to an end shouldn't be impossible.

Armistice time please!!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

"Made up shit."

Not only trying to make Keith look clever but borrowing his phrases too.

Mmmm...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:29 AM

Jim must be thinking - he's gone awfully quiet

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:31 AM

GUEST - 12 Dec 14 - 08:05 AM

And you are continuing to post on this thread for what reason?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:52 AM

Well, that was going to be my last post on here, Teribus, but as you have asked me a question it would be rude not to answer. Strictly speaking I was not continuing to post at the time of your comment but I can forgive that. Last post now. Honest. Unless you ask me any more questions...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:23 AM

I have replied to evry single one of your previous questions - I have asked for a response from you - you stay silent
Piss off until you get around to behaving in the way you demand we do.
What gives you the right to dismiss eye-witness accounts of soldiers experiances and opinions as "lies" - who the **** do you people think you are?
To borrow your own words, quirm all you want - you are not getting off this particular hook.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:15 AM

As I have a few minutes to spare

Tower Of London Poppies Investigation We were contacted by a whistleblower who raised concerns that money from the Tower of London's poppy memorial was going to line the pockets of rich investors.

Our whistleblower strongly felt that as much of this money as possible should go to the nominated charities and no-one should profit from the lives of the war dead.

We tipped off the Daily Mail newspaper who launched an investigation and ran the following story.

Just a third of Tower poppy cash is going to help our heroes: So who WILL be pocketing the rest?
Stunning war memorial will eventually include 888,246 ceramic poppies
Hundreds of thousands of people have paid £25 for their own flower
But only a third of the money is expected to go to good causes
Just £8.75 from each poppy will go to charity, while £12.08 will cover 'costs'

Hundreds of thousands have paid £25 for one of the ceramic poppies being displayed at the Tower of London, assured that the proceeds will go to armed forces charities.
But it can be revealed today that only a third of the money raised is expected to go to good causes.
Just £8.75 from each poppy will reach the six charities, according to official internal estimates, while £12.08 will cover 'costs'.
The Mail has learned this is about four times more than the likely expense of making the poppies – suggesting a large amount is being taken as profits.
A company set up by the Tower of London and the artist behind the project, Paul Cummins, could potentially receive millions from the artwork, meaning businessmen who helped fund it could make substantial returns.
The Mail tracked down one of the private financiers who lent money to help set up the project, Ben Whitfield, and put it to him that he was making an estimated profit of more than a million pounds.

More...
The Red Sea: Tide of red poppies continues to sweep across Tower of London ahead of Armistice Day remembrance
Sheet of blotting paper used on WWI Armistice documents emerges with signatures of Allied leaders
How you can buy one of the the Tower's amazing ceramic poppies for £25 - and the man behind the incredible spectacle
Speaking from his home in the Alps, he said: 'Yeah, well, I don't think I've got any comment actually.'
And yesterday, the Tower of London repeatedly refused to rule out that somebody was profiting from the display, nor could it offer any assurance that profits being made by private investors were 'fair and proportionate'.
The artwork, Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red, was created to mark the centenary of the start of the First World War. It will eventually include 888,246 ceramic poppies to represent all British or colonial military fatalities.
The duchess brushed away a tear when she planted her poppy at the official unveiling with Princes William and Harry last mon
According to the Tower of London website, 'all net proceeds plus a guaranteed 10 per cent from every poppy sold will be shared equally amongst six service charities'.
But the Mail has established that 'all net proceeds' means the money that is left after private investors have taken a cut. The Tower of London refuses to reveal what percentage that cut is.
But calculations based on provisional official estimates show that of the £25 from each poppy, £8.75 is earmarked for charity, £4.17 goes to the taxman for VAT, leaving the majority of the money – £12.08 – to cover 'costs'.
If all the poppies are sold, and even allowing for 10 per cent 'breakages or returns', this means a company called Paul Cummins Ceramics Blood Swept Lands And Seas Of Red Community Interest Company, could receive almost £10million.
The poppies are hand-made by a small team and twice fired in Mr Cummins' studio in Derbyshire. Allen Handley, who has worked in the ceramics industry for more than 50 years, estimated the poppies could be produced for as little as £2.
According to documents at Companies House, Mr Cummins took out a private loan from British financier Mr Whitfield to get the project started.
It is understood from two separate sources that the sum loaned was around £1million, with one suggesting Mr Whitfield could expect 'north of a million pounds' back on top of his investment – a profit of more than 100 per cent.
Asked how much money Mr Whitfield was getting, Mr Cummins replied: 'I'm not saying.' He claimed the terms of a contract he signed meant he was not allowed to speak about it, but he added that he himself was not making any money.
No one from the six armed forces charities – including the Royal British Legion, Help For Heroes and Combat Stress – has publicly criticised the way the project is being run, saying they are pleased with whatever money they receive. One charity source urged the public not to stop buying the poppies.
Yesterday Historic Royal Palaces, which runs the Tower of London, said that as well as the poppies' manufacturing costs, there were additional expenses, including 'a retail website and contact centre to handle thousands of sales, credit card fees, cost of installation, accounting, legal, insurance and transportation costs'.
Asked if these costs could possibly add up to £10million, a spokesman said they were 'substantial'.
She added: 'Paul Cummins received some private funding at the earlier stages of the project. Arrangements for this funding were made directly between Paul Cummins and his investors, independently of Historic Royal Palaces.'
WHISTLEBLOWER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:21 AM

So, what about that book?

And Jim, do you still want quotes on those three points?
Which first?

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

"Which first?"
Doesn't work out like that
You have been claiming that "all living historians" back up all your three points and have claimed to put up evidence to show this
Cherry-picking various points from different historians doesn't hack it.
The fact that one (or two maybe) of your half dozen historians might agree with one (or even two) of your points does not even begin to show a consensus for your claims.
For instance, I'm quite sure that your two War department employees will have nothing bad to say about the way the war was conducted - more than their job was worth.
God only knows what your historian/armaments man has to say.
Now your proof of a consensus is.....?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 12:56 PM

Nothing to cherry pick from Jim.
If it was not all you would have found some by now.
Where are they?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:03 PM

"Nothing to cherry pick from Jim."
Then you are admitting that you haven't put up statements from historians supporting your claims - that'll do nicely, thank you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:05 PM

The fact that one (or two maybe) of your half dozen historians might agree with one (or even two) of your points does not even begin to show a consensus for your claims.

I have given multiple quotes for each point.
I can put them up again if you like.

Put up some that disagree and I will have to change my claim to just "the overwhelming majority" instead of "all."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:10 PM

I just had a fresh glance at this thread.

I'll take another look in 2018.
Good luck.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:39 PM

"I have given multiple quotes for each point".
As I said Keith - it doesn't work like that
I'm not particularly interested what individual historians think - you've been given plenty of individual opinions and have rejected them because the source is dead, or has black hair, or is left handed or whatever.
You claim a consensus - where is your consensus?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:12 PM

rejected them because the source is dead, or has black hair, or is left handed or whatever.

Not true.
Historians have rejected some previously held views.
Some non historians still cling to them.
I don't.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 03:06 PM

"Not true."
You've rejected them because they are dead, (which mean you have discounted writers who were alive when the war was being forugh, some of whom were soldiers), you've rejected them because they are left wing (which means because they don't share your extreme rightist views) and you've rejected eye witness accounts of soldiers because they are "attention seeking liars"
In return, you have offered around half a dozen modern historians (two employees of the army and one involved n the proliferation of weapons), and on this basis, you have claimed both a majority and a consensus of historians (at various times)
You have been given a list of points from the Paxman series - you refuse to respond to those points and claim the programme confirms your three points.
You started out mounted firmly on the back of tabloid journalist, Max Hastings and, despite the fact that he has been taken to task for his contempt of the British military, you still claim him as a supporter
You have cited the soldiers' diaries as proof of one of your points, but not once have you showed what these diaries contain or what assessment has been made of them - you have only referred to their existence
There are well over 100 historians studying different aspects of the war at the present time - no consensus has emerged from their work - if it had, it would have hit the fan long ago - the traditional view of history prevails - your own historians have admitted s much by claiming that they are working to change the current "misunderstanding" of history.
You have been asked to qualify your 'consensus' - you dodge the questiion like a Tommy in a trench dodged sniper bullets.
You have been asked to qualify your disgusting accusation that soldiers are liars - that smear remains.
Now - about this consensus of yours.....?
Who do you think your fooling Mr Acheson? as somebody once sang
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:50 PM

I do refuse to treat political extremist sites as reliable hitorians, just as you would.

It is the current historians who have rejected some previously held myths that non-historians still cling to.

Paxman spoke straight to camera supporting my views, and I would be happy to repeat those quotes.

I quoted Hastings, in context, with links, supporting my views.

Other historians reviewing him have referred to him as "our foremost military historian."

He has been admitted to a prestigious society of historians and won prestigious prizes for his work.

He is quoted and interviewed on history by the press. The Guardian described him as an historian just days ago.

The BBC has given him his own programmes on the war and put him at the head of an international list of "leading historians" of that war.

Compared to all that, why should anyone give a shit what Jim thinks of him?

Todman and Sheffield are probably the most well known and esteemed historians of the war, and their having lectured at Sandhurst is irrelevant.
Sheffield is also on that BBC list, and the BBC have invited both to contribute to their war history resources.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:38 PM

The BBC also publishes reality about the war. I give examples and Keith points out why they are irrelevant.

Then shouts BBC to give credence to those poor buggers he misquotes and takes out of context.

You couldn't make it up.

But he does.

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 02:50 AM

Musket you can not deny that those highest profile historians agree with me.

Right or wrong that makes them reasonable views so the ridicule and abuse are misplaced.

You say there must be other historians who disagree, but you can not name one.

That is not a strong case.
That is open to ridicule.

If you are saying BBC agrees with you, you are wrong.
I have quoted extensively from their programmes and sites.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 03:26 AM

Add "highest profile" to the list

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:41 AM

"I do refuse to treat political extremist sites as reliable hitorians, just as you would."
You are a political extremist, you are not treated seriously by anybody, not because of your political extremism but because of your stupidity, your dishonesty and your failure to make your point
You have displayed all those qualities here.
You talk about "high profile historians" as if you have read them, you haven't that is dishonest, you say all of them agree with you as if you have quoted from them, you obviously haven't, that is both dishonest and stupid, you refuse to point out where "they all agree with me", That is dishonest, stupid and a shambolic failure to make your case, as is persisting in hiding behind historians you haven't read to make your case.
Your stupidity is compounded by your "highest profile historians".
Max Hastings is well known - as a tabloid journalist, but other than him, these historians are totally unknown to the general public, and even within historical circles, as far as their own peer profile goes, their notoriety is based on the fact that they have challenged the accepted view of the war.
Not only have you lied about their supporting your claims and have prevaricated by trying to give the impression that you have actually read what they say, you are deliberately still claiming Hastings' line supports you after his arguments have been systemically taken apart by The Spectator and slated for saying exactly the opposite - that the British military were not fit for the job.
Your value here has long been one of light relief and entertainment, but speaking personally, I can only take so much knockabout fun.
For you, the war is over Tommy.
You can, of course, make your case by actually producing what you claim these people have said, but you have avoided doing so so far and that will continue to be the case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:48 AM

They are the highest profile Musket.
They are the ones in the bookshops and in the media.
And I have read them Jim.
I have also read Scot Bloke's book so I know he was being dishonest in suggesting that it supported him.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:40 AM

Max Hastings is well known - as a tabloid journalist,

He has been admitted to a prestigious society of historians and won prestigious prizes for his work.

He is quoted and interviewed on history by the press. The Guardian described him as an historian just days ago.

The BBC has given him his own programmes on the war and put him at the head of an international list of "leading historians" of that war.

Compared to all that, why should anyone give a shit what Jim thinks of him?


but other than him, these historians are totally unknown to the general public, and even within historical circles, as far as their own peer profile goes,

Not true. They are the best selling historians of WW1 and appear all over the print and broadcast media.

their notoriety is based on the fact that they have challenged the accepted view of the war.

The are not notorious.
Their's is the accepted view of the war.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 06:19 AM

I'm a fucking historian, if disgraced hacks are.

Quote this;

"The fields are full of dead sons and husbands. Somebody wasn't discharging their duty of care to their men."

And

"With all the jingoism and patriotism that was the hallmark of Edwardian and immediate post Edwardian Great Britain, it is wrong to suggest the general population could distinguish and make a conscious personal decision to agree with the government, Royalty and fawning media."

From "That wraps it up for the apologists." © Musket Historical Texts 2014

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 06:35 AM

There is the Musket version of debate.

Him just asserting what he thinks, using himself as source and substatiation.

The real historians totally reject your shit Musket.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 07:48 AM

"He has been admitted to a prestigious society of historians and won prestigious prizes for his work."
Not qualified then - you always insisted on "qualified" historians
Immaterial anyway - he rubbished your arguments
"Not true. They are the best selling historians of WW1"
Best selling, s in John Grisham - they came to prominence because they set out "to challenge the popular view of history" - their words.
Two are emplloyees of the military establishment and one is in armaments - leaving you how many out of how many historians studying the war? Some ****** consensus!!
The traditional view of history has not been seriously challenged - you are as likely to have an open debate on the subject as you are about whether the earth is flat.
Show us your consensus - show us tat the historians you have named agree with everything you say - is you are unable or unwilling to do so even your feeble arguments ar scuppered - simple as that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:04 AM

Are you sure about that Keith?

Only, I had to paraphrase carefully because otherwise I would have been plagiarising one of your beloved people you conveniently bunch together as "the historians."

You see, even the most careless propaganda ridden ones agree with the two statements I made.

Also, as there is no formal qualification, registration or accreditation for use of the word "historian" and as it is not on the list of job titles protected under law, you cannot deny my status as a historian or even as an historian if colloquially speaking is important.

If you look at my © and add it to the disclaimers at the foot of the webpage you will see that I am also a published historian.

Just like thousands of others who are writing about WW1.

Now, perhaps you could try again with your fictitious "view" you refer to as "the historians."

Next!

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 11:20 AM

"The real historians totally reject your shit Musket."
Feckin' eejit
Jim Carroll
NEW STATESMAN
NIALL FERGUSON
CHRISTOPHER CLARK

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 12:11 PM

MARGARET McMILLAN

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 03:11 AM

RICHARD J EVANS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:13 AM

Jim, I have always acknowledged that far right Tory Ferguson believed it might have been beneficial for Britain to retain its Empire to allow militarist Germany to occupy the whole of Europe.
I think he is alone on that.
He does not contradict my views on the other issues.

Your New Staesman piece by a Daily Mail hack supports my view.
Thank you.

"Alan Clark's The Donkeys, published in 1961.
The book is an attack on the quality of generalship, notably an assault on Sir Douglas Haig. Although praised on publication for its readability and wit, it was also roundly condemned by serious historians for its lack of rigour, and the hostility against it has increased over the years. Clark had been an apostle of Liddell Hart, whose own methods he did not follow. This is not least because Clark, who had earlier attributed the phrase from which the book takes its title – "lions led by donkeys" – to a member of the German high command, eventually confessed he had made it up. Haig's diaries are often quoted, but selectively. The book is a clever piece of propaganda and manipulation of (usually) the truth, and its revisionism created an entirely new view of the war and how it was fought. It is, however, a view that more reputable historians have sought to correct for the past half-century.

The late Professor Richard Holmes (whose books The Little Field Marshal, on Sir John French, and Tommy, describing the life of the private soldier, are models of serious research and objective writing) accused Clark of having brought "a streak of sheer deception" into the historiography of the period. Sir Michael Howard called it "worthless" as history because of its "slovenly scholarship". Unlike later historians, Clark did not attempt to explore whether there might be two sides to the story of apparently weak British generalship."

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:15 AM

Christopher Clark writes about the complex politics in Europe pre August 1914.
I have never expressed an opinion about any of that.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:17 AM

Likewise Margaret Macmillan's book you link to.

In the conduct of the war her views coincide with mine and I quoted her myslef in the old threads.

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

Your Richard Evans link says exactly what he said in The Independent link I put up yesterday.

He says nothing against the conduct of the war, and denies holding the old discredited views (yours) that Gove accused him of holding.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:32 AM

You have been claiming that your view is the only one held by modern historians and your entire case is based on that - no other modern historian gives any other opinion on world war one - on that basis, you ahe (extremely stupidly) rejected all dead historian, unbelievable as that may sound!!!
You have either lied or you are extremely stupid (more likely
both - they go together like a horse and carriage)
I gathered these over the space of about ten minutes and have put them up in groups to underline your idiocy.
I offer no opinions on them - I have read them through, but I don't believe cut-'n-pastes sufficient to form an opinion on.
You have been given a tiny portion of the conflicting views held by modern historians contrary to your claim that they are all of one opinion
You claim to have put up positive proof of ypour own claims, which, far from being modern - dte backk to those being claimed in the period between the wars.
Link us to your "proof" or fuck off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:36 AM

Don't forget, you claimed that ALL HISTORIANS SHARE ALL YOUR VIEWS ON YOUR THREE POINTS - NONE OF THESE DO
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:58 AM

Yes they do, except Ferguson and him only on one of my three points.

GUEST,Lighter- PM
Date: 28 Dec 13 - 02:50 PM

What isn't widely known is that Kipling was very pointedly referring to Members of Parliament who before the war had denied there was any need for greater defense appropriations or a better equipped British Army.

Kipling's son John was killed on his first day of action. Kipling, who was neither a fool nor a dupe nor a profiteer, continued to support the Allied war effort to the end.

According to Oxford historian Margaret MacMillan:

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

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:06 AM

"Yes they do, except Ferguson and him only on one of my three points."
Then you agree that there is a fierce debate going on among historians (one of my links is headed "battle of the historians) - in which case, where's your consensus.
Please point out where any of those I have put up agree with all your three points - fucked if I can see it
You really are a lying moron
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:28 AM

Historians differ on many things.
There is much debate about events in Europe pre August 1914.
I have expressed no view on that debate.
On my 3 points there is a consensus.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:30 AM

Jim I just showed you this from Lighters post!
"According to Oxford historian Margaret MacMillan:

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

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:31 AM

"Historians differ on many things."
You have ckaimed they all agree with you - you are lying
Point out where they agree on or even refer to your three points
Have you been to church this morning?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:53 AM

I have been quoting the historians on my three points for over a year now, but it never gets through to you.
You just saw a quote of Margaret Macmillan expressing the same views as mine.

My views were formed by reading them.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:57 AM

You really are going to refuse to link us to evidence of your claims, aren't you?
I think that says all that needs to be said here
Have a nice day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:16 AM

You really are going to refuse to admit that I have been linking to quotes supporting my views for over a year, aren't you?
I think that says all that needs to be said here
Have a nice day

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:34 AM

wow. I'll have to think about that one.

Can you take one away, or can I phone a friend?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:01 AM

"You really are going to refuse to admit that I have been linking to quotes supporting my views for over a year, aren't you?"
You have never at any time linked to verify your claims
You have just been given several historians, none of which support yout three claims - you have every opportunity to cut'n-paste evidence that they support all your claims - you refuse to do so.
Game, set and match, I think (using your own criterion)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:12 AM

Jim, you were given a quote of Macmillan supporting my views.
Richard Evans made Gove retract his accusation that he supported your old discredited myths.
I quoted him myself just yesterday.

None of your historians contradicted my 3 points except Ferguson on one point, the need to stop the Germans.
(He is well to the right of Gove. If I relied on him you would laugh it out of court)

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

Yeah - we know all about that Keith - we are deluged with your links to what tey all say - how could we possibly be anything else!!!
Jay-sus, you really do have no self respect, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 01:06 PM

Jim, there are 4 links on the other thread that are brand new, and if you want more I can start reposting all the ones from the current threads, and if that is not enough I will start on the two old threads that go back to November 2013.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 01:58 PM

"Jim, there are 4 links on the other thread that are brand new"
Are you taking the piss Keith?
There are 3 links on the other thread - 1 from an Irish doctor, defending General Haig, I from Dan Todman (1 of your 6) - defending General Haig
And an advert for a games controler.
You claimed a consensus for your view - you com up with this shit.
You lied about your links, you lied about your consensus, you lied about any historian supporting your view as this result of day dredging the internet for support proves beyond doubt
Your pathetic behaviour is embarrassing - stop digging
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 03:08 PM

Keith
You are still frantically running around defending Haig in order to show that the War was well led
Kitchener was an incompetent butcher, French was a murderous embarrassment and Haig was all things to whoever happened to experience his leadership - his main claim-to-fame was the ruthless way he sent so many man to their deaths in order to win yards of useless mud - aof all of them he ws probably the best of a bad bunch - from your latest link:

"Conclusion
There is no evidence of a consensus about the reputation of Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. By some he is greatly admired as a Commander-in-Chief bringing about victory in very difficult circumstances whilst having been neither particularly well served by the British politicians of the day, nor, frequently, by his Allied Commanders. Others are equally dismissive considering him to something of a dilettante aristocrat, overly favoured by royal patronage, and with scant concern, or care, for the troops under his command.
No doubt, DH's notoriously poor communication skills and deliberate remoteness, allied with the privations imposed on his troops by the ill-understood evolution of the stalemate of four years of increasingly technological trench-war, made it difficult for him to come to some kind of rapport with his huge army."

None of which gets us any nearer to your mythical "consensus"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:18 PM

Jim, there are four new quotes from two historians.
Also there are descriptions of Haig's funeral and the devotion shown by veterans and the whole nation.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:28 AM

"What gives you the right to dismiss eye-witness accounts of soldiers experiances and opinions as "lies""

1: How do you know for a fact that they were soldiers? Just taken their word for it?

2: IF soldiers how do you know for a fact that they were where they claimed to be? I believe one of your sources was the one that came out with seeing hundreds of his "mates" being shot by MPs - Well we know that that didn't happen so how much else of his "recollections" were utter codswallop? Did you check units against battle order? Or once again did you just take their word for it?

Any unsubstantiated account of anything I will regard with suspicion. I mean look at what not doing that gets you into believing. There are people in the USA and in the UK who believe that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was all about Saddam Hussein having WMD and that Tony Blair said that within 45 minutes Iraq could "nuke" Great Britain.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:34 AM

Jim Carroll - 12 Dec 14 - 10:15 AM

Ah so nobody spent £20 million to create the poppy display then Jim? So it was just Jim Carroll - Made-Up-Shit after all.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:46 AM

"The fields are full of dead sons and husbands. Somebody wasn't discharging their duty of care to their men."

I know that the military experience of the "Muskets" is extremely limited and their understanding of it is even smaller but the above "Muskets" quote does beg the following question:

Where the hell do you get the rather woolly idea that in time of war when face to face with your enemy that anyone's armed forces anywhere in the world has a "duty of care" to their men? After all "Musket" old bean it was the "Somebody" that you refer to who was directed and ordered to deliberately and purposefully put you in harms way FFS.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:07 AM

"How do you know the soldiers were where they claimed to be..."

Straws and clutching spring to mind.

Your rather desperate slur on the "glorious fallen" also applies to regimental diaries, war correspondents, political and military propaganda and everything else that forms a source for what you and your toy soldier mate are trying to infect the threads with.

Fool.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:57 AM

"Made-Up-Shit after all."
The made up shit was that the profits from the poppies would go to charity when, in fact two thirds of it would go in expenses.
You have my opinion and you have the facts of the matter - care to comment on that?
"Jim, there are four new quotes from two historians."
You have a list of what there is
I don't want opinions of Haig's prowess - I want your proof that your claims have been substantiated by historians
You refuse to link us to that proof - you lied about having given it.
That is what you do best.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:15 AM

"The made up shit was that the profits from the poppies would go to charity when, in fact two thirds of it would go in expenses."

Ehmmmmm No Jim the made-up-shit was that £20,000,000 had been spent on the poppy display - if you want me to dig out your laughable claim as to that being the case then I will do - easy enough to do and in that original post of yours drawing this MYTH to our attention you will not find one single mention of charities.

Care to put a bet on it? Proceeds to go the Royal British Legion?

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:28 AM

You refuse to link us to that proof - you lied about having given it.

Jim you deny that I have filled these threads over the past year with quotes of the living historians, while you people can produce nothing but the discredited ideas of long dead ones.

That is good.
It makes you look truly ridiculous.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:19 AM

"Jim you deny that I have filled these threads over the past year with quotes "
Yes I do - prove me wrong and link to any of them who prove your claim of a consensus for your (now reduced to) three points
As "ridiculous" as that makes me look, you are still on your own and it lies within your power to prove me wrong with a couple of links.
You now seem to be reduced to defending a general whose claim to fame was his willingness to send many thousands of young men to their deaths in order to capture useless fields of mud - even your own historian described his reputation as a leader is unproven
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:16 AM

Yes I do - prove me wrong and link to any of them who prove your claim of a consensus for your (now reduced to) three points

So you do not deny that I have provided ample quotes supporting my points, but you want quotes supporting the consensus.

I have in fact quoted historians saying there is a consensus, but however many I supply you will always say there might still be some who differ.

The most convincing evidence is that none have yet been found despite a year of desperate searching by you and the others.

Tell us when you have found one.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:22 AM

Like a spiral in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel...

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:29 AM

With a bit of luck this thread will all be over by Christmas!

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:59 AM

Not if you keep chipping in to refresh it won't

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:21 AM

"So you do not deny that I have provided ample quotes supporting my points"
No I don't - you have provided half a dozen points of view - there are over a hundred historians working on WW1 - you refused even to read the list because it was too long
Your historians amount to half a dozen people who, by their own admission, are seeking to change the popular view of history - which proves nothing.
You don't even accept the statement of one of your own historians on how Haig is regarded by his fellow historians - give us a break!!
Now your consensus
"I have in fact quoted historians saying there is a consensus,"
You keep alluding to this - where the **** are they and how do they measure up to the general opinion?
There really isn't anything more "ridiculous" than alluding to proof you claim to have given, yet refusinng to link to it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:40 PM

You don't even accept the statement of one of your own historians on how Haig is regarded by his fellow historians - give us a break!!

If you mean the "jury still out statement," it does not come from any historian.
You made that up.

There are not that many historians publishing stuff on WW1.
I have quoted perhaps a dozen, and you people have still not found any that support you.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:29 PM

" it does not come from any historian."
Thn whu did you put it up and pint it out as more evidence from a historian - you've had the quote and the ling
Make up your mind laddie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:22 PM

I didn't.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 06:56 PM

"I didn't."
Then you'd better get in touch with them upstairs and tell them there's someone posting in your name.
From the thread where you rightfully confessed that you are not a historian:
From: Keith A of Hertford -
PM Date: 14 Dec 14 - 02:14 PM
You really don't read your own postings, do you?
Perhaps you should stay out of the kitchen when the cooking sherry is being used.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:09 AM

Of course I am not an historian.
If I posted that "jury out" shit, produce it.

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:16 AM

Thanks for sharing this nice post. It is a good film.
Business Loan