Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2

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

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:28 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 05:31 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 - 05:30 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:15 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 - 04:13 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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.