Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2

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