WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

Who decides if it is just or necessary then Teribus? You? Keith? 'The historians'? There is simply no justification for the mass termination of lives. End of story.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:46 AM

"GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

I am off now. Thanks for the fun and games. Before I go I would like to make one thing clear. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD WAR. Those who are trying to justify it should be ashamed of themselves."

Quite agree that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD WAR." I do not think that anyone in this thread has ever stated, or tried to justify that it was a GOOD WAR ( Whatever that might mean)

There is however such a thing as a "JUST WAR".

There is such a thing as a "NECESSARY WAR"

If you cannot differentiate between one and the other then perhaps it is better if you did depart.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:42 AM

Keith, so you name and "correct" Gillymor and then go on to "correct" Jim without actually naming him in the thread that you started by naming Gillymor. Interesting use of language, not to mention logic.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:01 AM

That'd confuse him even more.

Confused or just asleep, he still jumps in on any thread to give us the benefit of his "knowledge" when all anybody asks for is "opinion."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:58 AM

"You are either the most stupid person on this site or a hypocrite of the worse kind"
Give him a break - why can't he be both?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:23 AM

He doesn't know when to shut up Steve. He just knows when not to be proud if his words.

Once more. If they were well led, the strategy of sending waves of men into the German machine guns, followed by more men in order to wear them down was planned.

I doubt a single credible narrator of the war justifies that under the "well led" banner.

By the way, interesting article on BBC News website this morning about how commercial interests cashed in on the jingoism and propaganda.

To reconcile that with Keith's analysis of his precious historians needs a rather vivid imagination and to be fair, I'd never put him down as being so creative.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:08 AM

This gem has just surfaced in this thread


Subject: RE: WW 1 christmas song
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 07:35 AM

I sometimes sing John McCuthcheon song, without the intro and plenary, and end it with Silent Night.
Could it be?

Did you really Keith? You mean to tell us you sang the words

"That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we're the same."

And did not understand the sentiment that those leading the soldiers would not be killed and that killing fellow men was wrong?

You are either the most stupid person on this site or a hypocrite of the worse kind.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, unbowed
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:06 PM

Any man who lets Keith ruffle his feathers is a lesser man than I am!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:02 PM

Raggytash, it looks like Keith didn't properly direct his 2nd comment to Jim in that post. Didn't ruffle my feathers. :)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:18 PM

Read it again.
I was talking to Jim about Kineally.
It was him who brought her name up.
Jim, I quoted her statement that most historians do not hold Britain culpable for the famine.
Deny that/
Want the quote again?

Musket, "Keith's irrational stance"
You mean me saying that historians know more about history than chumps like you?
They do.
They have devoted their lives to the study, and you know nothing about any of it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:05 PM

Keith,

Jim may well have mentioned Kineally, but Gillymor didn't.

Your totally illogical pop at gillymor obviously caused upset. By the standards you propose to uphold you were well out of order.

I could go on ..............

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:19 PM

Don't goad Teribus too much, Musket. At least he knows when to shut up. You can't knock that. A bit like David Brent going quiet when he suspected that Gareth was on his side...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM

Has anyone noticed that Terribulus stops posting when everyone is laughing at Keith but every time Keith digs something up that they think is interesting, Terribulus stops "guesting" and wants to be named again?

I give it 24 hours till enough people have dismissed Keith's irrational stance again and we will be seeing a few more "guest" jibes.

I'd use him as a barometer if I were you Keith.

😋

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:39 PM

" Kineally who I quoted to Jim in a famine thread."
There as here, you claimed her as a historian who supported your case - as here, she was saying the opposite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:25 PM

Raggytash, Jim mentioned the historian Kineally who I quoted to Jim in a famine thread.

Jim,
Hasting was condemned for his contept for the military

Only in one single review of his latest book.
Read a few more, like the one I showed you from his own old paper, The Telegraph.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

Hold on a mo Keith, When did Gillymor mention the Famine, and if so which famine, there were more than one.

Did I miss something?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:00 PM

"Hastings says the same as I do."
Hasting was condemned for his contept for the military - can you assume you share that contempt (you've had the review)?
Your clip has nothing to do with what is being discussed here - given the fact that the war was an Imperial squabble over the division of spoils, Britain had no alternative to do what they did in sending a generation to their deaths - are we to assume that is your position.
You claim Paxman supported you.
Programme on dealt with the unpreparedness of the British establishment in sending too few untrained troops to the Mons fiasco in the belief that the outcome - a victory - was a foregone conclusion and would be a short affair - is that your view?
Programme two dealt with the recruitment campaign, the coercion of men to join witha promise of adventure and glamour -0 is that your view?
It condemned the Kitchener armaments fiasco - is that your view
It exposed Horaio Bottomly as a profiteer in recruitment, becoming a millionaire on sending young man to their deaths - is that your view?
Lat's see how you get on with them - lots more to come
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:45 PM

The faith you have in your short list of historians Keith..

There are others, but not a single one who believes the old myths that you people do.

Or have you finally found one? (guffaw!)

You look so stupid Musket, preening yourself and imagining your views based on nothing are even worth mentioning.

I just say what the historians say.
When you ridicule the historians, you make yourself ridiculous.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:23 PM

The faith you have in your short list of historians Keith..

Watch out, Jesus will be jealous.

No, you didn't bring Hislop into this. A Musket did. In order to bait you it seems, and you grabbed it, hook, line and sinker.

You brought another newspaper hack into it though, Hastings.

Just to be serious for once. The last part of your last cut and paste. Hastings stated an opinion that ancestors did not fight for nothing.

Great! Nobody disagrees with that and nobody on this thread supports the position of either The Kaiser or The Austro Hungarian stance.

But what has any of that to do in any way with the blundering, callous disregard for life or disgusting treatment of the men who delivered the result?

None.

Yet you state continuously that to not laud the Ruperts and incompetents is shameful.

Fuck you blue eyes.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:04 PM

BBC on Hastings.





The Necessary War








Our perceptions of the First World War today are dominated by the idea it was a futile conflict, a colossal waste of life, and an immense tragedy for Britain and all of Europe. It is a view that has been fostered by the war poets who wrote vividly about the experience of trench warfare, and by countless novels, films and television programmes in the years since. Many even go as far as suggesting that the First World War led directly to the rise of Hitler and the outbreak of the Second World War.

In a single documentary to mark the 100-year anniversary of the outbreak of war, Sir Max Hastings presents the argument that although it was a great tragedy, far from being futile, the First World War was completely unavoidable.

Max presents the case that the rulers of Germany in 1914 were intent on dominating Europe and, after Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in June 1914, actively encouraged the Austrians to invade Serbia. They were responsible for igniting the spark that turned a local controversy into a full-blown European war.

He also argues that once the Germans decided to invade France through neutral Belgium, it was impossible for Britain, mindful of its own position within Europe and a guarantor of the small state's neutrality, to simply stand by. Not only that, when the conflict was only weeks old, the Germans were already compiling a shopping list of key territories they would seize after victory to secure their complete domination of Europe.

Through conversations with the world's most eminent World War I scholars and military historians, including Sir Michael Howard, Sir Hew Strachan, Professor John Rohl and Professor Margaret MacMillan, Max explores the key questions surrounding the outbreak of the war and the necessity for Britain to step in.

He also explores how and why, once the war was over, the common perception of the conflict as a bungled, unnecessary bloodbath emerged. He examines the misconceptions that surround the Versailles peace agreement, which many unfairly blame for the outbreak of the Second World War, and the sense of disappointment and frustration created by economic and political turmoil of the 20s and 30s.

In conclusion Max argues that, while the centenary of the war is not a cause of jubilation, we should tell our children and grandchildren that their ancestors did not fight for nothing; if Germany had won, Europe would have paid a far more terrible price.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wtmz6

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:57 PM

gillymor, I found it all to be out of date.
Actual historians dismiss such views.
This is just some anonymous entity who knows nothing of the last 50 years of historical research.

Hastings says the same as I do.
Kineally is on one side of a debate that I have no opinions about, but she did say that your views of the famine have been rejected by most historians.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:35 PM

That was awfully rude, Keith. What did you find to be untrue in that article?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:14 PM

"Paxman did many interviews and articles on WW1 before the series, showing much more knowledge than any of you people and expressing the same views as me."
Exactly what you said about Hastings and Kinealy - and look what line they both took
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:12 PM

"I did not bring Hislop's name into all this Jim"
Don't care who did - you are latching onto him in desperation as someone who comes near to your arguments - the nearest so far
I told you - I don't scramble round the net looking for validation for a history I am fully aware of from my general interest in history and was brought up with - I don't need to.
Ours is the accepted and taught version of events, the ones you have scooped from have admitted that they are out of step and need to change the accepted view - their own description.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:10 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.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:05 PM

I did not bring Hislop's name into all this Jim.
Musket and his clones did.
But he is someone who is hated by the establishment, and someone who knows a lot more about WW1 than you people do.

Musket,
Unfortunately, it was Keith who said television personalities who just present have no idea as they aren't historians.

Completely made up.
Paxman did many interviews and articles on WW1 before the series, showing much more knowledge than any of you people and expressing the same views as me.

All this is just a diversion however.
My point is still that my views are those of historians, and if you ridicule them you make yourselves ridiculous.
Also that none can be found who still believe those hoary old discredited myths that you do.

Or have you finally found one?(chuckle)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 11:58 AM

Interesting essay on Haig, click here. , from a 2007 edition of Military History magazine.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 10:22 AM

"He is just talking personally, not presenting a documentary!"
e're all talking personally - so he's just another voice - what's your point
You've dismissed the soldiers who were there as "attention-seeking liars" in favour of a popular entertainer - do I have that right?
I was once an avid Private Eye reader when it was a sharp satirical magazine making acerbic comments on Britain's establishment - sadly today it is part of that establishment, giving the impression of genuine opposition to to the wrongs of society while just making them amusing
Hislop is little more than an entertainer with a public-school education - have you made him an honourary member of your ghost army of historians
Wonder what little Ernie Wise would have made of all this - he's have probably "wrote a play about it" - that would really have sent us all running for cover!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:52 AM

Oh wonderful...

I thought of any BBC presenter who has voiced over documentaries with balanced views on the war, and Hislop came to mind. (Actually he was in my mind also because he was sat in the same cafe as me.)

He was ideal. If Keith picked up on any of the mitigating comments I knew he would leap on it in order to look clever.

Unfortunately, it was Keith who said television personalities who just present have no idea as they aren't historians.

😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹

Never mind Keith. Nigel Farage said "liberal minded idealists" denigrate how grateful Europe should be to our military leaders in both wars. You can start quoting him if you like.






Again

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, another corset gone
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:33 AM

Do be serious, Keith.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:31 AM

Why don't you try the link?
He is just talking personally, not presenting a documentary!
He is not an historian but has been reading the history of it since a boy.
So have I. That is why we have similar views.
He also defends Haig against the "butcher" jibe.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw concurring
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:21 AM

Great minds think alike, Jim! ;-)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw Paul Merton fan
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:19 AM

Ian Hislop is a chap who makes a living out of being generally contrary. So he was chosen to make a documentary. Well, Keith, I wonder whether that was more to do with his presentational skills than his historian credentials, of which he is, er, apparently somewhat bereft. Any chance you could link us to a podcast of, say, Morrissey's take on WW1?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:15 AM

Ian Hislop - is he a historian - damn, thought he was the editor of a satirical magazine?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

I am off now. Thanks for the fun and games. Before I go I would like to make one thing clear. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD WAR. Those who are trying to justify it should be ashamed of themselves.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:50 AM

woops!
http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/ian-hislop-interview

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:49 AM

Here Ian Hislop talks about WW1.
Around 17 minutes he talks of the men being determined to "stick it out and win."
Later he says that poets like Owne and sassoon were unrepresentative, and that that view of the war did not arise until the thirties.
He says that Oh What A lovely War was inaccurate and just political.

In short, he has the same views that I have expressed and you lot ridicule.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:21 AM

Interestingly I am in London today. Flew down and sat waiting for the shuttle.

I would keep an eye out for Hislop or anybody else who has really read a bit on WW1 but sadly, some of us have to earn a crust.

Next stop, Skipton House.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:30 PM

I'm in Doncaster. In a pub. Waiting for Mrs Musket to pick me up.

Where are you? (It's alright. I'm asking out of courtesy rather than giving a monkey's cunt.)

Another Musket is on holiday and a third one seems to have broken ranks.

I'm devastated to say Ian Hislop wasn't in the cafe today. These historians are elusive little buggers.

Still, the beer is wet and My lift awaits. Train was running 13 mins late by the way.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:11 PM

Ah, but which guest, Musket? Me, the one pretending to be me or the one who Keith thinks I am? And are you in Scotland, in a cafe with Ian Hislop or mysteriously doing both and playing bingo as your omnipresent alter ego?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:06 PM

Don't flatter yourself guest. Your identity is about as interesting as your gormless posts.

Hey Keith. We are all alive. Does that make our views valid?
💩

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:58 PM

I am a real person. I was a fully signed up member for many years, when it was a good place to visit, but I gave up signing in a long time back because I no longer wish to have my name associated with the type of nonsense that goes on here. As Max is happy to let me post as a guest I will continue to do so but I will only ever post as Guest. I only started to post on this thread a few days ago as it got like an itch that I had to scratch. If you wish to believe that I am posting as multiple people or as a member as well please feel free to continue thinking so. It says a lot more about how your mind works that anything else. Please feel free to confirm whatever you want by contacting the moderation team.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:28 PM

That "guest" can't be Keith, Raggytash- Keith can't string 2 phrases together to make a complete sentance. Much more likely Terribilus.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:50 PM

Scottish bloke,
Who has revised that?

Revised is the wrong word.
It never gained general acceptance among historians, and less and less as time went by.
Now no historian believes it, so neither do I.

Raggytash I am not Guest posting, but I do not believe Guests like Scottish Bloke and others are real people.

Doesn't matter much.
Funny really.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:53 PM

Keith, Posting as a guest does nothing to alter your stance. The Mods will be able to verify which computer the threads come from. At least have the grace to append your name to them.


We all like a laugh!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:52 AM

and what has any of that to do with what AJP Taylor said about the calibre of officers and leaders from Haig downwards and how WW2 officers learned from their experiences under bad senior leaders?

Nothing.

Who has revised that?

No one.

Back to Terribulus scribbling guest. (Oh, and leave the political voting pattern and friendships of real historians out of it. Keith has tried that trick and got caught with his trousers down, and everybody laughed at his arse.)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:42 AM

"The general voting pattern of the parents of about the most learned historian mentioned on this thread is something to do with dereliction of duty to the men whose well being was entrusted to incompetent and callous generals?"

What on earth have the voting patterns of the parents got to do with it? Both parents associated with the communist party - son gets recruited into the communist party - WOW shock and horror how unusual would that be? - Then when he resigns from the Party the most learned historian mentioned on this thread votes Labour for the rest of his life - And this eminent historian's opinions, interpretations and conclusions somehow must be treated as being totally objective? Of course they can't be A.J.P.Taylor imparted his natural political bias as did Hugh Trevor-Roper (equally eminent - who strongly attacked Taylor's work) or Correlli Barnett (equally eminent)

But looking at what A.J.P.Taylor actually said instead of the rubbish you are inferring he said:

1: Germany was responsible for starting the First World War, largely because of her mobilization plans and what they automatically triggered.

2: That Haig was right the war could only be won on the western front.

"The debate between Westerners and Easterners wan on, one way and another, throughout the war. The critics said to the generals with truth: 'You will not win the war in France with these methods.' The generals answered with equal truth: 'You will not win the war anywhere else.'.... All the projected 'side shows' of the First World War had this character. They were 'dodges' in a double sense. They were ingenious; and they were designed to evade the basic problem--that the German army could be beaten only by an antagonist of its own size." - A.J.P.Taylor

Kitchener laid the foundations of creating that army and supplying them, Haig commanded and led that Army that ultimately won the war a full one to two years ahead of any expectation held by Great Britain's political leadership at the time.

"Lloyd George's War Memoirs was a monster of a work, designed to establish Lloyd George's reputation as a war leader… and to destroy Haig's."

The Lloyd George who was so mesmerized by Nivelle that he put Haig abd all British Forces in france under the direct command of a French General. Lloyd George who never tired, at Churchill's prompting, to prattle on about the strategy or tactic being wrong, yet not have a single solution to propose to remedy the situation, in short the Lloyd George who was quite willing to allow German Armies to have the advantage of ground that allowed to observe and shell British troops at leisure.

"Lloyd George's War Memoirs are easy to read and – even though far from the truth on many issues – convincing."

But during the Second World War the reputations of Lloyd George and his military adviser Basil Liddell Hart both fell, but that of Haig had already been damaged to a marked degree by much lesser men pursuing their own agendas that were in no way served by truth.

The fiftieth anniversary of the start of the First World War coincided with Britain's swinging sixties, anti-establishment sentiment and A.J.P.Taylor dedicated his book "The First World War, an Illustrated History" to Joan Littlewood, a communist actress, who abandoned a First World War play she was working on and wrote "Oh What A Lovely War" instead - As a work it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with history, it did nothing bar perpetuate myth and falsehood and in the process if Haig had been the object of criticism before, he was now transformed into an object of ridicule and class-anger.

Yet if he is to be damned for his supposed blunders then he must be praised for his successes. A.J.P Taylor in the book he dedicated to Joan Littlewood said this of Haig in 1915 when he took over command of the BEF from Sir John French:

"Though he had no more idea than French how to win the War, he was sure that he could win it"

And in 1915 as the year drew to a close that is exactly what was needed - Churchill himself found himself in exactly the predicament when he took over as Prime Minister from Neville Chamberlain in 1940 as France fell.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:51 AM

Good gracious. I was reminded of Lewis Carroll for some reason.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
    "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

But while I was looking up the quote I came across another. Equally apt in the circumstances.

Ah, well! They may write such things in a book,' Humpty Dumpty said in a calmer tone. 'That's what you call a History of England, that is. Now, take a good look at me! I'm one that has spoken to a King, I am: mayhap you'll never see such another: and, to show you I'm not proud, you may shake hands with me!' And he grinned almost from ear to ear, as he leant forwards (and as nearly as possible fell off the wall in doing so) and offered Alice his hand. She watched him a little anxiously as she took it. 'If he smiled much more the ends of his mouth might meet behind,' she thought: 'And then I don't know what would happen to his head! I'm afraid it would come off!'

I would have gone away by now but I am beginning to enjoy the nonsense after all.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:42 AM

Gove has been promoted to Historian has he? Can't recall anything he has published ................ which I seem to remember was a criticism by someone of Greg Jenner

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:29 AM

Steve, we all did reject those historians who were members of the Tory party, such as Gove and Ferguson.
If they are political activists, their objectivity can be questioned.