WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:26 AM

Guest I did not say Childrens' BBC did not have historians involved in Horrible Histories.
I did say that Jenner has published precisely nothing on WW1.

I also said that BBC KS3(under 15s) Bitesize , a learning site, uses teachers not historians, scientists, etc.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw mini-history
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:40 AM

Well I live in a LibDem/Tory marginal, and I held my nose and voted LibDem six times to keep the Tory out. It worked every time. The LibDem leaflet that came through the door last time said "don't let the Tories in to ruin the country," sort of thing. Jesus wept. I'll probably have to do it again, but I not-so-secretly wish the LibDems a permanent and ignominious oblivion.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:19 AM

I vote Labour. But once in council elections, I voted for my neighbour who stood as an independent. He went on to join The Conservative Party. Should I resign from my university and pulp my publications?

If so, on account of voting Labour or my neighbour? I'm confused.



Could be worse. I could say on Mudcat that my politics are right of centre and then dismiss historical accounts that aren't at my point on the pendulum. I could refer to a racist, loony, right wing political party as "we" and expect people to believe otherwise.

By their fruits indeed..

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:04 AM

OK if we also dismiss historians who have been known to vote Tory, suspected of having voted Tory, or who have come from a Tory family, especially a wealthy Tory family?

By their fruits, Keith, by their fruits.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 06:18 AM

Greg Jenner was historical consultant on "Horrible Histories" so your statement that there are no historians involved is not true. He is employed by the programme to ensure that the historical facts are correct and honest so while he may not have published anything on WW1 he has done extensive research. I am not sure what you mean by "teachers who have fled the classroom" but on track record I assume that it is a disparaging remark about either the BBC or those who work on their young persons programmes. Yes, it is made for under 14s which, in my opinion, makes it a more honest and less bias view of history. It is far more difficult to fool children than you may think.

The term 'living historian' now seems to mean living, with no left wing leanings, that does not publish views about the origins of the war that are different to yours and does not get involved in teaching history to the most important people on the planet, the young. Sorry, but I do not understand the rules of this game but I am beginning to see that they are infinitely variable as required.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:57 AM

Taylor was himself a member of the communist party, and he was quite clear that Britain was not to blame for the war.
His views on the army were contested at the time, and are now rejected by every single historian.
Or have you finally found one?

"Cherry pick" !
Pick from what??
You have been given the views of the historians and you still imagine you are so much cleverer that you know more than all of them put together.
Oh dear.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:49 AM

Dominic Alexander.
All we know about him is that he is a member of that Revolutionary Socialist group, so everything he writes will have that political agenda.
Do you know anything else about him?

Douglas Newton's only WW1 work Darkest Days was just about Britain's culpability for the start of the war.
Even AJP Taylor understood that Germany was to blame.
See my link to BBC's "ten leading (international) historians" on that subject.

Greg Jenner has published nothing at all about WW1 !

Was your "BBC link" the one to their history for under 14s?
No historians are involved in that, just teachers who have fled the classroom.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:41 AM

Good gracious. I didn't know that Taylor was both dead and left wing. Obviously a cad who knows nothing. This Sir John French who was so good. Is it the same one that could not stand being in the same room as that other magnificent leader, Kitchener? They seem to have had very different leadership styles and ideas so which is the one who should be admired?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:36 AM

It gets better.

No wonder you posted that anonymously. I'd be ashamed too.

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?

Even Keith might distance himself from that awful crap.

😹😹😹🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 05:34 AM

Well, that just goes to show the danger of cherrypicking your historian, innit. One other thing. Whilst historians are fully entitled to their "views", for myself I would rather know about their interpretations, which one would hope were predicated on thorough and dispassionate scholarship. That is surely more important than whether they're lefties or middle-class or whatever. And understanding what they say requires a degree of education on our part. I didn't get where I am today by " believing" what authority figures tell me!

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

"I keep pointing out that AJP Taylor, in his fairly definitive account of WW2 points out repeatedly that senior officers had learned the lessons the hard way when as junior officers in WW1 they witnessed and to their shame were involved with the awful decisions and methods. They had no intention of repeating them."

A.J.P.Taylor - that the one born to wealthy left-wing parents, whose mother in the 1920 was a member of the Comintern and who had an Uncle who was one of the founding members of the Communist Party of Great Britain? Member of the Communist Party himself, the ardent Labour supporter the whole of his life from the age of twenty onwards - can't see any reason at all why his view on things might be slightly biased, can you?

Leaving the Second World War aside for a minute here is what A.J.P.Taylor said about the First World War:

"The Second World War, however, changed historians views of the First World War.   Faced by the phenomenon of an Adolf Hitler, the 'Anti-revisionists' tended to return to the idea of German responsibility.   In Britain, the historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote a book called The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, in which he claimed that German ambitions caused the conflict:

[The German] bid for continental supremacy was certainly decisive in bringing on the European War ...
A.J.P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (1954)

About the same time, a book by the Italian journalist Luigi Albertini - The origins of the War of 1914 - became available in English.   Albertini's ideas supported AJP Taylor's in as much as he believed that the primary responsibility for the war lay with Germany's plan of mobilisation.   Unlike other countries' mobilisation plans, the Schlieffen Plan was OFFENSIVE, and meant that, when Germany mobilised, Germany went to war.

Most of all, Taylor was supported by the German historian Fritz Fischer, who in his books Griff nach der Weltmacht ('Grasp for World Power', 1961) and War of Illusions (1969) argued that:
1.   there was a 'will to war' amongst the leaders of Germany,
2.   the German government wanted events to slide into war in 1914,
3.   the German government had a plan of expansion very similar to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s,
4.   this was as a result of social and economic factors inside Germany - the ATTITUDE of Germans - as much as it was the result of any fears about foreign policy or the international scene."

Now this next bit is a statement of the obvious if ever there was one and can be applied to every war and every subsequent war that followed it within a generation:

"senior officers had learned the lessons the hard way when as junior officers in XXXXXXX they witnessed and to their shame were involved with the awful decisions and methods."

Well History and recorded fact showed the opposite with the BEF in France in 1939 and 1940 and with the TA Expeditionary Force sent to Narvik in Norway in 1940 - British Senior Officers the ones A.J.P.Taylor and Musket are referring to showed that they had not learned anything at all. Sir John French with his 80,000 men in France in 1914 and 1915 at least managed to keep his army as a force in being and successfully engaged and delayed the German advance. All these senior British officers in the Second World War, all the ones who had learned all those lessons succeeded in overseeing the total destruction of their Army and that army would have been captured lock, stock and barrel had Admiral Ramsay and the Royal Navy not organised and protected their evacuation from Dunkirk.

Now had they been junior officers in WWI then they cannot have had anything to do with "decisions" or with "methods", so what was there for them to be ashamed about?

There is of course one other reason that A.J.P.Taylor might have mentioned while heaping praise on all those former WWI British Junior Officers who through shame, etc, learned their lessons and went on to became Senior British Officers in WWII, as to why WWII was not allowed to get bogged down into the same stalemate as WWI - a chap who had lived through it all very much at the sharp end - one Adolf Hitler who expressly forbid the use by German troops of chemical weapons - Churchill had no such qualms, but then Churchill had never been gassed, Hitler on the other hand had. Hitler also appreciated the use of tactical air power and the application of integrated all arms forces as pioneered by the British in WWI. By reading and following through on Fuller's ideas the German Army developed their Blitzkrieg, which demonstrated that even if outnumbered and with inferior weapons, if your command and control is superior you will win.

I would also venture to guess that the junior officers serving with the British Army from 1917 on were pretty proud of their efforts, the efforts of their men and the success of the tactics that had been developed.

As far as WWII goes the former WWI Junior officers who really learned from the mistakes of their commanders in WWI and who applied that knowledge in WWII were all GERMAN and it took OUR senior officers in WWII almost FOUR YEARS to catch up (In WWI it only took them TWO and that included building an army from scratch to do it - just as well they did because they left behind the template for those Senior WWII Officers to follow when after Dunkirk they found themselves having to the same thing all over again).

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 03:17 PM

Oh, and have you looked at mt BBC link yet?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 03:15 PM

Dominic Alexander in a live and published historian
Douglas Newton is a live and published historian
Greg Jenner is a live and published historian

Surely you can do better than just discounting them on the basis that they have been mentioned on a left wing site. Surely on that basis we can discount the views of any historian that has been published in right wing rags?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 02:48 PM

It is not a history site.
It is a far left revolutionary Marxist site.
They are politically motivated, and extreme Marxists are not famous for the truthfulness or accuracy of their propaganda.
If they are really on to something, someone a bit more trustworthy will pick it up and we can discuss it.

Really, if this is all you can put up, how seriously can you be taken?
Meanwhile have a read through all my BBC links and quotes, and weep.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:48 AM

says one of society's problems.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:38 AM

People like B***d are part of the problem, not the solution.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:36 AM

Any organisation which lends support to Russell B***d does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:13 AM

Keith A of Hertford has dismissed reali as a left leaning plot where military history is concerned.

What do you expect?

He judges everything by its source.

Presumably, today he will be sat hearing someone mumble from the bible, putting their slant on the gospels. He sticks to 2,000 year old superstition but has a pop at anybody reading anything written over forty years ago.

The only amazing bit about all this is how he keeps coming back for more.

Still, keeps me chuckling.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:46 AM

That is simply the hypertext. Did you get no further than the description in Google? It is worthwhile reading the actual page about us. As has already been pointed out though, why should the politics matter? You have said that you will believe historians and Dominic Alexander is a historian. You have still not told us what is wrong with the work of other historians mentioned.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:38 AM

What if this is the case - are extremist rightists like yourself the only ones with a valid point of view Brave New World
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:20 AM

Counterfire Home Page - Counterfire
www.counterfire.org/
Counterfire version 3.0 'Counterfire is a revolutionary socialist news and theory website, from the movements, for the movements.'

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:24 PM

...and what about Douglas Newton who does not appear on the same 'left wing site', has been reviewed in the 'popular press' and is a historian? We have not yet seen how you will discount his views.

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

he only appears on the site of a revolutionary socialist site.

I could be wrong but this seems to allude to 'Counterfire'. In the sites own words: On International Women's Day 2010 we launched a new political organisation called Counterfire. Its first publication was A Feminist Manifesto for the 21st Century, written by Lindsey German, the convenor of Stop the War Coalition, in collaboration with activist and author Nina Power.

Do you really believe this is a 'revolutionary socialist site', Keith? I think you need to get a grip on reality.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:49 PM

Sorry, premature ejaculation of the point I was making! What about Douglas Newton. What is wrong with his work? Apart form it does not fit your theory?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:46 PM

"We know nothing else about him." We do know that he is an historian and he disagrees with your views. You have already admitted that historians know more than you do. Does that not suffice?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:42 PM

Cue Freddie Mercury...............

and another one's gone, another one's gone, another one bites the dust

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:38 PM

One for the road:


So tell me, Keith, about this perversion of yours that only the writings of living historians have any validity and that the primary sources and documentation they reference in their studies are vitiated once historians die.

How exactly does that operate? Is some sort of disclaimer published once the death certificate is filed? Or does everyone inherently know to disregard them once they pass over to the spirit world?

Are the works of Tacitus and Herodotus rubbish?

When your hero Max Hastings dies, will HIS writings become invalid?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:31 PM

Your man is not just Left Wing, he only appears on the site of a revolutionary socialist site.
We know nothing else about him.

Jim, they are all mainstream leading historians.
Which ones have I left out.
If none, then they all reject your views.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:27 PM

"Jim, I have quoted a number of actual historians in their own words"
You threw in a couple of unlinked and unqualified quote, none of which in any way covered the arguments here.
Not only have you totally failed to establish a consensus among histoorians, you have not even shown there is a significant minority.
Two of your 'historians' have said that "the popular view of history needs to be changed" which is tantamount to admitting that their own arguments are those of the minority.
But there again, you'll never know that until you actually read a book.
So far, you have not given one piece of information that you haven't desperately searched out from the net - not one.
Nothing has come from your own knowledge, nothjing scanned from a book you might own.... all trawled from the net
Neither of you disgusting pair have the bottle to even address the insult of holding arms fairs and mis-spending £20m on glass poppies, and both of you have described soldiers who fought in the war as "liarsd"
What kind of people are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:23 PM

Apologies if something similar is seen earlier or appears later but my last post seems to have fell down a hole. So the views of Dominic Alexander can be discounted because he is a member of a left wing organisation and his books have not been reviewed. Is that it? OK, how about Douglas Newton, who has been reviewed by Dominic Alexander and by the Guardian. He writes articles, as does Mr Alexander, and, as far as I know, he does not belong to any left wing organisation. He is, however, anti-war and Australian. Does that mean he is not to be believed either? The view that all historians are in agreement with you is wearing somewhat thin, Keith. You are trying to exclude those who are dead, those who are left wing and those who have not yet been reviewed now. Have you any idea how many historians there actually are? Of those, how many are left wing, right wing or completely apolitical? I suspect not but, just reading things that agree with your views is not the way to 'win'. Which is what you seem to want.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:17 PM

I suppose it's like saying, "Martin Carthy can't be a singer / guitarist, I haven't seen him on X Factor."

😹

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

NOTE: for "kevin" please read "Keith".

ALSO, Keith, reviewers of books in the "mainstream media" often aren't historians and/or also don't know diddly about the subject of the book they're reviewing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:56 PM

radical far Left organisation

Sigh. Same old crap.

I can't find any reviews of his book.

It may come as a shock to you, Kevin, but there IS a world outside the Internet. Try a library. You might ask for periodicals that review books.

These are historians whose books are reviewed in the mainstream media

There are indeed! But "popular historians" are often not the all-knowing paragons you seem to think they are, and their works are sometimes more entertainment than they are sound history. Try the academic historians, who have the training to research and present their findings properly.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:29 PM

How would we know Musket?
Apart from that radical far Left organisation Counterfire, there is no record of him.
I can't find any reviews of his book.

Jim, I have quoted a number of actual historians in their own words saying that the war was necessary, the people agreed and the army was competently led.

These are historians whose books are reviewed in the mainstream media, who publish articles and are interviewed in the mainstream media, and are published and broadcast by BBC.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:52 AM

Have you checked to see if he has kicked the bucket yet?

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:45 AM

Another good article by Mr Alexander here:10 lies told about WW1.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:17 AM

Here is another Historian who disagrees with Keith's list. Dominic Alexander. Wonder how he will be discounted?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:13 AM

My apologies, Em Gee Emm Lyin'- make that two years old.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:12 AM

I think the moderator found an excellent rhyme, leading them to delete my post.

I look at it this way. If that particular rhyme didn't drift into their head, they wouldn't have deleted it. 😹😹😹

Sadly, I am going to have to make up what happened when Keith refereed the 1914 footie match. There was a contemporaneous record, by Private AJP Taylor, but apparently that is dubious now..

🐴🐴🚬🚬⚽️⚽️🍻🍻

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:10 AM

No answer, then to my perfectly reasonable question, as to the basis of accusations made against me by the forum's universally held-in-contempt #1 shit-stirring pain·in·the·arse. Just more typical true-to-form unsubstantiated abuse.

So time for a repeat:-

☝☝☝☝-up: who thinks GregF is a waste of space and a mannerless yobbo? To which might be added a budget full of wind'n'piss and assertive hole·in·the·air idiocies.

≈M & Cleo≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:51 AM

Good argument here that seems to say it far better than I can: Debunkers debunked One other thing I would ask is how many of the documents released many years after the event can be wholly relied on? Is a junior officer of other ranker going to write a true and accurate depiction of his views of the war leadership? I think not.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:46 AM

Have fun acting six years old, EmGee. You're quite good at it.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:40 AM

Well, The historian I mentioned earlier, the one who was consulted on the children's TV series, Horrible Histories. The one dismissed by Keith as not being employed by the BBC but is credited in their TV programs, seems to be quite happy to have the war leadership, particularly early on, portrayed as idiots. Has anyone watched the program yet? The iPlayer link is further up the page. It really is quite good, less than 30 minutes long and shows us that at least one living historian is happy to perpetuate these so called myths that have existed since the middle of the 20th century. Whether it was good leadership or a 'just' war I am not qualified to say. What I do feel qualified to say is that the loss of life on all sides was appalling and to not only attempt to justify it, but also try to tell people it was a good thing, is insulting to the memory of those who were sacrificed and to the intelligence of people who care.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:37 AM

"The findings of a whole new generation of historians are quite different."
You haven't read them so how would you know
You certainly haven't quoted anything they might have said regarding the present discussion
You seem to have cornered the market on parody
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:36 AM

'really can't STAND to be shown to be wrong'
,..,.,

Eh? Wotwotwot. Mewmewmew. Just demonstrate, in terms which a pussikat of 10x your feeble intelligence can understand, where you imagine yourself to have 'shown' my master 'to be wrong', GregoryFatuous, you miaouwing stupid little purr.

≈Cleo·GM≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:33 AM

While remaining polite I hasten to add!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:29 AM

Take a punt might fit

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:18 AM

keith, would "you lose" be appropriate at this point?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:15 AM

Steve stated in his post that he was NOT dismissing then. Clear, precise, unambiguous English.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 09:56 AM

I do not dismiss any historian Steve.
Not being a historian myself, I would be a self obsessed fool if I imagined myself qualified to do that.

The current generation of historians say their findings refute what some of the previous generation said.
Do you dismiss them.
In what way are you qualified to do that?