BS: I am not an historian but........

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 09:35 PM

i notice you can't refute any of what the kid says.

Now, Al, don't confuse Keith with facts and reality. Many before you have tried to teach this particular pig to sing with absolutely no success.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 09:41 PM

There never has been and never will be a final conclusive verdict on the meaning of historical events that draws a line under them. Can't be done.

It's no different in that from anything else in our lives. Why should it be?

To some extent the actual facts of what happened can be provisionally established, but the reasons why they happened, that's another matter. And so is the selection of which facts and which speculations the person telling the story selects. History isn't a science. (And science also is provisional in all its findings.)

It's like imagining you could come up with a definitive account of what Shakedpeare was about in writing Hamlet. Even if you could assemble a definitive text, which of course you can't, that would just be the beginning of an endless journey.

Enjoy the trip, but don't expect to arrive at a final destination.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:40 AM

"history that is from the mouth of someone who was present will not be entirely objective, but it generally is the most accurate."

WRONG the person who is present will only "see" the things he "sees" and "know" the things he was "allowed to know" about any particular event. The person who was present will know absolutely nothing of the enemy side of things. Add to that the variance among those who were present and the comparison of what it was they "saw". Ask any policeman and they will tell you that eye-witness testimony is great if you only have one eye-witness - if you have a busload of twenty you get twenty vastly different accounts of what they "saw".

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:39 AM

They didn't have the advantage of your erudite wit, charm and wisdom I take it?

Put whatever spin on it you like Terribulus but the men on all sides are still dead and the culprits are still incompetent military leaders on all sides.

No better account of what happened tha a fucking huge set of cemeteries eh?

Read the BBC News website article today about commercial interests cashing in on the jingoism and propaganda. If you and your stooge from Hertford are right, we didn't have no need it because;

"The Tommies knew why
They had to go and die
Go! The officers said
But the air was filled with lead

And gas and blood and limbs
And all kinds of horrible things.
Go! The officers said
From their warm feather bed"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,from can't remember when or which discussion
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:49 AM

Teribus - when some of us were kids most of the people on any daytime bus would have had a similar story.

But then, according to you, my grandad was a liar and I am a liar for reporting what he said, and people who were actually their "must be biased".

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:02 AM

Big Al it will come as no surprise whatsoever that I totally disagree with you and your schoolboy historian:

1: 'Sir Douglas Haig was strongly influenced through his time serving as a cavalry officer in the Queens Hussars and it is evident that he employed these cavalry tactics in his strategies. " This influence affected his leader ship in a highly detrimental way and resulted in the loss of numerous lives thus making his leadership throughout WW1 to be poor and ineffective. "

Oh dear, that doesn't really fly in the face of pretty indisputable facts though does it Al? If Haig was so pro-cavalry then care to explain to us why the number and degree of importance of cavalry units within the British Army greatly diminished during the course of the war under Haig's leadership? Please do not get me wrong cavalry were far from useless during the Great War, the British Army's first and last fatalities in the First World War were cavalrymen, it was the role of the cavalry that changed. In the 100 days offensive that ended the war artillery, infantry, armour (Heavy & Light), aircraft and cavalry all played their part. In that 100m days offensive under Haig's command a largely citizen Army that had not existed two years before took on and defeated what was considered to be the most professional and powerful army in the world – I'll say it again just to emphasise the point – All done under Haig's direction and leadership.

2: "This can be seen through the battle of the Somme in which Haig, ordered from his chateau, that men are to be sent in waves over the trenches and charge in an attempt to capture and over run German trenches, this was unsuccessful and resulted in the deaths over 60,000 men."

This is pure "Oh What A Lovely War"/ "Blackadder Goes Forth" History at its worst.   Simplistic and terribly naive and a total travesty of what was actually involved and what drove events:

a) Neither the battle or the location were of Haig's choosing, those factors were forced upon him by his political leaders back home in Britain and by the French.

b) It was supposed to be a massed joint British and French attack on the German positions along the Somme, but because of the losses the French were taking around Verdun only a fraction of the French troops who were supposed to take part in the offensive were deployed. Those who did performed extremely well, the French attack at the south-eastern end met all their objectives.

c) In the north-western end of the attack British forces ran into serious opposition (It was against these that the British Army suffered the highest losses in one day in its entire history) Joffre the French General in overall command ordered Haig to send in more troops to continue these attacks – Haig refused point blank and sent reinforcements to the sections of his line that were making progress (By the way Al your schoolboy historian got it wrong, he's slightly muddled, the battle of the Somme which lasted from August until November resulted in a damn sight more dead than 60,000, I think he is trying to over dramatise the first day in which the British Army suffered ~60,000 casualties of whom ~19,500 died)

d) At the end of 1916, the year the German Commander Falkenhayn tried to "bleed the Allies White", it was he who was dismissed, it was the German Armies on the Western Front who had lost all their best troops, it was German morale that had suffered and it marked the dawning of realisation by the German High Command that they were not going to defeat either the British or the French on the Western Front.

3. "The industrial revolution brought about the production of gun and ammunition in large quantity's this turn changed the nature of warfare and very much saw the end of sword and cavalry battle."

No it didn't. The industrial revolution as it was called started sometime in the middle of the 18th century and lasted to sometime in the middle of the 19th century, so not many marks for wee Alex Jenkins there then. The last major bust up in Europe before the First World War was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which was very much a war movement involving cavalry, infantry, artillery and railways. While Germany had prepared for the First World War for decades, Great Britain in 1914 had not and it took Great Britain from 1914 to the middle of 1916 to get its act together. In August 1914 Kitchener told the Cabinet in no uncertain terms that the war would be prolonged (His estimate at least 3 to 4 years) and that Britain would have to raise armies the sizes of which had never been seen before. It was Kitchener, not Lloyd George, who did the spade work to put Great Britain's industrial base on a war footing and it was Kitchener who raised and trained Great Britain's first citizen army

4: "Haig's leader ship and approach towards warfare was highly out dated as he was not aware of the demands of the advancement with in warfare. Haig quoted in 1915 " The machine gun is a much over rated weapon" through this quote we can see Haig's inability to see the significance of the advanced weaponry with in the war and in turn making his leadership in WW1 detrimental."

Quite strange then that he commanded and oversaw the most marked changes in military thinking in over 100 years within the space of two years. It was under his command that tanks were first used, that aircraft took over the role of reconnaissance from the cavalry, that the British Army started deploying and using heavy artillery in the field. It was under Haig that tactics were continually developed and improved to overcome the obstacles faced and implement the lessons learned from previous failures. It was under Haig's direction that the number of cavalry units was reduced and that heavy machine gun Companies were raised – Doesn't sound like the actions of a man incapable of seeing the significance of advanced weaponry does it? By the way Al just for your information and for your schoolboy pal Alex Jenkins a little statistic relating to the Somme – The life expectancy of a machine gun crew facing an attack on the Somme once they started firing was measured in minutes.

5: "Haig's leadership was also in part affective due to his inability to be present with in the front-line, and his lack of experience with in trench war far. Haig gave commands from a chateau located behind the front line, this is turn meant that he could not make effective and justified decisions in the best of interest of the war and his troops. Historians will argue that if in fact Haig was present on the front line then his decision's and his leader ship may have be significantly better.'

As a criticism and a contention the above is utterly ridiculous if you look at what was required and the scope and scale of operations. The same "criticism" could be levelled against every General who fought in the First World War. One interesting point that shows the author's total lack of grasp is demonstrated by – " his lack of experience with in trench warfare" - I would love to know from Alex Jenkins who did have experience in trench warfare in and before 1914 – Don't struggle too hard son, the answer is nobody.

Haig had great faith in his Corps and Divisional Commanders and gave them great latitude in the execution of their orders. Men such as Plumer, Rawlinson, Gough, Currie, Hobart and Monash proved themselves to be far superior to their opposite numbers in the German and French Armies and under their planning, preparation and leadership the method of all arms integrated warfare was created in a form that is still recognizable and relevant today, used for the first time at Messines in 1917 it was last demonstrated in Iraq in 2003.

6: " the kid seems to have a clearer insight than your experts. common sense tells us that Haig had fucked it up so badly that the only answer was the sheer number of American troops that pulled his chestnuts out of the fire."

Absolutely hilarious Al, absolutely hilarious. Great Britain's casualties on the first day of the Somme outnumbered the total US tally for those killed in action during the entire course of the First World War. The sheer number of American troops you refer to, arrived in Europe with no rifles, with no machine guns, with no helmets, with no artillery, no ammunition, no tanks, no transport and no aircraft – all of those things had to be supplied by the British and the French.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:12 AM

" GUEST,from can't remember when or which discussion - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:49 AM

Teribus - when some of us were kids most of the people on any daytime bus would have had a similar story.

But then, according to you, my grandad was a liar and I am a liar for reporting what he said, and people who were actually their "must be biased"."

Now where did I ever claim or state any of that?

Not First World War I know but here is an example of what I said about "people who were there" not getting it quite right:

Ask any of those waiting to be plucked off the beaches of Dunkirk in 1940 about the RAF and most would have told you that they didn't turn up, that the RAF deserted the Army. That was their impression as they witnessed events. The truth? The RAF mounted a massive effort over the period of the evacuation they lost 145 fighters in the process. The Luftwaffe on the other hand lost 156 over the same period. OK you tell me were those eye-witness statements correct?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:28 AM

@ Teribus Now where did I ever claim or state any of that?

Here:

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

"yes I do believe that GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM is a liar and that his story is a fairy tale."

A tip - don't ever call people liars to their face. They tend to remember and may get angry.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:21 AM

Yes GUEST I do believe that the story told was a complete and utter fabrication and I stated my reasons for me believing it to be so.

Same thread read:

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

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:55 AM

That's fine. I was just letting the current discussion know that it was not only Keith who dismissed inconvenient first hand accounts as lies.

The context was a first hand account supplemented by information from a '50 years on' documentary.

Ask the people who would have said "where is the RAF" while on the beaches what they would say after seeing an account of the full story. Ask the soldiers interviewed by 'embedded' reporters during the Falkland's conflict who complained about the lack of air support when being bombed what they would say afterwards they knew how
the Harriers were being used.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:11 AM

There are hundreds of thousands of first hand accounts resarched by historians.
They tell us they overwhelmingly supported the war and the army.
Obviously some did not, but we are told they were a minority.
It does not make those accounts lies.

History is not about "fashion."
It evolves as new information is processed.
Some here dismiss all historians except the long dead, whose knowledge has been superceded.
Knowledge and history has moved on since the 60s.
There are no historians challenging those three statements.

Please do not deny that without finding one!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:33 AM

That's fine. I was just letting the current discussion know that it was not only Keith who dismissed inconvenient first hand accounts as lies."

I have dismissed one anonymous GUEST's story as a fabrication and gave my reasons for believing it to be so.

"The context was a first hand account supplemented by information from a '50 years on' documentary."

A 50 years on documentary still considered to be the best documentary on the Great War ever made and littered throughout with interviews with men who had participated in the various actions who gave their first hand accounts - first hand accounts that were at total variance to the feelings expressed by anonymous GUEST's relative. He asked what the people who took part in the Great War thought - I directed him to the documentary.

"Ask the people who would have said "where is the RAF" while on the beaches what they would say after seeing an account of the full story.

And when do you think that they would have got that story? How long after the event? My take on it would be quite a long time after as the british Government in June 1940 would not be too keen on advertising how many fighter aircraft and pilots they had lost to the enemy.

"Ask the soldiers interviewed by 'embedded' reporters during the Falkland's conflict who complained about the lack of air support when being bombed what they would say afterwards they knew how the Harriers were being used."

In the Falklands the ground troops exposure to aerial attack was extremely slight, Argentine air attacks concentrated more on anti-shipping strikes. The most serious incident being the attacks on the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristrum - Had the Officers commanding the Household Troops embarked on those vessels followed the advice given them by their Royal Marine Amphibious Warfare Liaison Officer then there would have been no losses at all in Bluff Cove. All through the Falklands War the troops on the ground knew that if they called in for ground support (Fast Jet or NGS) they got it. Over half of the Argentine ground attack aircraft were taken out on the ground and they played little or no part in the battle.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:14 AM

"They tell us they overwhelmingly supported the war and the army."
You act as if you have read them - can you link us to them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:20 AM

I can link you to the historians who have read them.
Actually, I already have.
They tell us they overwhelmingly supported the war and the army.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:36 AM

"There are no historians challenging those three statements."

That was four statements, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:38 AM

See my post to the "Lovely War" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:59 AM

But every historian that is put up to challenge your view, Keith, is dismissed as either left wing, not well known enough or, errr, too dead, for their views to be valid. How on earth can anyone cite challenging views if you dismiss them? Historians do not dismiss earlier research but build and enhance the overall picture. There is no one single view of 'the historians'. You know all this already but for the sake of Guest# who has joined the part late please let us know why the views of, for instance, AJP Taylor, Douglas Newton and Niall Ferguson should be discounted.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:06 AM

Untrue Guest.
No-one has produced a single living historian who disagrees with me.
Ask yourself why.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:10 AM

Niall Ferguson does believe that it was a mistake to resist the German invasions.
he thinks that the Germans would have left us alone and we could have kept our Empire.
He is very Right Wing.
I have acknowledged his view on that and have posted about it.
I think he is on his own.
He does not contradict my view that the people supported the war and the army was well led.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:13 AM

Untrue Keith.
I produced a very much alive Dominic Alexander who very much disagrees with you.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:15 AM

Douglas Newton, as I have said, has only written about the complex situation before the war.
There are many opinions on what might have been and could have happened in those times.
I have expressed no opinion about all that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:29 AM

So, we are now down to 2 of your three views are supported by all living historians? Apart from those who do not support the other two views for some other reason? So, all living historians support your three views is a bit of an exaggeration? Maybe you should modify it to most living historians who are now making a living by publishing popular works support your views. I, for one, could accept that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:30 AM

All we know about him is that he is a revolutionary activist.
Do you know anything else about him?
He has published no books on WW1.
What has he written?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:35 AM

http://www.cbc.ca/books/2014/08/what-we-got-wrong-about-wwi.html

That is a very good article by Gwynne Dyer. The focus is Canada and WW I, but it has some pithy remarks about the war in general.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:36 AM

Niall Ferguson dismisses the elephant in the room in as much that he assumed that the subsequent peace treaty between France and Germany after a swift German victory in 1914/1915 would have been similar to that negotiated after the Franco-Prussian War 44 years before.

Had Great Britain remained neutral in 1914 the map of Europe and of the world would have changed markedly with a German victory over France:

1: Belgium having resisted would have been annexed by Germany

2: With the Belgian ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge in German hands that would put German Battleships within four hours steaming of a position from which they could bombard London.

3: Germany would end this offensive in western Europe with a fully mobilised army of some 3.25 million men and Great Britain would still have her Army of 440,000. Any move on the part of Great Britain to upgrade her military preparedness by increasing the size of her Army would be seen as a provocation by Germany.

4: Germany would annex the colonies and overseas possessions of both France and Belgium. Germany could them resume fomenting trouble in neighbouring British colonies and overseas possessions, just as she had done in South Africa during the Boer War.

In 1914 Great Britain faced the choice of fighting Germany alongside powerful allies. Had Great Britain stayed out of the war as recommended by Niall Ferguson then Great Britain and her Empire would have been destroyed within ten years. Sir Edward Grey and the rest of the British Government saw that in 1914 and acted accordingly in the best national interest of Great Britain and her Empire.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:36 AM

most living historians who are now making a living by publishing popular works support your views. I, for one, could accept that.

Well, you shouldn't except it, Guest - even that is complete BS.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM

"Do you know anything else about him?"

Yes, he is a living historian and he disagrees with your views. Something you said does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM

Guest, I have always acknowledged Ferguson's view.
Because of who he is and what he stands for, the Lefties do not quote him.

So to be pedantic, one single far right historians does think we should have kept out of the war, otherwise no single living historian disagrees with any of my three views.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:43 AM

See what I mean Guest#?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:52 AM

No, I think it is fair enough Greg F. I am no big fan of most things 'pop' but I can accept that it is the best thing for many people. If popular opinion if what floats Keith boat it is fine by me but he should be honest enough to say so rather than use the hyperbolic 'all historians support my view'.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:58 AM

It is not hyperbolic, it is a fact.
The views I have quoted are supported by all living historians, except that one far right Tory disagrees with one view only.

Not poular opinion, learned opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM

And the left wing one that disagrees with the other views. I was using hyperbolic rather than untrue out of kindness.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:03 AM

The views I have quoted are supported by all living historians

You really can't see how entirely idiotic, moronic,and ridiculous that statemant is, can you, Keith?

So: please supply us with a list of all living historians.

Can't do it? Then shut the frack up.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:10 AM

Anyone who thinks the Kaiser would have been a good chap after a victory over France should consider what his government did to Russia after the victory there in 1917.

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is little known in the West because it was annulled by the German defeat in 1918.

According to the conservative American historian Spencer Tucker, "The German General Staff had formulated extraordinarily harsh terms that shocked even the German negotiator."

Germany demanded (and got) the cession of nearly 400,000 square miles of Russian territory, about 25% of the national population, and 90% of the coal mines. Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Finland became either part of Germany or came under German military protection.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:12 AM

I am also quite happy to accept Keith's theory on the basis that it is just a theory. There has been an analogy used in the scientific world for how theories work, based on sheep. If you have only ever seen white sheep you can very safely theorise that all sheep are white. Keith has only ever read histories that agree with the views he is espousing so it is indeed a safe theory that all historians hold the same view. Of course theories cannot be proved as it is unknown whether something outside your current knowledge, IE the black sheep, does exist. The theory can be disproved by producing the black sheep but, unfortunately, in Keith's case when the black sheep is produced he changes the definition of what a sheep is. Sad really.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:13 AM

Guest, life does have its difficulties at times :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:30 AM

Keith has only ever read histories that agree with the views he is espousing

Close, but no cigar, Guest. Kieth has never actually read complete works by ANY historians. He has read book reviews, on-line blogs, and commentary by others about what a limited number of popular "Historians"[sic] have written.

Doubly sad.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:33 AM

Here is a good resource - 1-12 of 17,064 results for Books : "history of the first world war"

There is only just short over 17,000 works. If only 10% of the authors are alive you only have 1,700 books to read to confirm that all living historians support your views, Keith. Of course it could be more or less than 10% and then we are only talking ones on sale by Amazon. It should keep you busy for a while though and when you can confirm that all those support your views we can start on the ones not sold by Amazon.

See you in a few years

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:37 AM

Agreed about the sheep guest. But I think a scientist would want to see all sheep that were readily seen, and to check that they reaaly were all sheep, and would not know that making whiteness part of specification for being a sheep would prohibit the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:39 AM

Sorry "would know that making whiteness"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:17 AM

Greg, I have been reading histories and accounts of that war all my life.
That is how I am so sure of the historians' position now.

I have quoted many historians including all the well known ones.
However many I quote you will not be satisfied.

There are very many that do, but not one has been found by any of you that disagrees.
Ask yourself why that is Greg.

You have all had over a year to find one.
The conclusion must be that there are none.

Until you find some, I will continue to claim all living historians.

Keith has only ever read histories that agree with the views he is espousing
That is true because I have failed to find a single book that does not.
No-one else has found one either.
Ask yourselves why not.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:29 AM

they can't be arsed, co you're well known as a contentious soul who thinks the sun has never set on the british Empire...?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:30 AM

Still waiting for yourlist of all living historians, Keith. Get on it, will ya?

There is only just short over 17,000 works.
Sorry, Guest, but Keith didn't say living historians of the first world war. He said "ALL LIVING HISTORIANS". Better increase that list by a factor of 1,000 or so.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:36 AM

Al, why do you say that about me?
What have I ever said to justify it.
All I have done here is say what the history books now say.
I am sorry if things are tough for you right now and hope they improve.
Try not to drive away your friends.

Greg, I could not read even a hundred books.
I have read very many historians and have failed to find one that disagrees with those views.
You have failed too.
So has everyone else.
Ask yourself why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:01 PM

How's that list coming, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:36 PM

lets be fair Keith. its not unknown for you get into intense discussions with every leftie/ Irish nationalist on the site and demand truth and proof, where none could ever exist. its a bit like Jim Carro;; with is endless litany - well what is folk music if its not the 1954 definition? however often we say we don't want folk music defined - if someone comes into our folk club with something that delights -its good enough for us, Jim won't have it. there has to be a definition as far as he's concerned.

lets take this present case. let us suppose that Haig had the tactical skill of Julius Caesar, the sagacity of Talleyrand, the brilliance of Henry V at Agincourt. let us suppose all these blokes describing themselves as historians are not just jumping on the latest fashionable nonsense.

you would still be in the wrong. what you are doing is akin to going into a synagoguue and saying Hitler was the greatest friend to world Jewry. after all he had precipitated the setting up the state of Israel. you would be offending a racial memory.

the sacred racial memory of our race is the young men who were mown down by machine guns, and submitted bravely to this gross abuse. ...

the next generation won't give a shit. but we grew up with the survivors. the white crosses and the cenotaph and the poppies won't mean so much, if anything. perhaps they will ready for your truths. we're not.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:50 PM

Keith has only ever read histories that agree with the views he is espousing
That is true because I have failed to find a single book that does not.

Can you not even see that your response is false logic in itself. Is it you have failed to find a single book that does not or that you hold those views that because you have not yet found a book that disagrees. How many histories of WW1 have you read? What is that as a percentage of the 17000 that are listed on Amazon? Do you believe that to be a fair sample of 'all historians'.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:52 PM

And well said, Al.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:58 PM

The problem is Al, let's assume for a moment that he is right. Just suppose.

You'd have to airbrush a hell of a lot out of history in order for his two points to stand; those of good competent leadership and a population in command of the facts before rallying to the cause.

The huge casualties, documentation of the strategy of sending men over the top after it was shown that tactic didn't work. The diverting of resource into red top military police to ensure men went over the top gives the lie to knowing the cause and reasons. Ditto huge numbers of court Martials giving out death sentences, twenty or so of which were carried out.

The white feathers, the jingoistic media, the propaganda preaching politicians.




You'd have to get rid of all those before the contentious fashionable revisionists Keith idolises have something that could pass the slightest scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:11 PM

John Keegan though Haig just wasn't such a great leader.