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

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 09:31 PM

don't be mean minded Jim. Keith has won.

i feel he should treat us all to a drink to celebrate his victory. mines a Talisker. i take paypal.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 01:34 AM

I don't ave to scurry behind the names of historians as you have done,

You can't Jim, because not one single historian still believes your discredited myths!

And I have not "invented opinions," I have quoted the historians' own words.

I have endured months of ridicule and insult just for repeating what all the historians say.
Your case is that they are all deluded or lying.
It is your case that is ridiculous.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 01:44 AM

the number of times you have been forced to write "I win"

That would be none Jim.
I have just given you the findings of the historians.
No great achievement.

I have not won.
You have lost.
You have closed you eyes and ears to all the evidence to keep you mind closed.
You have to believe those myths because of your other beliefs.
You have ridiculed and insulted me just for giving you the straight facts.
I did not win.
You lost.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:18 AM

Makes a change from "I win, you lose."

I wonder if Keith read one of his own posts by accident and squirmed at the sanctimonious pomposity of his words?

Come to think about it, perhaps not. He still reckons he is right. So not a revelation after all.

I'll not bother getting a Talisker from him though. I reckon I could get one on the same principle from that bloke on Doncaster market who shouts at lamp posts.

👅

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:49 AM

This is one of several occasions Keith has wrecked threads by hiding behind doctored and invented quotes from historians he hasn't read
His stonewalling war of attrition, his pesonsl rule-making (only living historians, for Christ's sake, what historians handbook did that come from?) and his egotistical desire to "win" just drives the topics into the ground.
I suggest that this should be the last time he is allowed to get away with it and that, if he should resort to it again he should be boycotted.
It adds nothing to our knowledge of these topics and it certainly destroys any pleasure the rest of us might get out of them - it really is no fun taunting the village idiot interminably.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 05:45 AM

yeh....still its Christmas.

goodwill to all men and all that swaddling....you know what Jesus said . love thine enemy. everybody loves their friends -even the Philistines do as much.

I always got more sense out of the man that shouts at lamp posts than those buggers in the Music Ground.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

He sends on his regards

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

I have not won.
You have lost.

Is it one of those Zen things? The sound of one hand clapping and all that? Or maybe like the new non-competitive sports at schools, except instead of no-one losing, no-one wins. Whatever it is, I'll have a pint of what he is on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 11:44 AM

From Keith,


"I have not won.
You have lost.
You have closed you eyes and ears to all the evidence to keep you mind closed.
You have to believe those myths because of your other beliefs.
You have ridiculed and insulted me just for giving you the straight facts.
I did not win.
You lost. "

So very, very true....."liberalism" is ruled and driven by mythology, and twisted fraudulent ideology. George Orwell had it right, they will rewrite the language, redefine society in their own image.....truth no longer exists, now truth is weighed by which version makes the best TV comedy.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 12:20 PM

YOU LOSE

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 12:25 PM

You'd be first up against the wall.

Any chance of Keith clarifying whether he is comfortable with being aligned with Akenaton's interpretation of being against "liberalism?"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 12:33 PM

hiding behind doctored and invented quotes from historians he hasn't read

Now you revert to lying.
The quotes were given with links to the source.
Not doctored or invented, but the historians in their own words.

You people could not find one single hostorian who still believes those old discredited myths you cling to.

Unless all the historians are deluded or lying, then you people are.
Unless all the historians are deluded or lying, you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

Makes no difference whether Keith agrees of not.....I presume he is a proper liberal.

However, the tactics employed by pseudo liberals are obvious, and very evident in "team Musket" posts.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 01:03 PM

Thought not.


A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words
Dr Winston O'Boogie



Still. This thread might be over by Xmas. After all, everybody on Mudcat knows why we are here, what we need to do and all agree with the bosses, whose leadership is beyond reproach. Especially in knowing what to moderate.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 02:03 PM

Teribus is silent, Keith. You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 02:55 PM

You are the ones who denigrates women, by your obscenities.

I would certainly never describe any of your fraudulent gang as "well adjusted members of society." :0)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:09 PM

"The quotes were given with links to the source."
Edited - see Clark - Taylor stunt
"You people could not find one single hostorian who still believes those old discredited myths you cling to."
Total lie - you rejected them because they were either dead or left wing.
"Unless all the historians are deluded or lying, then you people are"
AS you refuse to link us to those who you claim bck up your case - another lie I'm afraid.
"I would certainly never describe any of your fraudulent gang as "well adjusted members of society."
Not bad, from someone who obsessively hates homosexuals and Liberals and informed us that Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik "had a point that should be listened to".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:11 PM

Closing time?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:49 PM

Steve, Lighter and Teribus both agreed with my points and their knowledge of the history and historiography was greater than that of anyone here, myself included.

Gratifying though that was, my case was just that all historians agree my points and none support you.
And that is the case.

Jim, you lied "hiding behind doctored and invented quotes from historians he hasn't read"
If it is not a lie, produce one.
Confident prediction, you never will.

I have been scrupulously accurate with each historian quote.
You lie.

I did refer to, not quote, some Guardian hack.
He dismissed those old discredited historians with two separate words.
I only referenced one, which did not change the meaning one iota.
I only put it in for your interest as Guardian readers.
It was not a historian and not a quote, so no part of my case anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Jim,
AS you refuse to link us to those who you claim bck up your case

Are you not ashamed to lie so blatantly.
I just gave you linked quotes of Margaret Macmillan supporting each of my three points and stating that the new generation of historians had exploded that generalisiation of the leaders as incompetent.

I also gave linked quotes of William Philpott also confirming my points.

Do you want to see them again?
You could then lie about them again.

Subject: MRE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 04:08 PM

You don't know what my position is, Keith, so you can hardly come up with anyone who "opposes" me. You simply can't know. And you did misquote the Guardian article because you put your chosen altered extract into speech marks. You do that only when you want to quote verbatim, not just "refer" to the article. And your verbatim quote was a lie because it was not what the man said or meant. You simply can't be believed or trusted, can you, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 05:38 PM

The only word I put in quotes was "fraudulent" which was one of the words used, but my case is about historians not hacks.

Re your position, I did assume that you disagree with me.
If I was wrong, welcome aboard.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 06:17 PM

I would make the same point, Keith. I believe you tried to purposely mislead people with your reference to the Guardian quote. If it was not for Steve Shaw's vigilance you would have got away with it. You do yourself no favours trying to justify or deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 06:25 PM

BTW - We can all use selective quotes to try and prove a point. On of your pet historians says that most people did not know what they were volunteering for here.

The particular quote I am referring to is "Soldiers progressed alongside the evolution of warfare between 1915 and 1918. Most went into service with an outdated impression of warfare as heroic and dynamic yet ultimately found themselves becoming, essentially, technicians."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 07:42 PM

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

There ya go, planet Earth. What Keith said. Now, lest we forget, it wasn't "the Guardian". It was an occasional Guardian columnist. And that columnist referred only to a work of Clark's as fraudulent. It referred to a work of Taylor's as rather vulgar. By no stretch of the imagination was there even the slightest reference to Taylor as "fraudulent". Now please read that quote of Keith's, above, again. Keith has stoutly defended his quote by means of all manner of twists and turns. Keith is a very dishonest man who is incapable of confronting his error. In fact, he seems to be ploughing on as if, in some perverse way, the error strengthens his case. Well all I can do is present the facts here, all of which are checkable and all of which I stand by. Keith, you are a thoroughly discredited liar. Back down and oblige us all with a spell of silence, please.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 07:59 PM

That last post was a little on the serious side, but you know me. Always looking for a bit of levity. So let's contemplate for a moment Keith's relegating of his vaunted Guardian columnist's authoritative and elevated status to that of mere, dismissable and dispensable hackdom. Gosh, how Keith can shed his friends!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 09:43 PM

i think an element of cheating has entered. keith definitely won. the judge's decision is final.

make that a double on ice with a cocktail cherry, and side order of honey roasted nuts.

the blokes who ran the first world war were really clever. fucking brilliant, in fact.

i never doubted them for a moment.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:43 AM

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

He did describe one as fraudulent and used a different disparaging word for the other.
He disparaged both.
I did not change the meaning, and a link had been given anyway.

My case is about historians not hacks anyway.

Guest, of course no-one knew exactly what the new kind of warfare was like before they got there, but the historians say that the people and soldiers overwhelmingly supported the war until the end and long after.

So what is your position Steve?
You did ridicule me for my three points.
Was I (all the historians) wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:00 AM

My original reference.
The link had been provided earlier that same day.

Keith A of Hertford- PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Now the perception of the Great War that had formed in the late 1920s was strengthened all over again. Working-class lads had been sent like sheep to the slaughter by brutal and stupid generals, callously indifferent to the suffering they inflicted, a theme played much later and with repellent facetiousness by Blackadder. The upper classes as a whole stood condemned for wanton bloodshed."

"The military historian Max Hastings has suggested that ...."

"Not only is our reverence for the "good war" a sentimental misprision, our generation is exceptionally ill-placed to deride or condemn those who fought in the Great War. This is a worse than usual case of the condescension of posterity. The idea that the upper class sacrificed the sons of the poor is plainly untrue. A junior officer on the western front was three times more likely to be killed than a private soldier, and the 21,000 British dead on 1 July 1916, the first day of the Somme, included 30 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel or above.

One little-remembered detail of the Great War is that between 1914 and 1918 no fewer than 22 sitting members of parliament were killed in action – a fraction of the MPs who served. There were 85 sons of MPs killed, including the eldest son of Herbert Asquith, the Liberal prime minister when the war began, and two sons of Andrew Bonar Law, the Tory leader of the opposition."

"Maybe there is no such thing as a good war, but there may be necessary wars, and a case can be made for 1914 as well as 1939, "

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:51 AM

Guest, of course no-one knew exactly what the new kind of warfare was like before they got there, but the historians say that the people and soldiers overwhelmingly supported the war until the end and long after.

I am sure you will correct me if the wording is wrong but one of your three points was that people overwhelmingly supported the war because they were not stupid was it not? Well, how can they support the war without knowing what the new kind of warfare was like without being stupid? It's pretty much like saying you support a political party but do not know what their policies are.

And vulgar still does not mean fraudulent no matter how many times you say it is the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:12 AM

"My original reference."
That's what I said, your claim that Taylor and Clark were fakes was a lie.
"The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."
"I just gave you linked quotes of Margaret Macmillan"
You have been claiming thoughout the latter half of this that you have proved a consensus amng historians - Choosing MacMillian proves no such think WHERE IS YOUR CONSENSUS?
THROUGHOUT THIS, YOU HAVE BASED YOUR ENTIRE CASE THE IDEA THAT ALL HISTORIANS AGREE (your phrase) AND THE NONSENSICAL IDEA THAT ONE GENERATION OF HISTORIANS HAVE SUPERCEDED ANOTHER IN AN ANALYSIS OF THE WAR - UTTER NONSENSE.
10 VIEWS OF THE WAR
There is no one view of the war - your own handful of historians have stated that in their own description of their objectives "to correct the popular misconceptions.
Tou prsent your six as a monolith - all agreeing with each other - most have described the war as a conflict of Empires, one has suggested it was a a fight against Germany tyranny, some have said it was inevitable, yet one historian, in his book 'Sleepwalkers, says it could have been avoided with diplomacy.
MacMillan points out that it is wrong to blame any any one single power, others have made similar points........ and so ad infinitum.
Fra from their being one view, there are dozens
You have made a set of rules suggesting that no dead historian can be trusted and you have written off historians, not on the basis of their being wrong, but because they are dead - understandable in your case, as you have read none of them and have not offered a single piece of information that you haven't hastily cut-'n-pasted and presented out of context and occasionally doctored.
One again you have fucked up an intesting discussion with your ignorance, your arrogance, your outright dishonesty and above all, your desire to win.
You treat these discussions as one-upmanship competitions and once again, you have managed to make a total idiot of yourself with hour couple of dozen claims of having done so.
You are one of the most dishonest self-declared Christian I have ever come across - New Year is coming up shortly - perhaps a resolution is in order.
I reiterate my suggestion to all that if you ever indulge in this sewer-like behaviour again with a viw to taking over and destroying another thread, you be boycotted - you are the antithesis of the very concept of honest discussion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:16 AM

I'd give up whilst you are behind if I were you Keith.

You can't say, quote, mislead or cite anything that contradicts the fact that poor leadership and propaganda are the two main issues with WW1.

Far too many graves, far too many false reasons given for filling them. You should read what Jeremy Paxman said about the reasons for war. Or look at actual timelines, there for anybody to see and make up their own minds.

The problem is, most people laughing at you do so because they are capable of reading, viewing and assessing, and coming up with their own slant. You look a fool when you say "the historians" because you make it sound like you should believe what a vicar tells you about God. Blind faith in either sphere is the sign of a shallow mind.

Never mind. Akenaton still loves you, although Terribulus seems to have written to "Dear Deidre" for advice.
😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:19 AM

You are dishonest to the last
The Guardian quote you have just given comes from a tabloid journalist, yet you have rejected quote after quote from the rest of us because "they are not living historians" - are you insane, or do you just believe the rest of us are?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:38 AM

I think I have cottoned on to the rules at last. Little scenario here. I say "Joseph Stalin was really a good guy". Of course every man and their dog jumps up and down on until I modify my standpoint to be "Joseph Stalin had a really good mustache". Whenever anyone jumps up and down on me from then on in I simply link to pictures of Uncle Joe and say "Look - everyone agrees that he had a great 'tache. The rest of you must be idiots. You lose!"

Yay! Sorted :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:06 AM

Just about sums up Keith's historical method
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:15 AM

Jim you have just linked to "ten views of the war."

In fact it is "ten leading historians" including Hastings and Sheffield, on who was to blame.
Not one singles out Britain and most exonerate Britain.

Irrelevant anyway because I expressed no opinion about events before August 1914.

Guest, who the fuck are you to call those men stupid?
There had never been such a war.
It was entirely new.
They overwhelmingly continued to support the war as experienced soldiers.

All my claims are supported by the historians.
There are none who challenge those claims, so ridicule is misplaced.

Unless all the historians are deluded, you are.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:27 AM

I didn't call the 'those men' stupid, Keith. But someone certainly is.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

I recall Keith berating me for using the f.. Word.

By the way, when you write, try to be consistent Keith.. It isn't Max Hastings the military historian, its Max Hastings the newspaper hack who makes donations to the conservative party. After all, thats how you refer to historians with other political views.

You started linking historian credibility with other factors, not us. I see a Corporal Jones moment coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:35 AM

"Hastings and Sheffield, on who was to blame."
Hastings is not the "qualified historian" you have demanded from the rest of us - proof enough of your dishonest attitude
Neither is the author of your Guardian article - further proof.
"Not one singles out Britain and most exonerate Britain"
Neither do most of them single out any other nation - as you have claimed.
"and most exonerate Britain."
No they don't - most have not mentioned blame, MacMillan says it is wrong to apportion it, as have others.
You have claimed the war was against "German tyranny - the product of a century old war propaganda, not historical analysis   
"Irrelevant anyway because I expressed no opinion about events before August 1914."
s the causes war of war have been dated to events as far back as 1905 by historians, you have no basis for claiming who was to blame - yet you persist in doing so - why?
The point in ll this is you have no view of your own other thn "the establishment is never wrong"
You have gathered disparate and often contradictory quotes, one from one historian and one from another and all out of context, cobbled them all together, rejected all contrary opinions as "invalid", and on this basis, claimed a 'consensus of view' on the war.
There is no consensus (your revisionists have said that themselves by describing themselves as "correcting the popular view) - this is why you still refuse to link us to your evidence that there is one.
"who the fuck are you to call those men stupid"
He/she didn't - you are the one who treats those who disagree with you as stupis, both in word and attitude.
Who the fuck are you to claim "we lose" and you win when you and your little band of brother#s (which includes a ravig homophobic anti-liberal who supports the views of the views of a mass-murdering fascist) stand alone in this argument - you have no other supporters here yet you treat us all as - what's your favourite word - "Muppets".
Prove us wrong simple as that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 06:50 AM

Keith just put

Irrelevant anyway because I expressed no opinion about events before August 1914.

Have you ever thought of going into politics Keith? Notwithstanding your ludicrous claim that everybody knew what was going on and joined up on the basis of being in full possession of the facts.

I would expect a politician to be taught the soundbite

All my claims are supported by the historians.
There are none who challenge those claims, so ridicule is misplaced.
Unless all the historians are deluded, you are.

For that matter.

Which party would you stand for? 🇬🇧

👳👳🔫

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:04 AM

"Irrelevant anyway because I expressed no opinion about events before August 1914."
Originally Keith defended every single aspect of the war - eventually he retreated to three aspects
Now he has set an incredibly stupid date limitation to his claims - and no doubt, there's more to come.
You think you've seen an acrobat - you ait seen nuffin yet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:15 AM

I didn't call the 'those men' stupid, Keith.

One of you Guests said "Well, how can they support the war without knowing what the new kind of warfare was like without being stupid?"

It isn't Max Hastings the military historian,

I did not call him that.
BBC and Guardian did.

No they don't - most have not mentioned blame,
The piece you linked to asked who started it.
By the name of each historian is the countries they blame.
Not one singles out Britain, and most exonerate Britain completely, but I am not even debating that.

You have claimed the war was against "German tyranny - the product of a century old war propaganda, not historical analysis

No.
Britain went to war because Germany invaded France and Belgium.

There is no consensus (your revisionists have said that themselves by describing themselves as "correcting the popular view)

There certainly is, at least on my three points.
The popular view is that of people like you who have read nothing published on it in the last 20 years.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:20 AM

Another of the historians on my list, Catrionna Pennel,

Dr Pennell says: "Traditional views of public opinion towards the First World War are over simplified and inadequate. A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

Whilst enthusiastic crowds certainly existed in August 1914, the new research suggests that this didn't reflect the whole picture. "Other gatherings around late July and early August opposed the war," Dr Pennell explains, "and many more people were shocked and disbelieving that such an event could happen."

"Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:43 AM

"Another of the historians on my list, Catrionna Pennel,"
Please stop adding to your claimed list by dredging up more out-of context quotes on insignificant quotes this is a diversion away from the fact that you have lied that you have proved a consensus when none exists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:53 AM

"One of you Guests said "Well, how can they support the war without knowing what the new kind of warfare was like without being stupid?""

Yes, that was me Keith. Just like you said "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."" Apart from mine was a question to you, which you have not answered, and yours was a blatant misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:57 AM

I did forget the link Jim.
Sorry.http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

It is not insignificant or out of context.
It supports my view that the people agreed with the government on the need to fight.
2 of my three points.
Macmillan and Philpott got all three!

You of course have found no-one to challenge any of my points, and you never will.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

"I did not call him that."
You have dismissed our historians because they are not qualified or are dead - on this premise you have lyingly claimed you have been given no evidence which disputs your argument nad you continue to present unqualified tabloid journalists as historians,
Because a tabloid Newspaper describes someone as a historian doesn't make him one.
History describes the war as a clash of Empires - one dates it back to 1905 - in fact Imerial disputes are as old as Empires.
I suggest you go back and gather your evidence of a consensus on the basis of what you have already claimed and not compound ypour idiocy by adding to it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:04 AM

Guest who can not manage a name, I merely referred to a passage that I had already quoted in full just days before, with links supplied.
No misrepresentation from me.
Any comment on Musket's misrepresentation of what the historians said on Coast?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:08 AM

Nope - none at all. Only interested in you, Keith. You are really special...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:10 AM

By the way, your claim that you didn't claim Max Hastings was a historian is yet another blatant lie.
Both you and The Braindead Brigadier argued vehemently that he was way back beyond this thread - certainly before the Guardian described him as one
You seem totally unable to distinguish truth from fiction.
Simple question that yu will not answer.
Why are our historians not historians while yours are - do you have to be a Freemason or something to make such claims?
Jim Carroll