BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 08:12 AM

Can anyone decipher that lot, I can't be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 08:18 AM

Been here Keith - Paxman then went on to show that the reasons for people joining were down to the propaganda of the time - he devoted a part of that to war being presented as a pantomine by master recruiter-cum millionaire-cum jailed criminal.
Of corse some fell for the propaganda - wouldn't be forth the effort if they didn't
When will you realise that presenting only part of the story doesn't work?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 08:28 AM

Paxman also dealt with the peer pressure of the Pals Brigades, the threats of dismissal by employers and the White Feathers   
As I said - half arsed selective information - again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 09:30 AM

2nd programme

"43 minutes in. Paxman to camera.

"The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."

""The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."

Previous quotes,
"Now war had broken out, almost everyone backed it."

"Most people seemed to have accepted that the war had to be fought."

" Lord Kitchener's appeal for volunteers in the early days of the war had been so successful that lines at recruitment offices snaked for blocks down city streets."

"Throughout it all, the resolve of the British people did not weaken."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 10:14 AM

"That's official then - we only take the word of the authorities and not the men who fought?"

By all means let us take the word of the men who fought. So far you have at least two men who were told but who never actually saw any summary execution and stacked up against them you have the written autobiographies and memoirs of hundreds of "the men who fought" who make no mention or reference to any such summary executions. On balance of probability I would say the silent majority win that one.

By the bye Jim, what is your problem, indicated by your complete silence, with giving us the details requested about these "Special Groups of Military Policemen?" - Could it have anything to do with the fact that they never existed?

A question for you Carroll have you any explanation of why none of "your" sources can put names to those who were executed (They would have been in the same platoon, same company if they were standing alongside them in the trench - i.e. they would not be strangers) or the names of the officer who shot them? (Or do you wish to tell us that the men in the trench did not know the officers who led them?) The answer of course Carroll is that it is all bunk, all rubbish.

"I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons, idiots who didn't know which way was up" etc."

No not referred to them as such Raggy, you lot only INFERRED that they did not know what they were doing when they volunteered, which I most certainly know from personal experience was not the case with any of the WWI veterans I ever talked to, read about, or listened to their recorded interviews (Take it Raggy that you have not been arsed to listen to the veterans interviews recorded for the 1964 documentary The Great War)

"What I would suggest it that in 1914 all working-class soldiers would have been used to being at the bottom of society, with all that entailed."

Ah so all the volunteers in 1914 were "working class" were they Raggy? Got any evidence to back-up that preposterous claim? Actual fact in most cases they were not, primarily as the "working class" was required to ------ work. The queues of volunteers in 1914 contained solicitors, bank clerks, teachers, students, etc, etc , they came from all different backgrounds - NOT JUST WORKING CLASS. The mass of "working class" recruits came in with conscription as women replaced them on the factory floor and the Army was none too impressed with the material, in their first two months of training your average "working class" recruit gained two stones in weight and 1" to 2" in height - simple matter of record - another thing you will no doubt not be arsed about checking (Can't really see why I bother providing you with the information - possibly in the vain hope that one day you will wake up to the fact that a discussion is more than simple sniping)

RE: The Paxman Programmes Jim, your ability to deliberately misunderstand everything stated is truly astounding - having watched them I would advise you to go back and do the same - you will find out that Keith A's quotes accurately reflect the message being put across.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 11:05 AM

Sorry lads - not going round in circles with you clowns any more - we really have been here, done that when you pair ALONE telling us that "'twas a famous victory." (Robert Southey).
Now you're contradicting what you were arguing last time.
You denied it was an Imperial war, Keith went to great lengths to show that 'The Great Imperial War', as it is known, didn't man Imperial in the Imperialist sense, yet now you're digging up quotes like "Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony"
If the war was inevitable, it was so because the politicians and industrialists made it so - s.f.a. to do with "freedom" - just a family squabble over which of Victoria's sprogs should rule the planet - over 18 million people died - over territory.
Must be true, Keith's just quoted it - twice.
No argument with that.
The other reasons were down to propaganda - Harry Patch made the point beautifully when he said he had no argument with the lads he was sent out to kill - he had no argument with them - he didn't know them
The same with them, of course.
You want to continue justifying that, feel free - once more you do it alone.
As for the summary - we've got your message - the politicians are great - the military is great (though neither have ever denied the executions happened - just you) - the men who actually fought were lying or gullible shit.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 01:32 PM

" Ah so all the volunteers in 1914 were "working class" were they Raggy? Got any evidence to back-up that preposterous claim?"

Two things Teribus.

1. The statement said that "in 1914 all working-class soldiers would have been used to being at the bottom of society, with all that entailed" Not that all volunteers were working class.

2. It was a quote from Gary Sheffield whom I seem to recall is one of Keith's favoured historians.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:17 PM

Is Sheffield alive or dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:12 AM

If the northern powerhouse works, Sheffield will be very much alive. Although Manor Top will still be eating rather than burying their dead. Attercliff will always be the home of the topless hand shandy.

As to discredited revisionist historians, to be fair he also came out with a few more objective essays before rallying to Gove's call for rose tinted glasses.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM

In WWI, as now, the working class had been persuaded that their fate and the fate of the ruling class were the same. Would their lives have been any different if Germany had won the war? I very much doubt it. It was just a squabble over which branch of a family of inbreds lorded it over them.

WWII was different, the rulers of Germany at that time were a different kind of person altogether.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM

"Sheffield will be very much alive. "
Concur - despite Maggie's attempts to kill of the North of England and killing of the (crappy, according to some) British Steel industry.
Great folk song conferences at the Uni.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

"the rulers of Germany at that time were a different kind of person altogether."
A piece of history, largely neglected, is what happened in Germany following the war.
Germany entered into a period of revolution which swept the entire country and ended up in the abdication of Wilhelm II and the establishment of the Wiemar Republic.
The new republic was divided into left and right - in 1919 the leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered, the right came to prominance and in the same year the Nazi Party was founded and eventually rose to power with the support of German industrial capitalism.
Would highly recommend an extremely readable book on the period, 'The Kings Depart' by Richard M Watt, one of the great classics of Twentieth Century European history.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:55 AM

An historian's view,

"Far from being fought over trivial issues, World War One must be seen in the context of an attempt by an aggressive, militarist state to establish hegemony over Europe, extinguishing democracy as a by-product. To argue that the world of 1919 was worse than that of 1914 is to miss the point. A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM

One historian - there are around 200 researching WW1 - to understand what they have to say you need to read a few, not scoop up convenient books that suit your own particular prejudices.
Than you can claim that "the majority of historians....." whatever
And by your own goalpost emplacements, tabloid journalists who cut their teeth on a paper which openly supported Hitler doesn't hack it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

Which historian, which book or probably more accurate which webpage

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

actually don't bother to reply to that I'm not really interested in anything you have to say

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

A historian who works to a preconceived hypothesis rather than examining the evidence, as real historians do.

Anybody quoting historians would cite, give reference and if they have the intelligence, explain what that quote means in support of the view they express on this subject.

Any chance of learning debate Keith? Some of us are fed up of making allowances for your capacity when you fail to grasp the fundamentals, then perhaps your points can be dealt with correctly

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:10 AM

Jim,
there are around 200 researching WW1 - to understand what they have to say you need to read a few,

I have. You and your friends seem to have read nothing written less than 20 years ago!
You will find they all say much the same on the issues we have discussed.

The quote was of Dr. Gary Sheffield in a piece written for the BBC History site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 11:39 AM

We have friends?

Gosh! When is the next slumber party to discuss Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM

A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse

Well, I'll be... I am surprised that someone would express this as a fact. I would say it would have been a possibility. Even a probability. But can you be absolutely sure that things would have been worse? Worldwide? Would WW2 had happened if Imperial Germany had won? How do these people know these thing? I'm gobsmacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM

"I have. You and your friends seem to have read nothing written less than 20 years ago!"
Then your postings show no fore-knowledge of the subject - every single one of them is a hastily gleaned cut-'n-paste - every one.Your latest one from Sheffield - no new insight into the war, but an opinion, and on you might expect from someone who built his career as an British Army employee - a lecturer to the troops.
Your accusation that none of us know anything more recent than twenty years old is also typical apart from my particular interest in 20th century history, do you think we all went to bed after tea last year when we were bombarded with all those radio and televion offerings?      
Bloody insulting clown.
When I described the German revolution (the one which overthrew the Kaiser and established the Wiemar Republic), you described it as "made up shit" or some such phrase
I cannot believe that somebody who claims to have made a life-long study of the period is that ignorant - or does your own kowledge end in 1918?
You even contradict yourself - you dismissed the idea that the war was Imperialist inspired - even going to great lengths to explain why it was refered to as 'The Great Imperial War'
Then you turn up with a quote from Paxman that it was an Imperialist war
Give us a break - lifelong study my arse.
You are the only one on this forum who comes here to "win" something - I counted about a dozen occasions when you claimed that you had "won" and we have "lost".
You are also the only one who has dominated a thread on a subject, by your own admission, that you have neither knowledge nor interest in - you apparently know nothing, nor do you wish to learn from what others have to say.
I concur complete with Guest's request - "Any chance of learning debate Keith?"
You will now ignore all this and continue with your support for the establishment line.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:17 PM

can i just change the subject from history to geography - surely nobody these days still believes that sheffield is in the north of england (never mind the uk)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:26 PM

Nah, achmelvich. Everyone knows it is the peoples republic of Sheffield and totally outside the scope of normal geography :-)

For those interested there is a new TV series released by Amazon this Friday. The man in the high castle is advertised as being based on a SciFi classic by Philip K. Dick (stop sniggering at the back there, boy) but after being stunned by the certainty of earlier statements I am beginning to wonder if it should actualy be classed as history...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM

Just an opinion, but all the historians seem to share it.
In their books they justify their opinions with hard evidence from a hundred years of research.

Here is Margaret Macmillan, a Canadian historian,

"Most of the poets who were widely read at the time – notably Rupert Brooke – were writing patriotic verse, and the "futility of war" line only emerged later. "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/25/margaret-macmillan-just-dont-ask-me-who-started-war

"Soldiers did not fight just because they were afraid of their officers. The toughest discipline was in the Italian army, which had the highest rate of desertion among the Allies. Soldiers fought for something. Indian soldiers, as their letters reveal, for honour, the British for king and country. As one French soldier said simply, 'I do not want to become a Boche.' "

"Stevenson argues persuasively that we must believe that men and women meant what they said when they talked about duty and sacrifice, that they accepted the war, even willingly."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n23/margaret-macmillan/von-hotzendorffs-desire

"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:12 PM

"Just an opinion, but all the historians seem to share it."
You haven't read the 100 or so historians, I doubt if you have read one (yet another hastily grabbed cut-'n-paste.
You have single-handedly made the term "historian" a joke - I hope they appreciate what you have done for their profession
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:25 PM

WW1 has been a life long interest of mine and I have read much Jim.

On some things there is a consensus among the historians.
Those 3 views I expressed for instance.
That is why, in the years we have been discussing this, you have failed to find any that contradict me, except a few long dead and discredited.
You appear to have read nothing less than 20 years old.

I can produce any number in support, and have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

Dave,
How do these people know these thing? I'm gobsmacked.

Historians derive their views from the results of years of research Dave.
They challenge each other to justify everything they say.
Unlike you, historians do not regard it as acceptable to express an opinion that they can not support with hard facts.

Not being an historian, I form my views by reading history books.
That is what intelligent people do.

You must have a huge ego to imagine that you know better than the history books, and the historians who research and write them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:01 PM

"WW1 has been a life long interest of mine and I have read much Jim"
Doesn't show one inch Keith - talk about hidden talents!
You have not responded top one single point people have made about your appalling behavior
Said you wouldn't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:37 PM

I do not have an ego big enough to warrant stating 'what if' scenarios as facts but I do know reality from fantasy.

No-one can possibly know what the world would look like today if the Germans had won WW1. By all means speculate on possible scenarios but remember it is just speculation, not fact. It never happened. Historians are good at what they do, but they are not Gods that know all possible outcomes.

What are you going to come up with next? It would have been better if the Roman invasion would have failed? After all, what did the Romans ever do for us? What if the crusades had failed? Would we all be Muslims? What if the mayors of Rome and Carthage had not met to end the third Punic wars after over 2000 years? What if Berwick upon Tweed had won the war with Russia? What if Keith lived in Hamburg instead of Hertford? Very interesting but it is all fantasy.

I am not disputing any of your 'facts'. I am just saying that an opinion over what would have happened if the Germans had won is not, in any way, shape or form, the fact that you would have us believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:38 PM

"Soldiers did not fight just because they were afraid of their officers"

The main difference keith is that you took the words as they are written. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have read it as:


"Soldiers did not fight JUST because they were afraid of their officers"

Having said that we know you lack the intelligence.

Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 02:48 AM

So let's get this right. David Irvine is a historian.

Ok

Move on

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:02 AM

No-one can possibly know what the world would look like today if the Germans had won WW1.

Obviously.
Only a complete moron would expect that to be spelled out.
A professor and doctor of history whose life's work has been the study of that period is well placed to extrapolate upon his vast knowledge to consider the most likely outcomes.
That is what he did, and if you read his books you will see he supports his views with hard facts.
His peers would rip him to shreds if he could not.

It is hard to have any respect for people with no specialist knowledge who really believe they know more about history than the historians, and who actually ridicule people who learn their history from history books instead of just imagining how they think it should have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:05 AM

I think you do not understand the mindset of subservience which existed before WWI. Soldiers fought not because they were afraid of the officers, or because they thought that the cause that the officers were asking them to fight for was just, but because not to have done the bidding of the higher classes was unthinkable. The monarchy, the aristocracy, had been put in their place by God, and not to obey them was not just treason, it was blasphemy. WWI broke this mentality in the UK, I think it still existed elsewhere. And it is experiencing a renaissance today.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:16 AM

Keith,

I think the world today would have been little different, Germany would be the industrial powerhouse of Europe and the UK would be trailing along behind. WWII would have been a different war, possibly a face-off between Europe and the USA. But I think by today everything would be much the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:16 AM

" 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.""
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:18 AM

But I think by today everything would be much the same.
Sheffield only said that 1919 would have been much worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:38 AM

"A piece of history, largely neglected, is what happened in Germany following the war.
Germany entered into a period of revolution which swept the entire country and ended up in the abdication of Wilhelm II and the establishment of the Wiemar Republic."

Certainly neglected by you Carroll - go away and do some reading - it will make for a bit of a switch to reality in your postings:
- The Kaiser abdicated the throne on the 9th November 1918 and fled Germany going into exile in the Netherlands on the 10th November 1918
- The War ended on 11th November 1918

Whatever you do Jim don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

"Soldiers did not fight just because they were afraid of their officers"

Now why would soldiers be afraid of their officers? To anyone who has ever served in any of the armed forces such an idea is laughable - Keith A knows that and so do I, but who on this forum is trotting out the fiction and attempting to tell us that soldiers were afraid of officers due to the incorrect fact that officers were allowed to and allegedly carried out summary executions of their own troops - definitely NOT Keith A or myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM

" The Kaiser abdicated the throne on the 9th November 1918 and fled Germany going into exile in the Netherlands on the 10th November 1918"
The Germa revolution began in November 1918 - th Kaiser abdicated at its outbreak of internal unrest - I suggest you go read something.
"To anyone who has ever served in any of the armed forces such an idea is laughableTo anyone who has ever served in any of the armed forces such an idea is laughable"
You were a greasy fry-up slinger, weren't you - lots of action in the kitchen, especially when you burn the bacon!!
Officers held the power of imprisonment and death in their hands in wartime - World War.
Whatever the man thought of them, they kept it to themselves - or else.
Fiction!!!
From British Library account of wartime discipline
"But armies did not leave men's behaviour in battle down to chance: the system of military discipline existed to coerce them into obedience. Punishments for disobeying orders could be severe, and men who were convicted of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' or desertion from their unit could receive the death sentence. Many hundreds of soldiers were executed by their own armies for military offences during the conflict. "
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM

When Sheffield casts an opinion he speaks as a person giving a view.

That is not a historian speaking.

A historian collates, assesses and presents information. When he says the future would be x y or z he says it as a person and his view has no more weight than anyone else. After all, his work as a historian is to get such information presented so people can form their own views.

Only a moron would say otherwise eh Keith?

You really don't grasp this, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:33 AM

From a 2002 study of discipline in the British Army From a "real" historian who sells his books in a "real " Bookshop
Jim Carroll

In a recent study of military discipline during the First World War David Englander rightly asserted that 'British and Belgian soldiers were more at risk [from capital punishment] than either their French or German counterparts'2. This contradicts existing ideas about both Prussian militarism and popular notions of French military justice – or more accurately injustice – such as conveyed by Stanley Kubrick in his film Paths of Glory. A comparison of statistics for discipline in the British, French and German armies, the three main combatants on the Western Front between 1914 and 1918, supports Dr. Englander : the British condemned more than 3000 men compared with 2000 in the French army and only 150 in the German army3. Indeed, the comparative harshness of the British was especially marked in the case of deserters on the Western Front4. Whilst it should be noted that the number of French soldiers executed (perhaps as many as 700) exceeded that of the British army (officially 346, but probably many more5) the two remain comparable given the relative size of the armies. Only 48 of the 150 German soldiers condemned by military courts were shot. On the face of it the British army was not beset by disciplinary problems any more than were the other major armies, yet no historian has adequately explained this striking differential. This is even more surprising given pervasive British attitudes of the time : Germany was castigated as authoritarian and militaristic and France was viewed from across the Channel as decadent. The French army, so it appeared, was not immune from this and its collapse at Sedan was regarded by many in Britain as evidence of the moral degeneration of the French, a view seemingly confirmed by the chaos of the Commune. Accordingly, when discipline in the French army collapsed in 1917, the British commander, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, emphasised what he considered the lack of 'moral qualities' in the French army as its major cause6. Paradoxically, German authoritarianism and militarism had, according to some, been a major factor in securing the Prussian victory in 1871 : British generals had a high regard for the discipline of the Prussian army if not their tactics7. Yet these continental armies exhibited more tolerance of their soldiers than the supposedly more progressive British. Paradoxically, therefore, it was in the country that believed it most espoused liberal values that military discipline appears to have taken on its harshest form.
The harsh nature of military discipline in Britain owed much to tradition. The earliest armies were regulated by Articles of War issued on the prerogative of the Crown and valid only during the duration of any given conflict. This power, introduced by William I, was not superseded until the nineteenth-century. But if military law seemingly became more the concern of parliament than of the Sovereign, the Crown was still able to exert considerable influence in this area, playing the 'apolitical' card to great effect – the army shared with the Crown a (mythical) status that supposedly transcended politics. The nature of these earlier Articles was pejoratively described in a military manual of 1914 as being 'of excessive severity, inflicting death or loss of limb for almost every crime'12. Ironically, a certain amount of this severity was to return in the years that followed.
8The peacetime army, thanks to the British aversion to a standing army, did not exist in a modern sense and no regulations were thought necessary beyond what was covered by criminal and civil law. This changed, however, after the so-called Glorious Revolution whereupon the Mutiny Act was passed in 1689. The object of this annually renewable act, which made mutiny and desertion a capital offence, remained largely unchanged until 1878. It did, however, undergo a series of refinements each reflecting the circumstances of the time. The Act, often allowed to lapse during times of peace, was frequently re-introduced, usually with an extension of its jurisdiction to include overseas territories as the army's garrison duties expanded around the globe. The Mutiny Act finally superseded the prerogative power to make Articles of War towards the end of the Peninsular War in 1813 and remained in force, largely unaltered until our period.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:44 AM

When Sheffield casts an opinion he speaks as a person giving a view.
That is not a historian speaking.

Yes it is. He is a leading historian of WW1.

A historian collates, assesses and presents information.

Yes he does, but you will need to read his books. The quote was from a brief article for the BBC history site.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:06 AM

Have you actually read Catriona Pennell's book "A United Kingdom" Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:09 AM

"Yes it is. He is a leading historian of WW1."
No he isn't Keith - he is one historian
He expresses the establishment view - which is no more valuable than any other person in terms of opinion - certainly not of the people who actually fought on the front, which you pair of jingoists have sought to denigrate (step up from shooting them if they stepped out of line, I suppose)
Up to these arguments, you had never heard of Sheffield - your first choice was a tabloid journalist - you stumbled across him in your attempts to justify the indefensible.
He is only a "leading historian" because his defence of the war from the point of the establishment coincides with your own jingoism.
"Yes he does, but you will need to read his books."
But you haven't Keith - you stumbled across him by accident and have only read out-of-context quotes.
If you read what he says fully, you will realise that expertise is on the actual war - his expertise does not go beyond that therefore he is in no position to comment on what would have happened had the war gone the other way.
Democracy was not any more under threat under Germany as it was elsewhere - "gallant little Belgium" our ally and one of the ploys for conning men to enlist, was quite free to massacre 10 million Congolese and cut the hands of their workers if they didn't work hard enough - how "democratic" was that.
The conditions in the British Colonies were little better - no democracy to be threatened by Germany there.
As you have pointed out with your own quotes - it was not about freedom, or democracy or better conditions - it was a colonial war on a world scale.
How about coming out from behind an establishment historian who you haven't read and responding to the actual situation?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:26 AM

Here, BBC includes him as one of the "ten leading historians of WW1"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

Can you find a single historian who disagrees with anything I have quoted him on Jim?
No you can not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:34 AM

Have you actually read Catriona Pennell's book "A United Kingdom" Keith.

No never Guest.
I did read her "A Kingdom United" a couple of years ago. Would you like me to dig it out?

Meanwhile, here is a review of it from The Times Higher Education Supplement,

"Pennell argues that historians of the UK have lagged behind historians of German and French history in reassessing the picture of "war fever". She seeks not to demolish the notion of Britain and Ireland as accepting the need for war, but rather to argue that the public's support for war against Germany was based on a reluctant, but rational, agreement that it was necessary. After an exhaustive search in primary sources, she concludes that "in reality, the responses of ordinary British and Irish people were much more complex than the myth of war enthusiasm would suggest...[they] did not back the war because they were deluded, brain-washed and naively duped into an idiotic bloodbath, as the subsequent myth would have it"."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/a-kingdom-united-popular-responses-to-the-outbreak-of-the-first-world-war-in-britain-

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:44 AM

I have not read Catriona Pennells book A Kingdon United. However there are numerous historians notably Jo Fox who seem to consider that propaganda played a significant role.


Propaganda 1

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:45 AM

"Historical myths are notoriously enduring, but that of a British "collective war enthusiasm" at the outbreak of war in 1914 should not survive after this excellent and important book, and should be replaced by a view of a nation accepting the need for a war of national defence."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM

Propaganda 2

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM

"I did read her "A Kingdom United" a couple of years ago. "
Then why are you arguing that men joined up because they supported the cause - in fact, in 'A Kingdom United', she argues that the reasons for joining up were varied and complex and they fluctuated as the circumstances changed.
She puts much of the reason down to the pressure of propaganda and points out that the inability to maintain that pressure led to the introduction of compulsion.
You most certainly have not read it - bloody nonsense!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 09:08 AM

"You were a greasy fry-up slinger, weren't you - lots of action in the kitchen, especially when you burn the bacon!!"

Really Jom where on earth did you get piece of fiction from? One of your own troll pals or was it just more Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit"

""But armies [NOTE JOM "Armies" as in Armies in general] did not leave men's behaviour in battle down to chance: the system of military discipline existed to coerce them into obedience. Punishments for disobeying orders could be severe, and men who were convicted of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' or desertion from their unit could receive the death sentence. Many hundreds of soldiers were executed by their own armies for military offences during the conflict [However NOT in the British Army - 346 does equate to many hundreds]."

Look up the figures if you like Carroll (I know neither you nor any of the usual suspects will) but during the First World War there were 304,262 Courts Martial held and of those defendants 265,496 were found "Guilty". Just taking the crime of desertion that accounted for 14% of that total meaning that during the First World War 37,169 men deserted - 29,205 did so in the UK. Yet the Courts Martial only resulted in death sentences being carried out on 245 men being shot for desertion and a further 17 being shot for "cowardice". Perhaps you should stick to Traditional Folk Songs JOM - you seem to know quite a bit about that - on this subject you are totally clueless.

""Any chance of learning debate Keith?""

WHAT??? Debate against the likes of this?

" Raggytash - 19 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

actually don't bother to reply to that I'm not really interested in anything you have to say"

Hey Raggy if you aren't prepared to listen then butt out of the discussion - you obviously have S.F.A. to add to any discussion OR debate.

"A historian collates, assesses and presents information. When he says the future would be x y or z he says it as a person and his view has no more weight than anyone else."

Ehmm NO anonymous GHOST - As a historian and specialist in the subject and the period just purely by the information at his fingertips his opinion would have far, far greater weight than say yours, purely because it would be based on a far greater understanding of the times, the people and the era than you have.

Ah have a word with your "Historian" Jom - and by the way my recollection is it was you and your grinning hyena "mates" who started taking the "piss" out of historians - as David Englander when it was during the First World War that the French collapsed at Sedan, now I know he is referring here to the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 - but the man's writing is all over the place - no wonder you like his style Jom - it's as chaotic as your own. David Englander was not a historian who specialised in the study of the First World Was his area of specialisation lay elsewhere - why didn't you mention that Jom?

As to whether or not things would have been better or worse under the Germans, who would have annexed Belgium and taken over all of the French overseas possessions - as you mentioned Belgium and their treatment of their subjects in the Congo - have a look at how the Germans treated the indigenous tribes under their care - you might just learn something.