BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:57 AM

Unfortunately in Keith's little world, it isn't possible to respect opinions that don't fall in with your prejudgment.

Do your research Dave, but if you think it will impress a retired PE teacher with an agenda he believes in, think again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:48 AM

I guess we should know who are "eminent historians respected by their peers". To me this means a historian who was submitted by their university department in Unit of Assessment 30 of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework, or equivalent units in its predecessors. I will look up Keith's historians in the 2014 REF results, and earlier RAE results, but not now, it will take time.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:38 AM

They have to be still alive too.

Unlike every single fucking first hand account.

Keith, Teribus.. Establishment lackeys. Clever ones let the grunts do their propaganda for them.

What's the "mmmm" and "errrr" shit all about Teribus? I'd have thought someone so cock sure of their opinion wouldn't need to hesitate. Or is that whilst you trawl the Facebook pages of The Young Conservatives, UKIP and Daily Torygraph in order to find out what your view is?

(Just paste any section of his posts and you can find their source on Google.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:30 AM

Sorry Dave but as I think you are new to this discussion I feel I can must out what Keith means by 'all historians'. They , by his definition

- Have written history books about WW1 in the last 20 years
- Are 'eminent historians' and respected by their peers
- Write books that are popular enough to be sold in mainsteam bookshops

I have pointed out, on many occasions, that unless he has read every single one in the world that fits this criteria he cannot claim they all agree. Keith's response is that we need to find historians that do not agree. We can of course say that, as it is his claim, it is up to him to prove it but that seems to fall on deaf ears. So, to save a continuation of the circular argument that has gone on for years it is simpler to use the term 'Keith's historians'.

Got it? :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:30 AM

DtG, if we had sued for peace in 1914, it is quite likely that we would have ended up with a German Royal Family installed in Buckingham Palace, lived in a Europe dominated by the German economy, and would not have had the welfare provision and National Health Service that we achieved in the 1940s. Oh, wait.......

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:03 AM

Teribus says:

"So let's agree on the first of the points raised by Keith A when he said that historians who have studied the period armed with the latest information on the events and background of the period say that

1: The First World War was not a war of choice for the United Kingdom it was a war of necessity.

The British Cabinet and Parliament felt so at the time and it was they who were faced with the problem. They made the right decision, they had no other choice."

Certainly not all historians, and maybe not even most historians, and we certainly do have examples above of historians who don't say this. But seeing as historians were not the ones fighting and dying in the trenches, their perspective is a bit limited. I would take Harry Patch's opinion when he said:

"When the war ended, I don't know if I was more relieved that we'd won or that I didn't have to go back. Passchendaele was a disastrous battle – thousands and thousands of young lives were lost. It makes me angry. Earlier this year, I went back to Ypres to shake the hand of Charles Kuentz, Germany's only surviving veteran from the war. It was emotional. He is 107. We've had 87 years to think what war is. To me, it's a licence to go out and murder. Why should the British government call me up and take me out to a battlefield to shoot a man I never knew, whose language I couldn't speak? All those lives lost for a war finished over a table. Now what is the sense in that?:"

[Cut and paste from Wikipedia before anyone points that out]

Over the entire cohort of historians who have written on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:02 AM

Absolutely agreed, teribums. They made their decision at the time. Over a hundred years ago. Which is why no one will ever really know what would have happened if they had decided otherwise. That is the fact of the matter and no amount of bluster or changing the subject will alter that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 02:54 AM

Teribus says:

"What was made up Dave?

That it took 45 minutes from the order being given to use ex-Soviet chemical/biological weapons to have the warheads of those weapons armed and ready to fire?

That Saddam Hussein made the threat?

That a Taxi driver overheard the conversation between two senior Iraqi Army Officers?"

Lets take this in turn.

The first was not the claim made by Blair, that claim was that"

"(Saddam) has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population".

This claim relies on the second of Teribus' points, that Saddam had made such a claim. This seems to have come from an Iraqi defector and was not corroborated.

As far as the third point goes, there seem to be four possibilities about the taxi driver story, and I will list them in order of decreasing probability:

1) That British Intelligence made it up

2) That British intelligence got it from a real taxi driver, who made it up

3) That a real taxi driver got it from two real Iraqi generals, who made it up.

4) That it was true.

The probability of 4) I would say was vanishingly small.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 06:47 PM

Ehmmmmm the British Government of the day decided that it was in the best interests of Great Britain and her Empire that we honour our Treaty obligations and declare war on Germany based on the information they had and their reading of the situation at the time. I have never stated anything else. It was you who decided that I was speculating - I wasn't.

So let's agree on the first of the points raised by Keith A when he said that historians who have studied the period armed with the latest information on the events and background of the period say that

1: The First World War was not a war of choice for the United Kingdom it was a war of necessity.

The British Cabinet and Parliament felt so at the time and it was they who were faced with the problem. They made the right decision, they had no other choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 05:23 PM

Who said it had? my remark was aimed at your:

"We do know that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction."

OK. I didn't say it had anything to do with it either. In fact I said, and you repeated, that speculation was nothing to do with hindsight. Glad we agree on that.

Once again, two topics that have nothing to do with each other have somehow become conflated. I guess it may be me that did it and, if so, I apologise. I didn't think I had combined the two though so let us separate them and move on.

First, we have agreed that hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Next, can we now also agree that no one can possibly be sure how things would have gone if we had not entered the war? We can make as many confident assertions that it would have gone one way or another as we like but, as it never happened, we may as well be writing fiction. We did enter the war so it went as it did. Anything to do with what might have happened if we had not is made up.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 04:26 PM

Ah, Jayzus, Terrabyte, not the same old Bushapology bullshit that was discredited a decade ago. If you have to post garbage, can you at least find some NEW garbage?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 04:07 PM

"Speculating on what would have happened if events had been different is nothing to do with hindsight though is it?"

Who said it had? my remark was aimed at your:

"We do know that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction."

And in the run up to the invasion of March 2003 we most certainly did not know whether he had them or not but according to the UNSCOM report it was highly likely that he did have them. The invasion and subsequent actions were to make sure proof positive that Iraq had no WMD, had no active WMD programmes and had no means of delivering WMD - in other words ensure and verify that Iraq complied with the Safwan Ceasefire terms and conditions, and establish once and for all beyond doubt that Iraq posed no threat to its neighbours in the region.

Now this is speculation on my part Gnome - but had no action been taken against Iraq in 2003:

1: By the summer of 2003 UN sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted at the instance of Russia and France.

2: Iraq would have rearmed using oil to pay off its debts to Russia, China and France

3: In 2004 Saddam would have got wind of Iran's nuclear weapons programme

4: By late 2005 we would have seen the second Iran/Iraq War which would have been much bloodier than the first one - with a bit of luck it might have just about finished with Iran coming out as victors

There would no way on God's earth that Saddam Hussein would have ever sat back and allowed Iran to develop any sort of nuclear capability.

All speculation.

Whereas the problems that would have faced Great Britain in 1914 as a result of a German victory over France and Belgium are most definitely not - as all components had been clearly stated and their consequences recognised, which is why Great Britain entered the war to honour its obligations under the Treaty of London 1839 - it was in Great Britain's best interest to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 04:01 PM

You probably know very well that I meant all historians who have written about WW1, Keith, but in an effort to to avoid the issue you call me pathetic? Well, OK, I am pathetic and I could not explain to you exactly what I meant so I will, once again, rephrase.

Until you can, hand on heart, say that every historian in the world who has written about WW1 agrees with you, there will always be an element of doubt.

So, now that is cleared up, have you read everything that all historians who have written about WW1 have written? Are you absolutely sure that they ALL agree with you? Every single one in the world? Wow, you must have a mighty intellect to have read them all, remember what they all say and still find time to call us lesser mortals pathetic.

How many of them is there BTW?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 03:20 PM

Until you can, hand on heart, say that every historian in the world agrees with you, there will always be an element of doubt.

Don't be pathetic Dave.
Most have not written about WW1.

Those that do have come to the same conclusions about the issues I have posted about.
That is all the ones I have read, and all the ones anyone on these threads has been able to find in 3 years of arguing.
I seems highly unlikely that any significant historian's work has gone completely unnoticed by us and not been referred to by any other historian.

Have any of you found one yet?
Silly question!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 02:28 PM

Mashed banana for tea Teribums?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 02:13 PM

We did know that he had them earlier and then did not have them. Hindsight indeed. Speculating on what would have happened if events had been different is nothing to do with hindsight though is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 01:20 PM

" Dave the Gnome - 09 Dec 15 - 12:36 PM

20 x 20 hindsight is terrific isn't it Gnome

We knew for certain that he had them in 1990

UNSCOM told us that according to their inspections between 1991 and 1998 that he may still have had them in 2003.

The action taken by the USA in 2003 was undertaken to make sure beyond any doubt whatsoever that Iraq had no WMD or means to deliver them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 12:49 PM

No, it was not made up. How could it be? It was in the Daily Heil! I never mentioned anything about taxi drivers and I did check my memory first. There are many other links but the one i supplied was the funniest...

Nice to know I did remember correctly and that you are, again, barking up the wrong tree. Or is it barking mad? I can't remember :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 12:38 PM

What was made up Dave?

That it took 45 minutes from the order being given to use ex-Soviet chemical/biological weapons to have the warheads of those weapons armed and ready to fire?

That Saddam Hussein made the threat?

That a Taxi driver overheard the conversation between two senior Iraqi Army Officers?

I believe the way that Dave the Gnome presented his example:

"I seem to remember a recent middle-eastern leader saying he could have 20 missiles ready in 45 minutes in the event of an attack. Surely you are not naive enough to believe everything that warmongering politicians tell you?"

Was as chaotic as his normal contributions on subjects he knows little or nothing about, little scraps all jumbled up - his characteristically convenient get out being in the phrase "I seem to remember....."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 12:36 PM

I think most people outside the forces heard the 45 minute claim from that bastion of truth and stability The Daily Heil.

Teribums. We do know that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. We will never know what would have happened if we had not entered that war, or any other for that matter. The point about Hussein was that he was, to go back to an earlier point, sabre-rattling. All politicians do it leading up to a war. The Kaiser would be no exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 11:27 AM

So it was made up.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 11:16 AM

Dominic Alexander...really? I tend to think of him as a journalist. However, I will re read some of his work. Thank you

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 10:59 AM

"I don't suppose we will ever know the origin of the 45 minutes claim."

Wrong again Dave - anyone who was in any of the armed forces that formed NATO during what was known as the "Cold War" could tell you - especially any infantryman, tankie or artilleryman who had to carry out exercises wearing those bloody awful NCB-Suits and AGRs.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM

Actually 08:35 was not me, although it was a very sensible reply, better than I could have written.

I don't suppose we will ever know the origin of the 45 minutes claim. One theory is that British Intelligence heard it from a taxi driver, or maybe they just made it up. Its unlikely that it was Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM

" but speculation over what might have been is a futile exercise."

Agreed it would be if I indulged in it - my so called "speculations" are nothing of the sort they represent the declared intentions of the Germans used in an attempt to bully and intimidate a small neutral country into compliance and inaction, and the British Governments assessment of the situation very well stated by Sir Edward Grey.

"I seem to remember a recent middle-eastern leader saying he could have 20 missiles ready in 45 minutes in the event of an attack. Surely you are not naive enough to believe everything that warmongering politicians tell you?"

What that "warmongering politician" [Saddam Hussein] stated was perfectly in tune with the weapons [ex-Soviet or ex-Soviet copies] he had at his disposal combined with the chemical and biological agents he was known to possess in 1990 and may have retained in 2003. By the way Gnome I did not hear that from a "recent middle-eastern leader" I think the first time I heard that was in 1967 as part of a "Threat" Lecture related to what weapons the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries could field. The 45 minutes comes from the time the order is given to use chemical/biological weapons to the warheads actually being filled and the missile ready to fire. It was the 45 minutes that made chemical/biological weapons useless in Europe [Something I have subsequently learned from the Cold War period as more information has come to light] - due to our ability to electronically eavesdrop NATO would have know such a strike was about to be launched and Soviet/Warsaw Pact formations would have been hit by tactical nuclear weapons (More declared intent for you Gnome - a tactical nuclear strike was the automatic NATO response should the Soviets opt to use chemical or biological weapons - the Russians told Saddam that in 1990 which is why he did not use them during "Desert Storm" [Not speculation])

I don't believe what any politician tells me - ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 10:22 AM

When historians all independently come to the same conclusion

That is very true, Keith. When you have read what all historians say and can confirm that they all come to the same conclusion I may be more inclined to agree. But what you are saying is that all historians that you have read come to the same conclusion. All historians is not synonymous with all historians that you have read. I am not disagreeing with you about your points but let us not go round that circle again. Until you can, hand on heart, say that every historian in the world agrees with you, there will always be an element of doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM

...as to ever heard of declared intent?

Yes, many a time. I seem to remember a recent middle-eastern leader saying he could have 20 missiles ready in 45 minutes in the event of an attack. Surely you are not naive enough to believe everything that warmongering politicians tell you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM

When historians all independently come to the same conclusion from their independent research, what is there to balance their findings with?

Certainly not the assertions of political extremists who can only get their agenda driven propaganda published on their own website.

They are not comparable Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM

Ah Gnome so speculation is the main tool used by all Governments in their decision making process when it comes to deciding on what course of action to take and in the formulation of Government policy after all they cannot possibly know for certain what is going to happen in the future.

No. We sometimes have to speculate over what will happen in the future. You were speculating on what would have happened if a past event had not occurred. The former is a necessity to formulate policy. The later is a luxury to justify or condemn something that has already happened. There is often no option but to try and predict future events but speculation over what might have been is a futile exercise.

Again, none of your bluster or (very poorly) attempted abuse will alter the fact that no one can possibly know what really would have happened had events been any different. Nothing to do with history, just logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 09:52 AM

"Historical theories tend to go in cycles."

Really nameless GUEST?? Care to take us through a complete one - preferably NOT connected to the Great War - to illustrate the veracity and application of this theory of yours, you see I have always thought that historical "theories" were based upon what information was available at the time those theories were expounded and generally as time goes by more and more information comes to light and the more factual and accurate the theory becomes. Now if all of that seems reasonable, rational and logical it therefore follows that what was written about the Great War in the period 1970 to the present day is far more detailed and informed than what was written between 1929 and 1969.

Ah Gnome so speculation is the main tool used by all Governments in their decision making process when it comes to deciding on what course of action to take and in the formulation of Government policy after all they cannot possibly know for certain what is going to happen in the future. With regard to national security matters I know that the JIC are given a problem or a situation to look at and their brief is to provide two scenarios a best case and a worst case to present to Cabinet - it is then up to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to decide on how the government will proceed.

But as previously stated and stated here for the last time as you can damn well go and read it for yourself, if Germany stated to Belgium that if their troops were resisted should German troops enter Belgium then after the Belgian forces had been defeated Germany would annex Belgium so that it would become part of Germany then it is NOT speculation to say that that is what would have resulted from a Belgian defeat - ever heard of declared intent? Same goes for what would have happened to French and Belgian colonies - the Germans declared their intentions before they attacked - THEIR war was one of conquest, domination and expansion.

Had Belgium become part of Germany it is a physical fact that the German High Seas Fleet would have bases available to them only four hours steaming from London - Fact Gnome NOT speculation - would that be seen as posing a direct threat to the United Kingdom? Of course it would you pillock it was to prevent such a situation arising that Great Britain signed the 1839 Treaty of London guaranteeing Belgian neutrality and sovereignty.

As you have often stated you know nothing about the Great War, it therefore seems rather ridiculous that you constantly argue against the most informed minds of the period regarding their reading of the problems that faced them - you then claim to witter on about "humanity" but seem to be very selective as to the perspective you view it from.

"no justification of war is suitable" - taking the history of the world into account - just how f**kin stupid can you get - where do you live Gnome, Camberwick Green or Trumpton? You are free today to spout whatever you like because a great many took the view that fighting and winning a war was justified as the price to be paid for not fighting it was far too high a price to pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 09:31 AM

the history books.

WHICH history books, Professor?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 09:18 AM

Guest - 09 Dec 15 - 08:35 AM (Dave I guess?)

Agreed. Very sensible approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 09:11 AM

I would steer a child away from any source which overtly promulgates a political agenda, especially an extreme one.
Of course they will not be objective.

As any sensible person would. But such sites exist, on the internet and in the media. They are accessible to all so better to equip youngsters to handle what they find rather than pretending any one is any better than another. I do, like all responsible people, try to make sure that content is suitable for their age and would say that no justification of war is suitable until they are at least 70 and reading about it in the comfort of their own safe armchairs...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 08:35 AM

If, as you state, all current historians are agreed on a particular theory regarding WW1 I would look to all other sources to provide a balance. Historical theories tend to go in cycles. At one time the Generals involved in WW1 were castigated, today you tell us that is no longer the case. I would not accept verbatim all that I read. I would certainly question everything I read and question who wrote it and why. That would seem a sensible approach as would allowing a child to have access to all available information and views. Only when you have a full picture can you yourself make reasonable judgement as to the veracity of the actual history together with the individual authors and their writings.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 08:26 AM

I would steer a child away from any source which overtly promulgates a political agenda, especially an extreme one.
Of course they will not be objective.

Help them find neutral sites, or help them find books appropriate to their age.

I too would steer them away from any deranged person who disputes " that war is a senseless waste of human life" but I have never come across such nonsense in all my reading.
Have you? If not why pretend it is an issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 06:30 AM

I would point out that there are many viewpoints and suggest that they explore them all before making up their own minds. I would hope that they will will grow to have the sense to recognise the dangers of bias in any any direction and the compassion to know that war is a senseless waste of human life.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 05:56 AM

Would you also direct them to far right sites then Dave?
I would avoid sites that reject the wisdom and knowledge to be found in the history books.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 04:58 AM

Dave, if a grandchild became fascinated by the French Revolution, the Armada or the fire of London, would you get them a book from the library, a local bookshop (WH Smith say), record a documentary, or direct them to Counterfire, a political website of some hard left activist group?

I would do all of the above and more. I hope my grandsons will grow up with enough sense to realise that one point of view does not give the whole picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 04:44 AM

Dave, if a grandchild became fascinated by the French Revolution, the Armada or the fire of London, would you get them a book from the library, a local bookshop (WH Smith say), record a documentary, or direct them to Counterfire, a political website of some hard left activist group?

Why would anyone go there to learn history? All you get is agitprop supporting their class war agenda.
Your man has written no single book on WW1 history, just a political pamphlet no longer available.
How about perusing some far right wing sites for balance?
I am sure you would find some activist with views on WW1 and WW11 that also differ in perspective from the real professors.

Normal people learn history from history books.
Why do you have such a problem with that?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 04:35 AM

Thanks to DtG for that link. Its a review of two books which present different views of the origins of WWI. The problem is that historians such as Hastings are interested mostly in using history to support a particular world view. Historians disagree on whose fault WWI was. Was it the Germans, the Russians, the Austrians the Serbians, the British? What is certain though was that it wasn't the fault of the millions of working class soldiers from all of those countries who died in the trenches and the deserts. It was the fault of the rulers. This is what historians fail to grasp, because to them history is the story of the rulers.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 04:12 AM

HiLo - I am sure the other Dave can speak for himself but I would point you in the direction of Dominic Alexander. Some have dismissed him as being too biased to have a say in this debate and not being a 'real historian'. Interesting article by him on the Counterfire Site which will inevitably be dismissed by some as being biased. There are other examples but I am sure you can find them by yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 03:58 AM

I am simply saying that your statement Had Great Britain remained neutral and had stayed out of the war in 1914 the following would have been the case is speculation. Neither you, Keith or anyone can possibly know what would have happened had any past event been different. Your blustering does not alter that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 03:53 AM

"We have had this discussion before and you cannot present such speculation as fact."

What speculation Gnome? You really should do some reading. All I have stated above "Had Great Britain stayed out of WWI" was stated by the Germans BEFORE the start of the war:

1: To Belgium - If you resist our armies we will annex your country

2: To Belgium - If you resist our armies we will annex your overseas possessions

3: To France - We will strip you of your colonies and overseas possessions by way of reparation.

What speculation? Do you deny the fact that with an annexed Belgium as part of the new greater Germany that the German Fleet could not be based in Belgian ports within four hours steaming of London? Do you deny that a German Army of 5 million would remain in existence while the Army of Great Britain would have remained at its 1914 strength of only 440,000 men? Do you rule out any attempt to increase the size of that Army would have been instantly viewed by the German masters of Europe as a provocation?

What speculation? Are you trying to tell us that the Kaiser didn't arm the Boers in South Africa during the Boer War? Are you trying to tell us that the Kaiser wasn't extremely jealous of Great Britain's Empire and wished to see it destroyed?

GUEST,Dave - 09 Dec 15 - 03:03 AM - Yes by all means you could speculate, but what would be the grounds for your speculations - I can at least give fairly solid grounds, arguments and track indicators to back up what I have said - I have seen no evidence at all that would indicate that in the early part of the 20th Century that Great Britain and Germany were anything other than bitter rivals, making any "partnership" along the lines you described as being highly improbable and therefore unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 03:16 AM

Ah , dave, now that you are back, i would really like an answer about all of the biased historians you,ve read!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 03:03 AM

Keith's point 3 is very much speculation, I could equally speculate that Britain and Germany could have formed a partnership, not a military partnership but an economic and trading partnership. This could, and it is still speculation, have prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII. As for being economically ruined, well we were anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 02:49 AM

Had Great Britain remained neutral and had stayed out of the war in 1914 the following would have been the case

I know it was a possibility or even a probability but not a certainty. We have had this discussion before and you cannot present such speculation as fact. Who knows what would have really happened? No one. Maybe most of the lives lost in WW1 would have been saved. Maybe WW2 would never have happened. Maybe many of those people who would have lived would have worked toward peace and we would have ended up with a much more united world today?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 02:42 AM

Is that an example of your crystal ball or hairy balls?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 02:22 AM

GUEST,Dave - 08 Dec 15 - 03:27 PM

Keith I am not saying WWII was good, no war is good. But the consequences of defeat in WWI would have been much more marginal, except for the ruling elites. Defeat in WWII would have been disastrous for a number of minorities."

Agreed no war is good but some are necessary and actually do have to be fought, primarily those are wars that are planned and pushed for by one of the protagonists as a means of attaining something that they would never have gained through negotiation - Germany's actions in 1914 and from 1936 onward are classic examples of this, there was never ever going to be any way to avoid those wars. As today with IS there is no negotiation with them and they have clearly stated that, they have clearly stated their aims and in the future as they see it our values, our freedoms and our way of life have no place, so we have fight them and we have to destroy them.

I know I will never get a response to this question but I really would be interested to know why you believe that the consequences of "Entente Powers" losing the First World War would have been marginal?

Had Great Britain remained neutral and had stayed out of the war in 1914 the following would have been the case

1: Belgium would cease to exist as it would have been annexed by Germany - so you now have the German High Seas Fleet and an Army of some 5 million men only fours hours steaming from London

2: Annexation of all the overseas possessions of both Belgium and France by Germany, in order that Germany could have her "place in the sun".

3: Using her newly acquired overseas possessions Germany could have then engaged in a subversive campaign to destabilised and destroy the British Empire to Germany's advantage - The Kaiser after all had tried that with the Boers in South Africa. With our Empire riven with trouble we would be economically ruined and that Dave would have affected everybody in the United Kingdom irrespective of class or position.

Now had Great Britain joined the fight in 1914 and the "Entente Powers" had lost - Just imagine what reparations Germany would have demanded from the richest country in the world - we would have lost everything and that would have affected everybody - so much for your "marginal" consequences.

On the reparations thing - take a look at what the Germans demanded from Russia under the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 12:37 AM

Should read

I was not expecting a point Greg !

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 09:58 PM

I was not expecting a political Greg.