BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

Subject: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:00 AM

Some people seem far from happy regarding the commemoration of our fallen over the weekend.

I didn't see any of it as I was involved in a music weekend so am not in a position to judge on this particular event although I wouldn't have watched it as I have not appreciated previous events.

Over to you guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:18 AM

I thought the Albert Hall do was more jingoistic but the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing. Many of the fallen were not CofE or even Christian. Why let a specific religion take it over? But that may be just me.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Megan L
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:29 AM

Unfortunately I caught a bit of the Albert Hall and really wish I had not, what a fiasco some Italian warbling away then some blonde giggling and laughing not at all like the man who sang at last years.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 09:16 AM

Yes, yet another example of imperialistic religion imposed on both the deluded and the non-deluded equally. Insufferable.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 09:31 AM

The nine wreath laying ceremonies our pipe band played at last Sunday were all ceremonies of "Commemoration" and I did not hear anybody say "By Jingo" once - and apart from Policemen restricting and redirecting traffic I did not see a single person in uniform - medals yes, a few berets yes but anyone in full military uniform No.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

Hijacked by the same establishment that wants us to believe willing men understood what they were letting themselves in for or that the butcher of The Somme and his cohort of generals were competent and had a thought for those in their command.

What really gets me is putting recent government folly and vanity on the same level as destroying the nazi regime in WW2.

If it were about the fallen themselves, they'd all wear white fucking poppies.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 11:37 AM

Just had this removed (censored) from the sanitised thread so I'll put it up here
Today's Times carries a article declaring that tourists can now go on sightseeing trips in London on an Abbott 17 tonne tank - it includes a photograph showing a group of them doing so on Westminster Bridge, withing five minutes walking distance of The Whitehall Cenotaph where a wreaths were laid honouring the dead a couple of days ago.
It seems that not only do we have the jingoists glorifying wars and hypocrites laying wreaths with one hand while signing export licences    for weapons to be sold to feudalistic tyrants, death-dealing military equipment being used to make a few bob for some entrepreneur
What next - pubs decked out like air-raid shelters with drinks served by staff dressed as ARP wardens, stretcher bearers and nurses!!
This killin' lark really is good for a larf - innit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 11:37 AM

Perhaps GUEST 09:59 AM could let us in on who should lead the nation in a "National" Act of Remembrance?

The Red Poppies sold by the Royal British Legion raise awareness of those who gave their lives in the defence of freedom in the face of naked aggression. The proceeds of the sale of those poppies goes to charities that carry-out many good works - purchase of these poppies is a matter of individual choice - not a single political thing about it.

The White Poppy on the other hand has got nothing whatsoever to do with those who sacrificed themselves, nothing whatsoever to do with the fallen, it is entirely political - as detailed on their own website.

One last question for GUEST 09:59 - Do poppies "fuck"? If so does that mean we would have to buy two of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 11:53 AM

Sorry Jim Carroll but what is the connection between any of the things that you mentioned?

Are the Capital Tank Tours organised and promoted by the Government? Or are they a "private" venture? I can remember seeing in various cities around the world sightseeing trips in WWII amphibious vehicles, they've been on the go for ages - Did the Government run those as well?

Perhaps it is all part of a sinister plot so that the "Guvvermint" can map out where and where not they can drive a tank in the city of London when the time comes to murder the revolting masses. One point of correction courtesy of my son-in-law who knows about such things, he has just pointed out to me that the Abbot is not a tank it is a self-propelled gun.

Of course if all those despicable people could not buy arms from us they would just pack up and go home to mum, perhaps they'd sell ice-cream instead, or do you think they'd just go and buy arms from someone else - the Russians and Chinese seem to sell or give away the most it would appear.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 12:40 PM

" Or are they a "private" venture?"
Does it matter - it is the trivialization of death at a time when we are being asked to give tribute to the dead - just down down the road from where the millions of dead are honoured.
Just you7 have just treivialised the selling of weapons to mass murderers and despots.
Of course they'd buy them off those you mentioned - that makes selling them OK doesn't it - of course the profits would go into the British economy if they bought them from us - finefor some, I suppose!!
Different strokes for different blokes (or blokessses) I suppose
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM

The argument that if we did not sell arms to despots then somebody else would is quite frankly sickening, we have no business dealing in death and destruction. We should be better than this. You could make the same argument for being a heroin dealer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM

The Royal British Legion is by far the biggest organisation for and of service veterans.
They organise the Festival of Remembrance and the Poppy Appeal.
You may not like it, but service and ex service people do.
That is who it is for.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 02:32 PM

Also Dave, it is not and never was a "CofE thing."
You will have seen no cross or crucifix.
You will have seen a pile of drums. That is a soldier's altar for a Drum Head Service.

The Prayers were led by Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch. Since 2002 he has been the National Chaplain to the Royal British Legion.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

it is not and never was a "CofE thing."

If they have a minister and mutter some prayers it is a religious thing. Cannot be anything else.

The Prayers were led by Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch.

Would that be the Nigel Simeon McCulloch, KCVO (born 17 January 1942) who is an Anglican bishop by any chance? If it is not a CofE thing what was he doing on the programme?

If people want a vicar they can go to church. If the want a rabbi they can go to a synagogue. If they want an imam they can go to the mosque. Where can those who want to avoid any religious nonsense go if they want to remember their lost ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:54 PM

RBL encourage white poppies if you read their literature and press releases and fully understand the sentiment. After all, many of their people have experienced the reality rather than the glory of fucking war.

The opportunistic Church of England meanwhile love to hijack remembrance on the basis of links with the royalty we inadvertently link to our warring past. Perhaps their scholars never got as far as thou shalt not kill and turn the other cheek.

The many Muslims, Sikhs and Jews who fought must wonder, those still left from WW2, why religious fascism didn't die with social fascism.

That's before you get to considering rational people who don't relate sky fairies of any description with the futile glorification of state sponsored butchery. Who lights a candle for the real brave ones, the conscientious objectors incarcerated and shunned by bloodthirsty idiots?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM

1.2 million Arabs fought in the British Army; 500,000 were killed. Were they mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM

Thompson, where does that number come from? Lawrence's force in WWI was only a couple of thousand, and if you add up the Arab half of the Palestine Regiment, the Arab Legion, and those Egyptians who may have fought with the British army, you get nowhere near that number. 1.2 million Muslims I can believe, but not 1.2 million Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 09:13 AM

Dave, he is a retired Bishop, but he was there because he was invited by RBL. He is their Chaplain.
You may not like the religious element of the event, but the RBL chooses to have it. Their members, service people and ex service people like it.
It is their event.

So do most people like it.
5.39 million people watched it and it sold out for both the evening and afternoon run at the RAH, as it always does.

If they have a minister and mutter some prayers it is a religious thing.
Obviously, but you said CofE.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 11:37 AM

ALL those who served in the armed forces of Great Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire are remembered Thompson - you would have known that had you listened to, or watched the service.
        
Interesting figures though Thompson which if true would mean that during the First and Second World Wars 14% of the British Army consisted of Arab troops and 41% of the fatal casualties were Arabs - pray tell where did these rather fanciful figures come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 12:23 PM

The 500,000 Arabs killed is surely an impossible figure. I'm sure the dead for all the British Empire casualties is over the million mark. Scotland itself lost approximately 100,000 war dead the UK in total was supposedly over 800,000. The other big figures from the Empire come from Australia, NZ, Canada, South Africa and India. I'm sure some Arabs were killed too but 500,000 deaths????

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 12:39 PM

They are all fucking dead, regardless of which flavour of superstition.

We roped many commonwealth countries in to help and, as some found out, decided protecting them in return wasn't strategically advantageous in WW2

RBL isn't a religious body and judging by his turban has at least one Sikh on its board of trustees. The Church of England is, regrettably, the state superstition and has links to government and royalty, hence their involvement, regardless of the wishes of RBL or anyone else for that matter in state events such as remembrance hand wringing.

The idea of "most people" wanting religion mixed into it is a groundless comment with no basis. The mental leap that people want religion at the event on the basis of attendance by old men in frocks is like saying I go to football matches because I like the smell of the urinal blocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

ALL those who served in the armed forces of Great Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire are remembered Thompson - you would have known that had you listened to, or watched the service.
        
Interesting figures though Thompson which if true would mean that during the First and Second World Wars 14% of the British Army consisted of Arab troops and 41% of the fatal casualties were Arabs - pray tell where did these rather fanciful figures come from?

War dead for British, Commonwealth & Empire forces in WWI = ~880,000

War dead for British, Commonwealth & Empire forces in WWII = ~384,000

So out of a total of ~1,264,000 – Arabs serving in the British Armed Forces accounted for 500,000?

Very much doubt that Thompson.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 03:01 PM

regardless of the wishes of RBL

RBL organise the event the way they and the service people want it.
CofE plays no part.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 03:12 PM

A rather bold statement professor, could you provide us with some evidence to substantiate your claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:19 AM

As the poster above correctly states the Festival of Remembrance is planned and organised by the Royal British Legion, the format has been long established and includes a Drumhead Service to close the festival. the service is NOT CofE but ecumenical with padres from all three services taking part and readings given by members of all faiths who serve in the armed forces of Great Britain. The Church of England takes no part in the planning or organisation of the service, they are instructed as to what is required by the RBL.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:55 AM

Keith is of course right, I don't always agree with everything he says but I find the instant aggression of some posters on here towards him a bit disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

Fine, the CofE play no part in organising it. So, the RBL think that having a CofE bishop (retired) talking about the christian concept of god and heaven is a good way of making the remembrance service inclusive to all do they? I must try it. Maybe organising christian prayers at the folk club will put more bums on seats. It obviously works in filling churches... Anyway, I am more than happy to change my statement from being 'turning into a CofE thing' to 'turning into a christian thing'. I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:23 AM

"the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing" - your words Dave the Gnome.

It would appear that quite a few here have clearly described and detailed the format of "The Festival of Remembrance" and in no way whatsoever could it be described as "a CofE thing". It has, is and always will be an all faith service of commemoration - there again you'd have known that had you bothered to watch it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:38 AM

I did watch it! From beginning to end and it was far from an 'all faith service'. If it was, where were the rabbis? Imams? Leaders of any other non-christian faiths? Also, in the post preceding yours I said quite clearly I am more than happy to change my statement from being 'turning into a CofE thing' to 'turning into a christian thing'. Which bit of that is difficult to understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

If religion isn't about promoting pacifist outlooks, it makes you wonder what buns they bring to a party.

The inclusion of superstition in such events is an acronym and tradition. A bit like that we seem to have a cut off of WW1 when remembering whatever you may be remembering. Cast a thought for what those Romans did to Boudicca eh?

Lest we forget what? Sending Padres into battle to convince soldiers that killing is ok? Asking their God to let them kill other members of their cult but with a different helmet?

I'm all for tradition but for crying out loud, to call the sky fairy input relevant rather than a habit difficult to shake off is delusional.

Oh....

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM

It is their festival, and they organise it as they, the service people and the veterans like it.

My experience of service people is that they tend not to be religious, but this festival is still popular with them.
They are more tolerant than you Dave.

Jeremy Corbyn is an atheist and is known to be anti-nationalist and anti-jingoist.
He was happy not just to attend in person, but to join in the hymns.

Even among the left wing atheist community our Mudcat ones are unusually intolerant people.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 02:37 PM

THE CENOTAPH
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:30 PM

They are more tolerant than you Dave.

How so, Keith? I watched it all on TV. I could not afford a ticket but I guess the politicos got a free ride anyway. I have said I will not watch it again but said nothing about whether it should go ahead or not. I am more than happy to live and let live as long as I am not expected to join in. What is remotely intolerant about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:29 AM

Jesus freaks are tolerant?

I'm with the late Jake Thackray on this. "I can't tolerate intolerance." Mind you, he was a committed left footer.

The thing is, rational people don't claim to "love thy neighbour" "turn the other cheek" or in the tradition of dodgy clergy, mishear "suffer the children."

Hypocrisy is part and parcel of belonging. These days, it just sticks out like a sore thumb far more than it did. Of course older people, being less street savvy and brought up to believe tend to believe so feel a crumb of comfort by seeing old men in frocks muttering platitudes. Good luck to them, placebo guarantees a minimum of 20% success rate.

But Dave The Gnome's point still stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:30 AM

@Dave the Gnome:
On the Saturday before Remembrance Sunday there is a Matinee performance of the Festival of Remembrance which is open to the public this is followed by the evening performance which is televised, the latter is restricted to guests invited by the Royal British Legion, Serving Forces personnel and members of the Royal British Legion - so, as far as the evening performance is concerned, it is not a matter of being able to afford a ticket, I doubt that you would be eligible to attend.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM

Ah, OK. Thanks Guest 13 Nov 15 - 03:30 AM. Either way I could only watch the evening performance on TV and will not be doing so again. If the afternoon performance is similar I shall not make any effort to attend that either.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 04:02 AM

Dave, you have railed against it and said that you find it "objectionable" because of its religious content.

That makes you less tolerant than Corbyn, and all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event and even participate actively in it by joining in the hymn singing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 04:55 AM

" That makes you less tolerant than Corbyn, and all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event and even participate actively in it by joining in the hymn singing"

Have you any EVIDENCE that all the other atheists among the veterans welcomed the religious element? If so please share it with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:27 AM

Yes, I find it objectionable yet still tolerate it. That is what being tolerant means. If you only tolerate the things that you like it is hardly tolerant at all is it? If I was not going to tolerate it I would have said intolerable rather than objectionable. I have even been known to attend religious ceremonies myself and will happily join in the singing if I know the tune. But it is my choice to do so when the occasion demands. It was not my choice to have it in my living room on a Saturday evening so I will not watch it next year. If that is intolerant then anyone who switches the TV off or changes channels when something they do not like comes on is in the same league.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:42 AM

Yes, I find it objectionable yet still tolerate it.

You still tolerate it Dave?
Luckily you do not have the authority to ban it, but your comments about it here suggest you would if you could.
Your comments about it here have been intolerant.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:47 AM

I would not ban anything, Keith. But, if that is your opinion of what I would do I can only refer you to the 'Listen Up' thread and say that you are talking though your arse. Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:51 AM

Rag,
Have you any EVIDENCE that all the other atheists among the veterans welcomed the religious element? If so please share it with us.

Certainly Rag.
Firstly the RBL is an organisation of and for service people and veterans.
They organise the Festival as they like it.

Secondly, service people and veterans have a voice. If they do not like something you hear about it.

Thirdly I have personally known very many people who have volunteered to participate, so I have personal knowledge.
This year my friend Sandy of 151 Rgt RLC featured in several close ups. She was at the end of a row, quite short and wearing Corporal's chevrons, but her medals including Iraq were not visible.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:53 AM

Religion has no part in these ceremonies - unless it is remembered that millions of men were sent to their deaths at the behest of priests who told them they were fightingg god's fight and they had god on their side (someone should write a song).
500.000 Sikhs and Muslims fought in W.W.1. and millions who died were atheists, yet they are excluded from this Christian/Politician backslapping exercise.
There is nothing whatever extreme in find this 'private club' attitude objectionable - and all the press has carried reports of objections to it over the last few years.
Yet the Christians doggedly hang onto it as theirs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 06:29 AM

So, is Sandy an atheist then? And if so does she represent ALL other atheists in welcoming the religious element? Seeing as you are so pedantic about the words other people use can you explain how you know that "Corbyn, and all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element" really do welcome it? If Corbyn had not attended and joined in the singing what sort of outcry would we have had then? No, sorry Keith, as you are fond of saying you should be able to back up your opinions and your opinion that all the other atheists welcomed it is demonstrably nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 06:43 AM

Your statement was " all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event"

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 06:57 AM

Sandy is an atheist, but never mind my personal knowledge.

Firstly the RBL is an organisation of and for service people and veterans.
They organise the Festival as they like it.

Secondly, service people and veterans have a voice. If they do not like something you hear about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:04 AM

Good heavens we have DtG & Raggy demanding that "Evidence" must be produced by someone posting to this thread, yet when they are asked to do the same they refuse point blank to do so, declaring that their opinions must be respected and taken at face value.

Also from further up the thread I'd love to know where Thompson got his figures from - they are way off by a "Kerry Mile".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:04 AM

I'll ask again, even though I know you will avoid the question.

You stated "all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event"

Where is your evidence that the atheists among the veterans welcome a religious element, not your opinion, but your EVIDENCE.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:05 AM

If Corbyn had not attended and joined in the singing what sort of outcry would we have had then?

You believe Corbyn was hiding his true beliefs and intentions to gain popularity?

What does that say about him, and about popular opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:23 AM

No I do not, Keith. I believe he was attending because it is the right thing for a top flight politician to do. Whether he "welcomed a religious element" is the point in question.

Teribumble declaring that their opinions must be respected and taken at face value Look at the 'Listen Up' thread if you want to know my view on opinions. Anyone can declare their opinion and anyone can chose to ignore or ridicule it. Have you got anything to add to this thread or are you just reduced to sniping from the sidelines?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:24 AM

He is a politician who at some point will seek to be the leader of the country. What do you expect him to do, put two fingers up.

According to yourself, you are the epitome of popular opinion and no doubt would have been mightily upset had he done so.

Any EVIDENCE yet about the atheists welcoming the religious element of the service yet.

I'll not hold my breathe shall I.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:26 AM

Ask away Raggy, but the statement of Keith's - ""all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event" - from personal experience in Her Majesty's armed forces rings fairly true, the "religious" bit provided a bit of a welcome break in the ceremonial proceedings during training and afterwards the CofS Padre and his wife provided the best coffee, tea, cakes and biscuits going.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:31 AM

I well remember my late friend Adam telling us of Sunday parades during national service in the RAF starting with call 'Fall out Jews, Roman Catholic and other Denominations'. Very inclusive of them...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:38 AM

Teribus,

Thank you for that. A break from the proceedings I can see would be a welcome break. A nice cup of tea and a bun from the Vicar and his partner would no doubt be welcome.

However I don't think on this occasion that the religious element provided a break, it was part of the proceedings.


Nice try though.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:42 AM

But rather a nice way of rounding things off.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 08:02 AM

Indeed, Teribubbles, in your opinion. It is not the opinion of all though is it? I appreciate that many do enjoy it. There are also many who not enjoy it but tollerate it for the sake of others and there are those who do not welcome it at all, amongst all shades of opinion in between. We all know that not everyone will be satisfied and not linking something is not being intolerant.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 11:13 AM

Well there you have it my bald, name calling, diminutive, rotund one. Could not care a toss whether or not you care for the drumhead service that closes the Festival of Remembrance or not - you have no part in it or of it. The order and format of the Festival is planned and organised by those who do and they will not lose one wink of sleep should you never watch it again. Your opinions on the subject are meaningless and worthless the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country - something you have never done.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

Do you get medals for making cups of tea these days?

Excellent entertainment as ever. Keith calling rational people intolerant, which is another subject where kettles spring to kind and Terispunkbubble showing us how he trolls by gleaming personal details about people with which to try and bully them. He wouldn't like it if others brought up his own irrelevant to the thread silliness. Hey! Tell us all about Thatcherism and economics, two other subjects where you cause me to lose a little wee wee.

Whilst ever superstition is part and parcel of group shame and regret, it can never be inclusive of rational people or even people for whom Christianity is a false heresy in their mind.

Not exactly inclusive of a huge chunk of those dead in the name of petty ex empire eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM

Your opinions on the subject are meaningless Absolutely, Teriballs. Just as your opinions on most things are complete bollocks. You are welcome to ignore or ridicule my opinion to your hearts content and I shall continue to do the same with yours.

Glad we have reached consensus on this at long last :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:21 PM

i don't like the suggestion that those of us who have never taken up arms have 'never served their country' many public servants and other carers, parents, publicans and priests have done many years of invaluable service for their communities. some of us do not feel the need to join gangs and are unwilling to go abroad to attack foreign people with whom we have absolutely no quarrel. before i get all sorts of criticism can i stress that i am not talking about (just) british people here - i mean all of us, in every country. people will keep signing up to follow the orders of evil or deranged leaders (or church or crown) and while they then probably do not expect to be treated as heroes for their criminal behaviour, remembrance these days does so and is increasingly an unsavoury, jingoistic 'celebration'
remember all the victims of war -these days far more likely to be women, children or aid workers than active combatants- and do what we can to stop any more fighting. and stop selling weapons -it's not rocket science!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:28 PM

From Teribus: (hopefully he will note I'm using his correct pseudonym)

"the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country"

What a strange sentence. I thought the remembrance service was so that we, the people, could honour our fallen.

Have I got that wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 06:12 PM

Teribus serves himself. The idea of selfless service is alien to his mindset.

Mind you, he does like being associated with those he couldn't begin to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:04 PM

"Your opinions on the subject are meaningless and worthless the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country - something you have never done."

Well, that takes the biscuit, does that. How do you know that Dave hasn't served his country? Is the only way to serve you country by lining yerself up to be shot at by foreigners because a bloody stupid politician told you to? God, you don't half come out with some stuff. What about nursesteachersdoctorsmidwivescareworkerscleanerscoppersfiremennurserynursespostmenambulancedriversparamedics? Sorry if I've left anyone out. Maybe you think the royals, only here because millions died to stop fascists from taking us over and cutting their heads off, or archbishops who pray for the dead without risking a hair on their sacred heads, or the heads of banks or big business who got where they were by fleecing the rest of us blind and "forgetting" to pay their taxes, have "served their country"? Huh??

And while we're at it, Mr Woodcock, would you care to tell us all where we can look up exactly what it was that YOU did to "serve our country"?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 02:43 AM

I think that you will find that at the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance many of those you have mentioned are represented - but there again it would appear that those of you who stated quite clearly that "you watched the whole thing" must have been watching a completely different programme to the one I and millions of others watched, perhaps like most aspects of your lives you only see, read and listen to the things you want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM

just in case some of us are a bit thick, Woodcock spells out his blinkered bigotry and misplaced patriotism.

Fascinating.

I've never shamed my family with rifle and beret but have tried to serve my country well. The military may be a good haven for grunts with nothing but brawn to offer and in recent years, the assertive social work they carry out in peacekeeping roles is sometimes commendable. But serving your country is a different kettle of fish to propping up desperate governments. Thatcher with Falklands, Major, Blair and Brown with Middle East and Cameron wearing two faces simultaneously and hoping nobody notices.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:01 AM

"I've never shamed my family with rifle and beret but have tried to serve my country well."

Really? I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it. Have you been successful in serving your country GUEST, or have you been more successful in serving yourself?

"But serving your country is a different kettle of fish to propping up desperate governments. Thatcher with Falklands, Major, Blair and Brown with Middle East and Cameron wearing two faces simultaneously and hoping nobody notices."

1: The Falklands - you would have thrown British subjects on the mercies of Galtieri's Junta without a second thought? In what way is that serving your country? How noble of you.

2: Major?? Ah you mean the response to Iraq's invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait (Good heavens faithful servant of the British nation and the British people - you do seem awfully predisposed to rewarding military aggression by others at the expense of the innocent and at no cost to yourself - again how noble of you) By the bye the decision to eject Iraqi troops from Kuwait was I believe a UN decision. Then of course there was that stramash in the former Yugoslav Republic the involvement of NATO there was to prevent genocide wasn't it?

3: Blair and Brown?? Afghanistan? Our initial involvement there had something to do with our being part of NATO and honouring articles 5 & 6 of the NATO Charter, subsequently we were involved at the behest of the UN as part of UNAMA and ISAF. Iraq in 2003 had something to do with a ceasefire agreement signed by the Government of Iraq in March 1991 at a place called Safwan. As the Iraqis did not comply with the terms and conditions they had agreed to the ceasefire was deemed to have been broken leaving any of the combatant signatories free to resume hostilities until such time as compliance had been achieved.

4: Cameron?? Libya was a UN operation at the prompting of the Arab League, the GCC, France, Britain and the USA - so noble servant of the British people NOT Cameron's sole decision or idea. Syria? rather idiotically voted down in the House of Commons, had action been taken then, we would not have the disaster that we now have in that country.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:23 AM

You are obviously a busy man Teribus, you forgot to address my earlier query.

From Teribus: (hopefully he will note I'm using his correct pseudonym)

"the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country"

What a strange sentence. I thought the remembrance service was so that we, the people, could honour our fallen.

Have I got that wrong?

Any chance of an answer yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:39 AM

No, don't worry about Teribums aiming his nonsensical 'served your country' bollocks at me chaps. As I keep saying, opinions are allowed, no matter how stupid, and we are allowed to ridicule them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:43 AM

Yes you have got it wrong.
The Royal British legion is an organisation of and for service people and veterans.
Their Festival commemorates all those who have lost their lives in conflicts, and commemorates them in the way that those service people and veterans want it.

They are not interested in the views of every tiny extremist minority who might want it done differently, especially those who have never and would never bear arms in defence of their home.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM

In the spirit of something posted on another thread, I have made my point on here. I think that combining religion with remembrance is wrong. Others disagree. I have nothing further to add so I shall leave you to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM

So have I got this right Professor, Teribus says:

"the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country"

So the commemoration has got sweet FA to do with the population at large, it is only for people who have been in one of the forces.

Is that what you are saying.

I've discovered it's best to ask you as you do have a habit of moving goalposts don't you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:03 AM

Well put Keith but as Raggy asked read this again Raggy (I've taken the trouble to put "The Festival" in context to help you)

"The order and format of the Festival [i.e. the televised programme] is planned and organised by those who do and they will not lose one wink of sleep should you never watch it again. Your opinions on the subject are meaningless and worthless the Festival [i.e. the televised programme] is for those who serve and have served their country"

Oh and Raggy you are perfectly correct the Remembrance SERVICE is so that the entire nation can remember those who fell giving their lives for their country - The Remembrance SERVICE however happens at the Cenotaph on the Sunday AFTER the Saturday night broadcast of the Royal British Legion's Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall.

Clear enough for you Raggy?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:05 AM

The clue is in the name Rag.
It is The Royal British Legion Festival Of Remembrance.
Others are invited, but it remains their Festival.

People who do not like it are free to do their own thing, but for some reason they don't.
I suppose you have to give a shit, and they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM

" Oh and Raggy you are perfectly correct the Remembrance SERVICE is so that the entire nation can remember those who fell giving their lives for their country - The Remembrance SERVICE however happens at the Cenotaph on the Sunday AFTER the Saturday night broadcast of the Royal British Legion's Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall"

So the festival of remembrance is only for people who have served, nothing to do with the remainder of the population. I'm surprised the BBC broadcast it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 06:18 AM

keith, i reckon that anyone would 'bear arms in defence of their home'and it's a major reason why many people across the world are so angry about modern day imperialist adventures by the usa and their allies. of course, i would fight in defence of my home but i certainly would not fight for cheap oil, general haig, capitalism or just because 'we have to do something' about syria.
in my own occasionally engaged though always enraged way it feels like i have been fighting against thatcherism all my adult life but never felt the need to get physical about it.
it's a long time since any of us had to fight in defence of our home - we are lucky to live in the uk with our soldiers abroad. we should remember all the victims of war, everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:09 AM

Perhaps those here who find the existing Festival so objectionable will work to produce a more acceptable one.
The Republican Leftwing Atheists Festival Of Remembrance.

I would watch that.
I would pay to watch that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:16 AM

happens all the time - remembering those who stood up against fascism in germany, in spain, in chile and nicaragua and many other places where imperialism and capitalism impose their soulless and brutal ideology against decent people anywhere. lee rigby was a tragic figure murdered by maniacs on the street, blair peach was murdered by the state - respect to them both.
do you have a problem with leftwingers? atheists? republicans? some of us are good people too, you know. i'm sure you wouldn't want to join fascists in striving for a world where all points of view aren't tolerated and respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM

"do you have a problem with leftwingers? atheists? republicans?"

LOL !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM

do you have a problem with leftwingers? atheists? republicans?

The Professor has a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with his drivel 100%.

Don't take it personally.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:39 AM

do you have a problem with leftwingers? atheists? republicans?

Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem.
They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I am sure that most, like you alchemvich, are much more tolerant.
Corbyn clearly is.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:51 AM

I have never met Akenaton, but we have become firm friends via pm.
He is a republican, left wing atheist.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 11:03 AM

i think you must be writing about a different akenaton than the one who regularly posts on here

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:03 PM

GUEST Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM

I take it GUEST 05:34 that reading and comprehension of the English language is not your strong point then.

"The Festival" i.e the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance AS TELEVISED.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:17 PM

" Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem. They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

Hmmmm Perhaps professor you could provide a link to any post where I have even suggested that I find the festival "objectionable"

If you can't I would expect you to keep your gratuitous little words to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:52 AM

Nobody objects to the Festival - here or elsewhere
They object to the act of remembrance being monopolised by the religious (who were very much a part of the butchery of W.W.1) and by politicians, who caused the slaughter in the first place - neither of whom, with their track records, have any right to exclude those of other religions or of none whatever, should they wish to.
There is enough religions trouble in the world today (see Paris) without being told by one particularly unsavoury example of the worst aspects of the Christian religion, who apparently possesses not a scrap of Christian values or humanity, that atheists are not fit to hold such a commemoration and any efforts they might make are fit only to be sneered at and "sold tickets to" - that really does inspire confidence in religion, doesn't it!!
God (whoever's) save us from such fanatics.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:15 AM

Keith defends bigotry. I point it out. My post is deleted.

Perhaps the normal well adjusted decent people on here might realise that the reason ignorance prevails is that you either try to reason with it unsuccessfully (Dave etc) or your posts are deleted because Max runs a website that reflects his own right wing bigoted agenda.

Fair play, he is a foreigner eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:23 AM

Rag,
Hmmmm Perhaps professor you could provide a link to any post where I have even suggested that I find the festival "objectionable"

Dave used the word and you always agree with him Rag.
Prove me wrong.
Say you disagree with him on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

I know I said I would leave you to it but that last one really needs addressing. I have never said the festival was objectionable. My exact phrase, not that you cannot look it up yourself, was

but the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing.

I subsequently changed that from a CofE thing to a christian thing because you pointed out that other christian cults were involved. At no point in time have I objected to the remembrance itself and Raggy has nothing to disagree with me about. No one has objected to the festival itself. You are, as usual, misrepresenting what was said for your own gain. Now, I know you will try your best to wheedle and worm your way out of anything so, for the record and as clearly as I can put

I DO NOT OBJECT TO THE FESTIVAL OF REMEMBRANCE

I DO OBJECT TO A CHRISTIAN SERVICE BEING PART OF IT WHEN SO MANY THAT DIED WERE NOT OF THAT FAITH.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM

If Dave used a word, fine that's Dave's prerogative.

You made an unsubstantiated ACCUSATION against me.

A honourable person would offer an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:40 AM

Dave,
I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again.

Rag, do you agree with Dave or not?
If you do not, I do owe you an apology.
If you do, no apology is owed.
Which is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM

Oh, and for the record, I have started to make arrangements for The Republican Leftwing Atheists Festival Of Remembrance. It will be in our village, possibly in the local pub. Tickets will be £25,000 each. Keith has already committed to it so I know costs are covered -

I would watch that.
I would pay to watch that.

I suspect he was lying but you never know :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

I do not need to answer that question. What Dave, or anyone else, writes is entirely up to them. I do not answer for them.

YOU POSTED " Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem.They find the existing festival "objectionable."


You accuse ME of doing so but can find NOTHING to substantiate your vindictive words.

The ball is firmly in your court.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

Keith - See my post of 15 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM. Tell me which bit you do not understand and I will endeavour to explain more clearly. No one is saying the festival is objectionable. You are hinging your argument around the word 'it' being the festival when you know damn well it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:23 AM

Wonderful comment on the increasing awfulness of some of the acts trawled up to take part in these commemoration beanfeasts by A.A Gill in The Sunday Times this morning (must have had the dreadful cabaret style rendering of Willie McBride last year).
He describes them as Captain Mainwearing's version of 'Britain's Got Talent'.
Couldn't have done it without the church!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

The "church" played no part Jim.
Dave, the Drumhead Service is a small but integral part of the event, and you said you found it objectionable.
I think you are being intolerant.

Rag, Dave said he finds the existing festival "objectionable."
Everything you have posted supports my view that you do too.
If you do not, say so and I will apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 08:09 AM

I have never posted anything to give you a reason to believe that I found the remembrance festival objectionable. That was YOUR creation not mine.

An apology would not go amiss.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:22 AM

If you agree with Dave it is objectionable, then I was right about you and you should apologise for making an issue..

If you agree with me that he was wrong, I will apologise.

Your call Rag.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

"The "church" played no part Jim."
But you are claiming this as a religious event as kindly suggesting that the rest of us can come along if we wish to - very kind of you of course (even if it is only for the good and the great) - helps to foster universal love and brotherhood no end!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:32 AM

I have already stated Dave can say what he wants, I have no influence on the things he writes.

I have not said that the remembrance service was objectionable and take exception that you are now trying to persuade me to deny something I didn't do in the first place.

An apology please.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:41 AM

I was right about you.
You do find it objectionable as I correctly stated.
If I was wrong you would say so, but you do not.

I ask you to deny nothing, just was I right about you or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM

I am not playing your game.

You stated " Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem. They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I asked you to find one example of me doing that. You have failed to do so because there isn't one example.

I asked for an apology. I am still waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 10:38 AM

Good heavens Raggy there you go demanding this and demanding that of people while you never provide any of the information or detail when requested by others - what is the party line again for the likes of yourself, the Gnome and your GUEST alter egos? - Oh yes that is it, whatever you say is merely your opinion and that you never have to explain or justify it to anybody. So tell me why does Keith have to justify his opinion that he thinks that you, tacitly agree with the gnome and find the festival in its current format "objectionable" - you have had more than ample opportunity to deny it yet you have remained silent - can't really fault Keith A for holding to his opinion, you haven't really done much (in fact nothing at all) to dissuade him.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 10:41 AM

Even you know Teribus the difference between not offering an argument and libel

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

When Keith says he finds something objectionable that is his view.

When says a comment is objectionable he is elevating his opinion to being the arbiter of taste, which with his track record he most certainly isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:17 PM

Keith

Rag, Dave said he finds the existing festival "objectionable."

Nowhere on this thread or any other have I said I find the existing festival objectionable. On the second post in the thread I said "the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing". I subsequently said "Anyway, I am more than happy to change my statement from being 'turning into a CofE thing' to 'turning into a christian thing'." I stated at the outset and have repeated that it is the inclusion of a Christian service in a remembrance for people of all or no faith that I find objectionable. Never the festival itself. Why do you feel the need to manipulate the truth so much?

I would find it objectionable if someone was to fart loudly and smellily on the bus but it does not mean I object to buses. How on earth do you manage to put a different slant on everything I say?

Teribums - What Guest alter-egos? Can you substantiate the ridiculous claim that I post as anyone other than myself or is it yet another load of bollocks?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:33 PM

Dave, can you do me a favour and copy this to your facebook page.

Thanks

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:34 PM

Dave I meant to say the whole thread

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 01:06 PM

Will do, Rag. If anyone wants to find it they can look up the Facebook page of my Spanish friend, Mudcat DelThreads. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 02:59 PM

Dave, the service is a small but integral part of the festival, and you said it was "objectionable."

Rag, anyone reading the thread would conclude that you and Dave are in agreement.

If you agree with Dave that it is objectionable, then I was right.
If you agree with me that it is not, then I do owe you an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I have NOT commented on the festival being objectionable or not.

You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable, I did not.

That deserves an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:10 PM

But I have never said the festival is objectionable so how can anyone agree or disagree with that?

Back to you.

Rag - Just disagree with me that something I did not say is not objectionable. Or maybe it is, I think. Whatever the fuck he is on about. Just disagree. I don't mind at all and it will be worth it to see the Keithy babe either apologise or, more likely, renege on his promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:13 PM

I have not accused you of saying anything Rag.
I said, "They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I believe that to be true.
If I was wrong you would certainly announce it, but you won't because I was right about you.

Prove me wrong and say you do not find the existing festival, with its service, objectionable like Dave says he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:14 PM

Actually, Raggy, I have just twigged.

If you agree with Dave that it is objectionable, then I was right.
If you agree with me that it is not, then I do owe you an apology.

Just agree that the festival is not objectionable and Keith will owe you an apology. I also agree that the festival is not objectionable so it is a win/win situation.

I bet he doesn't apologise though ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:21 PM

I'll place my last comment again:

I have NOT commented on the festival being objectionable or not.

You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable, I did not.

That deserves an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM

for the purpose of clarifying any doubt can i just say that i find the service objectionable?
i could add that it is objectionable and depressing and pathetic that several aging/aged blokes on here think it is ok to squabble away about inconsequential nonsense.
it is objectionable, depressing, pathetic and sick that while there is so much shite going on around the world that we think it is still worthwhile to attempt to score cheap points off each other.
mo, it is not acceptable to be racist, aggressive , tory or rude about each other or anyone else. fuckin pack it in.
ever wonder why why there are no woman or younger people on this site? it could well be because we are all just objectionable .....and stupid....and blinkered.

but to return to the british legion - yes, i do object . it's all about men who died because they were fighting to do what their governments told them to. more than that, it is currently about a bunch of macho/racist aggressive blokes who think that supporting our hired army makes them more hard or patriotic or something.
to be honest, i'm an old hippy and into peace and these guys have too much body weight and not enough brain.

imagine if everyone just stopped fighting or idolising the warriors among us-it isn't hard to do .

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raffles
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:31 PM

Drank like a fire-engine, but only got drunk enough to make us a speech that I wouldn't have missed for ten pounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:54 PM

"to return to the british legion - yes, i do object . it's all about men who died because they were fighting to do what their governments told them to"

Wrong GUEST,achmelvich - They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace, security and liberty, free to spout your ill-informed cliche-riddled drivel to your hearts content without fear of let or hindrance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 07:31 PM

"They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace"
No they didn't - they died for a whole number of reasons whicch we have discussed ad-nauseum
You have already described soldiers like Harry Patch as liars because they disagreed with your jingoistic claptrap - there were many who shared his view
Even those who may have fallen for your line were sold out by depression, hunger marches mass unemployment, appeasement to fascism and yet another World War where "We started all over again" as the song says.
"Land fit for heroes to live in" my arseum!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:58 AM

They died for what they were told to believe.

I suppose in a warped way, that makes them martyrs. Some weren't martyrs though. They put in a uniform because society expected it, or to get away from boring or awful jobs. Read Spike Milligan's war memoirs.

Their latter day comrades also died to make the world safer according to Bliar & Bush.

That worked......

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:31 AM

"You have already described soldiers like Harry Patch as liars"

Did I Jim? Where? When? I certainly have no recollection of ever having stated that Harry Patch was a liar. Ah but you write "soldiers like" which leads me to recall your belief in a tale told to you by someone called Tommy Kenny about British Military policemen forcing British soldiers out of trenches and shooting them if they refused to go. I remember at the time I asked you what regiment Tommy Kenny served in - you couldn't tell me (I on the other hand did the research and found that in the entire First World War only six men with the name Thomas Kenny served in the British Army, the most likely candidate won the Military Medal - I also did the research and found that in the course of that war there was not one instance of anything even remotely resembling your Tommy Kenny's story ever having occurred). You on the other hand were so eager to believe this fairytale that you checked and confirmed nothing related to what he had told you (I at least know with 100% certainty that Harry Patch did serve on the Western Front as a soldier - as far as YOUR Tommy Kenny you haven't a clue one way or another) - you might swallow any line and take it at face value I do not. This will prove to be another case of Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit" similar to your accusation that "I once stated that your long dead mother had been on the game" which as I recall was an accusation that was proven to have been totally groundless i.e. another example of Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit". No wonder I have long since ceased to pay any attention to your poorly presented, ranting, multi-coloured, ramblings, your interminable cut 'n ' pastes and your idiotic insistence that newspaper articles are proof of anything when they suit your biased and bigoted view and baseless right-wing lies and propaganda when they don't. Who did you model yourself on Jim - Citizen "Wolfie" Smith??

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:44 AM

"They died for what they were told to believe."

Really GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 02:58 AM? And what was it they were told to believe? And who was it that told them to believe it? Do you believe what you are told to believe? I know that I certainly wouldn't. Your rather idiotic statement tends to indicate that you have never served in any of the armed forces and have never spoken to veterans who have actually seen and experienced combat, if you had you would have noted and found as a common denominator the fact that in combat soldiers do not fight for "King and Country", they do not fight for "the honour and glory of the regiment or the colours" - they fight for each other, they fight for their mates, they fight to get through it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:14 AM

"I certainly have no recollection of ever having stated that Harry Patch was a liar. "
Your response to my accounts of the WW1 veteran we spent three days recording was "soldiers tell lies" - dismissing what had to say in three words - so much for your respect for war heroes!
You and your fellow jingoists have done this with every statement by veterans critical of the war raised in discussion - you prefer the offiucial establishment version rather than the words of those whoo actually fought.
You now appear to be calling me or Tommy Kenny a liar (again) in support of the official version.
You have ignored and continue to do so, the lies, distortions, the pressure, the blackmail and the open threats of imprisonment and death that caused people to join up.
Tommy Kenny joined up a couple of years after leaving school - like his contemporaries, he couldn't get work in poverty-stricken Liverpool, he was offered a wage, a uniform and the romance of foreign places and told the war was a forgone conclusion that would soon be over, so he lied about his age and joined up - that was the case with many thousands of young lads who risked and gave their lives to join the bloodbath.
The fact thay you couldn't find Tommy Kenny in your "researches" is immaterial - his interviews (carried out by me, two well-known singers and the folk scene and Tommy's grandson) is archived along with the rest of our collection in three national archives.   
Jeremy Paxman's programmes devoted a great deal of time to the machinations of recruiting - one of the high-spots was the master-recruiter. Horatio Bottomley, who presented jingoistic pantomimes downplaying and distorting the horrors of what was actually happening.         
Bottomley not only became a millionaire on his sending many thousands of young men to their deaths, but he was later jailed as a crook - too late to save the lives he helped take.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:24 AM

Rag,
You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable,

No I have not.

Dave,
I also agree that the festival is not objectionable

You stated, "I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

About time Keith, you've convinced yourself overnight that you were right, that you've done nothing wrong. What a sad, gutless little man you are. We should feel sorry for you really. Just one thing I hope you are going to confess before you go to church on Sunday. You go on about people losing. Well you have lost. You have courage, you have lost all credibility, you have lost all honesty, you have lost integrity, you have lost trustworthiness, you have lost legitimacy. You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:44 AM

"Dave used the word and you always agree with him Rag"

Just to jog your poor memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:07 AM

I accused you of agreeing with Dave, not of saying anything Rag.
Whatever Dave says now, he said earlier that it was "objectionable."
I am not wasting another post on this nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM

You stated, "I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again."

I did indeed Keith, and I still find the inclusion of a christian service in remembrance of non-christian fallen objectionable. I do not and have never found the remembrance objectionable. Which is what you are implying. Why don't you just admit that you misinterpreted my comment? I have no idea if it was accidental or malicious but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt. I will even help you by saying that I could have phrased it better. I don't mind. I have already clarified what I meant but assume you did not read that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:13 AM

You couldn't apply that logic to the whole forum could you professor.


Not that it matters one way or the other. Once again you have clearly demonstrated your true colours.













A sort of shitty yellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:14 AM

What was the "it" you will not bother with again?
The Festival.
The service is an integral part of the Festival and always has been.
I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable." "
The existing Festival includes the service.

Now I have wasted another post on your nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:16 AM

But I, Raggytash, did not type that did I?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:23 AM

I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

You did indeed, Keith. No one else said it but you. I do not know how I can make it any more clear. I do not find the festival objectionable. I do find the inclusion of christian prayers for non-christians objectionable. I do not find you objectionable. I do find your abuse of the English language objectionable. I do not find buses objectionable. I do find people farting on them is. What is there to not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:30 AM

"The fact thay you couldn't find Tommy Kenny in your "researches" is immaterial"

WTF!!!! - Can you actually READ Mr Carroll??? What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???

"(I on the other hand did the research and found that in the entire First World War only six men with the name Thomas Kenny served in the British Army, the most likely candidate won the Military Medal - I also did the research and found that in the course of that war there was not one instance of anything even remotely resembling your Tommy Kenny's story ever having occurred)

Just in case you still don't understand that Mr Carroll - couldn't find Tommy Kenny - I FOUND ALL SIX OF THEM AND READ THEIR RECORDED WAR RECORDS - YOU PRAT

You on the other hand talked to a man in interview for three days and you checked and corroborated absolutely nothing. Of course you could prove me wrong by going back to your notes and interview tapes and tell us all:

1: What year your man joined the army
2: What regiment he served in
3: What theatre of war he served in
4: What action in fought in where members of the MFP or MMP lined up behind British soldiers to force them "over the top"
5: What action he fought in where he saw MFP or MMP shooting British soldiers for refusing to advance or for returning to their trenches

I can say with absolute certainty that you will provide none of those details because so eager were you to get all this "working class hero" bullshit down you forgot the one most important thing about researching and recording history - you forgot to check up and get corroboration and supporting background and information to validate what you had been told.

"You and your fellow jingoists have done this with every statement by veterans critical of the war raised in discussion - you prefer the offiucial establishment version rather than the words of those whoo actually fought."

Care to offer me any explanation as to how and why it was that the Tommy Kenny that you and your little group interviewed over a period of three days was the only person to have witnessed these things? Care to even examine how such acts could be carried out using reason and logic? You have never studied military history or battlefield archaeology, you simply have no grasp about what you are prattling on about.

A: How many Military Policemen would you need to force a regiment of infantry men over the top at gunpoint- let alone an entire Division? Reasonably and logically you as the military policemen would have to be better armed than the soldiers of that infantry regiment and you would have to have parity in numbers or superiority in numbers otherwise once you started shooting soldiers the soldiers would turn their guns on you. Tell me Jim, how many men served in the war as military policemen (IIRC they started in 1914 with a few hundred and finished in 1918 with around 25,000 covering an army that was 440,000 strong in 1914 and around 5,300,000 strong in 1918). You are completely hopeless when it comes to detail, perspective, logic or reason - you start out with your view and your preconceptions then go hell for leather to prove them irrespective of what substantive evidence tells you, if it doesn't fit your theory you ignore it.

B: The battlefield archaeology bit comes in here Jim - any idea how a system of trenches is laid out? How many different sorts of trenches there were and what their functions were - or do you think that Captain Blackadder's cosy little dug-out was what frontline trench warfare was all about? THE frontline trench if you look at all the pictures form the first world war just simply would not be big enough to allow space for those about to mount the attack and a line of men behind them ready to shoot them if they didn't go - that is just simple physical fact.

Your old man's tale never happened I say that because I have examined the allegation that it did, I have looked at it logically, I have applied reason to it, I have looked for anything at all that could even be remotely considered by way of corroboration and have found absolutely nothing to support this "Urban Myth" that you seem so sold on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:49 AM

"What was the "it" you will not bother with again?
The Festival.
The service is an integral part of the Festival and always has been.
I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable." "
The existing Festival includes the service." - Keith A

Game, Set & Match Gnome stop wriggling and trying to move the goalposts.

As far as the likes of you and Raggy go the "I never said that" line is a bit irritating and unnecessary really - neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

Part Two of the triple alliance boldly puts his foot forward. Is there no start to the bravery of these three illustrious gentlemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

"WTF!!!! - Can you actually READ Mr Carroll??? What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???"
Will you stop talking down to people, you bullying moron - you really aren't bright enough to do that to anybody.
It doesn't matter who Tommy Kenny was unless you are calling him a liar or claiming he is a figment of my imagination - his story exists as recorded as archived and was witness by John Faulkner and Sandra Kerr - so which is it to be - was Tommy lying or am I?
As for Tommy's story not existing elsewhere - probably the stupidest thing you have said to date
Tommy's story is identical to many accounts of World War One - young ben not able to find work, dissatisfied with their lives tricked into joining up by the promise of a regular job and the romance of travel and a unifirm to attract the girls - as old as warfare itself - utterly crass.
The army didn't need military policemen to force men to fight against their will - what king of stupid argument is that.
They had laws and the threat of imprisonment and the firing squad if, once enlisted or recruited, they refused to fight.
Please don't try to throw dust in my eyes with your supposed military knowledge (gained no doubt in the galley of your cross-channel ferry while you were washing the pots)
THe lads who fought and died were, by and largely r#tricked into doing so with false promises of a better world and other enticements - there are enough examples of ex-soldiers saying so - Harry Patch being one of them.
Their sacrifice deserved far more than your jingoistic establishment bollocks.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:56 AM

WTF are you on about Teribums? I said I do not find the festival objectionable but I do find the inclusion of christian prayers for non-christians objectionable. I have never said anything else. Just who is moving what goalposts?

neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway.

If you believe that we are not worth talking to, who are the idiots that keep responding to us?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 06:02 AM

The only person moving goalposts is the professor as well you know.

Trying the defend the undefendable really doesn't suit you Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM

Talking down to people??

You said I had failed to find any record of a soldier named Tommy Kenny in answer to a post of mine where I had quite clearly stated that I had found not only one soldier named Tommy Kenny but six - clear example of Jim Carroll's inability to read and understand the English language and complete and utter lack of any powers of reasoning or logic.

"The army didn't need military policemen to force men to fight against their will - what king of stupid argument is that.
They had laws and the threat of imprisonment and the firing squad if, once enlisted or recruited, they refused to fight."

OK then Jim, when you first introduced us all to Tommy Kenny you did tell us all about Tommy telling you about MPs forcing British soldiers over the top at gunpoint? Did Tommy Kenny regale you with stories of MPs shooting British soldiers who refused to go over the top and for returning to their trenches? If he did he was lying because no such incidents EVER HAPPENED during the entire course of the First World War - if you think what I have said there is incorrect then please provide us with evidence that refutes what I have said - Please note: The word of one single man who YOU have not even been able to establish whether or not he even ever served as a soldier does not count. At the time of all the WWI threads none of your fellow travelers were able to come up with any other examples of this practice so how come YOUR Tommy was the only one to witness it? That sort of thing would have been impossible to keep quiet. Oh and here is another piece of information for you to consider, during the course of WWI the Military Foot Police and the Military Mounted Police never once shot a British soldier - not even those condemned to die by firing squad - soldiers from the condemned man's regiment had to form the firing squad. Standard and uniform issue of arms for the Military Police? A side arm, a service revolver.

"Tommy's story is identical to many accounts of World War One

Yet none of you who believe the myth about men being forced over the top at gunpoint can verify Tommy's story

" - young men not able to find work, dissatisfied with their lives tricked into joining up by the promise of a regular job and the romance of travel and a uniform to attract the girls - as old as warfare itself - utterly crass."

What on earth are you wittering on about? Is that seriously your argument? A bunch of tired old stereotypical cliches? Rather runs against the facts doesn't it with regard to the first two years of the First World War. Such as over 1,200,000 men rushing to join the British Army between August 1914 and December 1914 in overwhelming droves of VOLUNTEERS so great that the British Army of the day couldn't cope with the rush. By the time the War was over 2.6 million British men who had volunteered to join the armed forces and a further 2.7 million had been conscripted. EVERY other soldier who participated from Ireland, from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland, India, South Africa, etc, etc - where conscription did not exist were ALL VOLUNTEERS.

"Please don't try to throw dust in my eyes with your supposed military knowledge"

For the purposes of this exchange Carroll it can clearly be seen who knows what they are talking about and who does not - you old son are absolutely clueless when it comes to this subject.

"THe lads who fought and died were, by and largely tricked into doing so with false promises of a better world and other enticements - there are enough examples of ex-soldiers saying so - Harry Patch being one of them."

Really?? Any documented examples of this? I don't think I will get any from you or your fellow travelers.

Your "Home before Christmas" was shown and clearly demonstrated as being a myth as far as the British Government and the British people were concerned.

The "country fit for heroes to live in"?? Never stated at any time during the war - so hardly a false promise - the line came from a speech delivered by David Lloyd George at Wolverhampton, Nov. 23, 1918 and subsequently quoted in The Times, Nov. 25, 1918. (Source: The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations" by Tony Augarde.)

Oh and Jim, and apologies to Eric Bogle, but not one single man who joined the British Armed Forces during the First World War, not one single General and not one single politician ever seriously believed for one single second that they were "fighting the war to end all war". Again here is David Lloyd George using the phrase:

"This war, like the next war, is a war to end war."

Harry Patch was one of the ones who said all that was he Carroll??

Well here is what Harry Patch did say about all that Jim:

Background - Harry Patch grew up in Coombe Down, near Bath. He left school at 15 and trained as a plumber. He was 16 when war broke out and reached 18 just as conscription was being introduced. Unlike many of the young men who smilingly signed up for death and dismemberment, he had no illusions.

What Harry DID say - "I knew what to expect. My mother had three sons. My oldest brother suffered from asthma. He didn't pass. My middle brother was a regular soldier. Royal Engineers. Serving in Africa. He was called home and wounded at Mons. I knew what it was going to be like: dirty, filthy, insanitary."

Those the words a man being told lies and coaxed with false promises and inducements?? Don't think so Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:15 AM

Harry Patch

Teribus please read paragraph 5 and then come back and tell me that Harry Patch was lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:47 AM

"Did Tommy Kenny regale you with stories of MPs shooting British soldiers who refused to go over the top and for returning to their trenches"
Nope - that was somebody else altogether in recollections of his grandfather - look the ***** thing up - you were given a link that was taken from the net.
The fact that it is inconvenient to your case does not make it a lie - it was told to the writer by his grandfather - another veteran who you choose to call a liar - you are adding to your score here by leaps and bounds - were there any World War One soldiers who told the truth, other the the ones who back your jingoism.
"A war to end all wars" was one of the ploys to get lads to joint up - it doesn't matter a toss which General believed it - certainly some of that lads did - you said so yourself, though not in so many words
"They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace, security and liberty"
Another ploy was "a land fit for heroes to live in"
"The election was fought not so much on the peace issue and what to do with Germany, although those themes played a role. More important was the voters' evaluation of Lloyd George in terms of what he had accomplished so far and what he promised for the future. His supporters emphasised that he had won the Great War. Against his strong record in social legislation, he himself called for making "a country fit for heroes to live in""
SOME OF THE OTHER LIES
"Your "Home before Christmas" was shown and clearly demonstrated as being a myth"
No it wasn't - it was what many of the men went to the trenches believing - covered adequately in Paxman's programmes.
Doesn't matter a toss that those who spread it didn't believe it - that was the message circulated.
" The word of one single man who YOU have not even been able to establish whether or not he even ever served as a soldier does not count."
Again - not true - I attended his funeral and met some of those who knew him - he was the grandfather of a close friend - are you claiming that his family and friends invented his war-record?
Your jingoism gets more and more squalid
Harry Patch went on to say he had been conned and the war was not worth the sacrifice - you conveniently missed out the important bit.
Jim Carroll


.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:51 AM

Now boys, I think Colonel Blimp established his rather- err- idiosyncratic? and specious view of the First World War and war in general a long time ago, ably aided by The Professor.

What's the point of beating your heads against a brick wall?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:54 AM

"Another ploy was "a land fit for heroes to live in"
That should have been "a war to end all wars" of course
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:56 AM

Ah Raggy another poor soul who cannot read:

Fifth Paragraph you say - is this:
"You got tots of rum.There were many a man who didn't like rum, didn't drink it. It used to warm you up. Life in the trenches, well…can you imagine now, going out from this room along the corridor and there is a trench dug across the lawn. Six feet deep and three feet wide. There is water and mud in the bottom. You sit on a trench at the side to sleep, don't matter whether it is wet, fine, hot or cold. Four days you are there and you got to stick it. That was the conditions."

Fifth Sub-section which is what I think you were referring so smugly to is this:

"Shell shock
You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it – but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you.

An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war – they didn't. If you were there you were shot. And that was it. And there's a good many men who were shot for cowardice and they are asking now … that verdict be taken away. They were not cowards.

So Harry Patch, who, by his own admission never saw anyone with shellshock how on earth could he have possibly seen anyone shot because they suffered from it? A simple question I know Raggy but one I just thought I had to ask as what Harry seems to be doing is contradicting himself.

Now Jim Carroll's Tommy Kenny and the Musktwats when they were posting were very specific they alleged that British soldiers were shot by the Military Police or "REDTOPS" as Musktwat called them – here Harry Patch states British Officers shot shellshock victims that he himself never saw. Amounts somewhat to a great deal less than overwhelming proof doesn't it.

Nice try – carry on digging.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 09:20 AM

So is Harry Patch lying when he said "An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward"

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

He was certainly wrong about it, but he never claimed to have witnessed such a thing.
There were no summary executions in the British Army.
There were in the Italian and French armies.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:11 AM

So he was lying. funny a lot of people do that in your book don't they.


Still waiting for an apology by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:17 AM

There were no summary executions in the British Army of WW1.
That is why you will find no account of one.
Why did Harry believe in them when he never saw one? Who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM

So old Harry was lying. We'll have to rewrite that bit of his story. Sad really that the last survivor of WW1 was such a liar.

Still not had an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM

"There were no summary executions in the British Army of WW1."
There were no recorded accounts of summary executions - don't you mean.
There are numerous eye witness accounts of them taking place and the link I provided last time tells of a special group of military policemen there to carry them out when soldiers were reckoned not to have responded quickly enough to orders to go over the top - the writer describes it having been witnessed by to his grandfather (more "lies" I suppose - you fellers seem to get your kicks calling soldiers "liars" when they don't come up with the right answer.
The account that Tommy Kenny gave us was of soldiers being sentenced to death, locked away awaiting execution, then, if there was a push on, being taken out and put in the front line.
If they survived they were then placed back in prison and eventually executed.
Tommy burst into tears (all on tape) when he described how he got to know people in the trenches, fought beside them, then later read the notice that they had been executed - sheer ****** barbarism which sums up that obscene war perfectly.
Lets face it - we have virtually no information of how the ordinary Tommy felt about the war and his experiences.
The officers were the only ones allowed to keep diaries, and the men who defied orders and wrote things down would have been insane to the point of being suicidal had they wrote about how they felt.
It took nearly a century to make available some of those forbidden writingsand those few that are, obviously, censored.
We only have the word of people like tabloid journalist Max Hastings, who cut out his career in Hitler supporter's Daily Mail to tell us that the soldiers knew why they were fighting and that they supported the cause - hardly a reliable source!
Hurrah for the Blackshirts

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

No summary executions?

Pedantic to say the least. A British court martial is still to this day of concern due to the inbuilt presumption of guilt and often biased military mindset in the judgement phase.

(Source - Amnesty International.)

Considering executions in WW1 were set up as a deterrent, the word summary is rather appropriate. Not that officers make good judgement over the lies of soldiers. If they did, they wouldn't try to win by sending waves of men over the top once they found it didn't fucking work...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM

So we have:

1: GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 09:20 AM
2: Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 10:11 AM
3: Raggytash, pointlessly repetitive at 16 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM
4: That master of complete and utter bollocks Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM
5: And finally GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

All proving to anyone who has the vaguest inkling of the history of the period, and any knowledge of the British Army of the period that those named above haven't got the foggiest notion about the subject they are wittering on about.

All those banging on about Harry Patch - please explain how on earth Harry Patch could have possibly seen shell-shocked soldiers being summarily executed by their officers in the trenches when by his own admission he never in the three months he spent in France never saw a soldier suffering from shell shock? Or is that little anomaly I await your answers, they should be rather interesting, and all will be pure 100% bollocks because logic and commonsense would tell even a complete and utter idiot that if you have never seen or encountered a soldier suffering from shell shock then it is impossible that you could have EVER seen one being shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

"All those banging on about Harry Patch - please explain how on earth Harry Patch could have possibly seen shell-shocked soldiers being summarily executed by their officers in the trenches when by his own admission he never in the three months he spent in France never saw a soldier suffering from shell shock? Or is that little anomaly I await your answers, they should be rather interesting, and all will be pure 100% bollocks because logic and commonsense would tell even a complete and utter idiot that if you have never seen or encountered a soldier suffering from shell shock then it is impossible that you could have EVER seen one being shot."

Should read:

All those banging on about Harry Patch - please explain how on earth Harry Patch could have possibly seen shell-shocked soldiers being summarily executed by their officers in the trenches when by his own admission he never in the three months he spent in France never saw a soldier suffering from shell shock? Or is that little anomaly just to quietly and conveniently ignored. I await your answers, they should be rather interesting, and all will be pure 100% bollocks because logic and commonsense would tell even a complete and utter idiot that if you have never seen or encountered a soldier suffering from shell shock then it is impossible that you could have EVER seen one being shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 01:19 PM

Let me get this right then Teribus AND Keith.


Harry Patch was lying and shell shock didn't exist.


Hmmmmmm








Still waiting for an apology Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM

"There were no summary executions in the British Army of WW1."

In stating that Keith A is 100% correct.

Just over 3,000 men were sentenced to death by British Courts Martial during the First World War, the court records can all be read online. Roughly one in ten were actually carried out the sentences in nine out of ten cases was commuted to life sentences.

"There are numerous eye witness accounts of them taking place and the link I provided last time tells of a special group of military policemen there to carry them out when soldiers were reckoned not to have responded quickly enough to orders to go over the top - the writer describes it having been witnessed by to his grandfather#

What numerous eye witness accounts? You haven't been able to come up with any that have been substantiated -a load of hearsay and complete and utter twaddle.

Ah so the goal posts have been moved and it was a "Special group of military policemen" now is it Carroll?? Tell me Jim just out of interest how did the powers of the day know where to position this Special group of military policemen", how did they know the section of line or even in what trench those "reluctant" squaddies would be lurking? Applying logic, commonsense and a healthy dash of reasoning it all presents itself as being a bit fanciful and haphazard doesn't it.

"(more "lies" I suppose)" - Most certainly.

Knowing what I do know about soldiers if any "special group of military policemen" started shooting soldiers the members of that "special group" would all be dead in seconds - killed by the rest of the soldiers in that regiment.

The account that Tommy Kenny gave us was of soldiers being sentenced to death, locked away awaiting execution, then, if there was a push on, being taken out and put in the front line.
If they survived they were then placed back in prison and eventually executed.

Tommy burst into tears (all on tape) when he described how he got to know people in the trenches, fought beside them, then later read the notice that they had been executed"

Now all of that is complete and utter twaddle Jim - As previously stated only 1-in-10 sentenced to death were ever executed. Under Service Regulations a man under a charge or under punishment is forbidden to bear arms (Oddly enough it was that little rule that saved my paternal grandfather's life), the only exception to this regulation was shown in the film "Breaker Morant" when the Boers attacked the garrison he was being held in. The rational is that in such a situation prisoners are released and armed in order to defend themselves, under no circumstances would prisoners be left in confinement and left to the mercies of the enemy should the enemy attack succeed.

Lets face it - we have virtually no information of how the ordinary Tommy felt about the war and his experiences.
The officers were the only ones allowed to keep diaries, and the men who defied orders and wrote things down would have been insane to the point of being suicidal had they wrote about how they felt.
It took nearly a century to make available some of those forbidden writings and those few that are, obviously, censored."

More twaddle, while YOU and members of the general public have no access to the diaries and letters of common soldiers the Imperial War Museum has held absolute mountains of such records for decades and that material has been read and studied by historians studying the period. Where on earth did you get the line about officers being the only ones allowed to keep diaries? Anybody could keep a diary - NOBODY was allowed to keep or take a diary into front line positions - for what should be f**king glaringly obvious reasons. Ah but there again you haven't the foggiest notion how the "front line" worked in your BBC comedy/drama little world soldiers were sent into the front line and stayed there for years - they didn't.

"We only have the word of people like tabloid journalist Max Hastings, who cut out his career in Hitler supporter's Daily Mail to tell us that the soldiers knew why they were fighting and that they supported the cause - hardly a reliable source!"

Well damn me Carroll you could not have got this bit more wrong had you tried.

1: I believe that the first paper Max Hastings ever worked for was the Evening Standard - he became an occasional columnist for the Daily Mail much, much later on.

2: It was the very first Viscount Rothermere who was the appeaser and Hitler supporter, he was also one of the strongest advocates for British rearmament in the 1930s, he died in 1940, Max Hastings wasn't born until 1945 and he did not work for the Daily Mail until after 2007 - so I fail to see the connection or the inference you are trying to make.

3: Now as you are such a believer in what the soldiers of the time said and the stories they told how about this:

- My Paternal Grandfather certainly knew why he volunteered and fought in the British Army in the First World War

- My Maternal Grandfather certainly knew why he volunteered and fought in the British Army in the First World War

- My next door neighbour certainly knew why he volunteered and fought in the British Army in the First World War

- All of the "old comrade" friends of the above who I talked to as a child all knew why they had joined up and fought in the British Forces during the First World War

- Watch the 1964 documentary "The Great War" and all those interviewed knew why they had joined up and fought in the British Forces during the First World War

Now then Jim were they all lying?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

"hat master of complete and utter bollocks Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM"
Must be bollocks if you can dismiss it without even responding to anything said.
You really are an arrogant berk to think anybody takes ay notice of your unqualified dismissals
Are you aware that you always respond in this way when you have no answer.
You really are a creature of habit.
"Harry Patch"
he said he never saw or experienced it, but he almost certainly fought with and spoke to people who did as his statment on it makes crystal clear.
Are you really going to continue trying to make out that last veteran of World War One a liar to peddle your establishment line?
Patche's statement is perfectly in line with the link you have been given describing on-the-spot executions for not going over the top qickly enough - makes mors sense that swallowing the ffici8alk version -as you pair have
Jim Carroll
This is what he said.
"Shell shock
You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it – but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you.
An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war – they didn't. If you were there you were shot. And that was it. And there's a good many men who were shot for cowardice and they are asking now … that verdict be taken away. They were not cowards."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM

One major difference Teribus.

We only have your long remembered second hand information. Always a bit suspect as I'm sure you realise, albeit no doubt with the best of intentions.

However you and Keith have completely dismissed the testimony of a man who was there. A much revered man. Who, without him being able to answer your accusations, you have both named as a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:42 PM

Col. Blimp & Profesor: Vass you dere, Charlie?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:54 PM

Oh Raggy shell shock did most certainly exist - but tell me was Harry Patch lying when he very clearly stated on the subject of Shell Shock:

"You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it.

Now that was the quote taken directly from the very link that you yourself supplied. Now if Harry Patch was telling the truth, i.e. NOT LYING - how on earth could he have ever seen an officer summarily execute someone suffering from Shell Shock - simple enough and a reasonable enough question - please provide an explanation as you obviously believe that Harry Patch saw what he by his own admission could not possibly have witnessed.

Please don't deflect Raggy the original version had Military Policemen lined up behind our lads in the trenches forcing them over the top at gunpoint - NEVER HAPPENED. Added to this fairytale was the tale of Military Policemen shooting those who didn't move fast enough (I wonder who decided what was quick enough?) and shot anybody returning to our lines - NEVER HAPPENED. But fear not Jim Carroll shifted the goalposts on this and Military Police changed to SPECIAL GROUPS OF MILITARY POLICEMEN waiting to find out how they knew where to go to to be effective in the exercise of this "special duty" - that explanation should prove amusing.

How I do enjoy watching you lot floundering about in all this mud and confusion of your own making and only succeeding in tying yourselves in knots.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I am not suggesting for one second that Harry Patch was lying. You, along with Keith, seem to be saying he was.

I know who I am more inclined to trust even though I never met the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:07 PM

You pair have now denied the fact of summary executions several times - without proof
You have had an account from the grandson of an eyewitness you say it didn't happen
You have had the account of a veteran of world war one who says it happened, even if he didn't witness it - you say it didn't happen.
It was well known enough to have been part of the oral history of the trenches to have been used in a BBC television play entitled The Village - had it been untrue, the Beeb would have inundated with protests, especiall around the time of the Centenary - it wasn't
Do you have any examples of these executions being denied anywhere, or are your denials just on your own initiative - if so, when did you become spokesmen for the establishment?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:15 PM

GUEST,Raggytash - 16 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM

One major difference Teribus.

We only have your long remembered second hand information.

So tell me Raggy what makes Jim Carroll's second hand information that much more believable?

Oh and Raggy you don't just have to take my word for it listen to the "The Great War", a 26-episode documentary series from 1964 on the First World War. The documentary was a co-production involving the resources of the Imperial War Museum, the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation."

There is a special DVD called "Voices From The Western Front" you and your fellow travelers should watch and listen to it - you might just learn something from those who were there.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:22 PM

There is another huge difference Teribus.

You and Keith have already set out your stalls on many occasions.

I, for one, would be astonished if either of you took on board anything that didn't fit into your predetermined remit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:32 PM

Just as an aside Teribus. I will not comment on anything Jim says, he's a big boy he doesn't need me to back him up...........













............unlike the triple alliance

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:27 PM

Jim Carroll - 16 Nov 15 - 03:07 PM

You pair have now denied the fact of summary executions several times - without proof"

Not exactly true is it Jim - such summary executions would have been impossible to keep quiet - you have no proof whatsoever that any such executions ever took place - instead what you have is rumour and hearsay.

Very pleased to see that you that you agree that Harry Patch could not have possibly seen what Raggy thinks he saw.

"It was well known enough to have been part of the oral history of the trenches to have been used in a BBC television play entitled The Village - had it been untrue, the Beeb would have inundated with protests, especiall around the time of the Centenary - it wasn't"

Ah historical fact established by the BBC's Drama Unit. How f**kin' idiotic can you get!! Once more you are running on rumour, stories and hearsay - my giddy Aunt I sincerely hope that no-one ever finds themselves on trial with you sitting as part of the jury. You appear to accept any unsubstantiated fairytale story as long as it fits in with your own biased and bigoted preconceptions and stereotypes. Write to the Imperial War Museum, write to the Royal Military Police Museum in Chichester they will tell you that:

1: NO-ONE who deserted in the UK was ever shot for desertion
2: Military Policemen form no part in the actual execution of any prisoner - men from the condemned man's regiment form the firing squad, they are commanded by a Junior Officer from their regiment
3: The court martial documents of every single man who was sentenced to death are available online - I advise you to read them
4: There are no accounts anywhere of any Summary executions carried out by the British Army anywhere during the First World War and believe me I have looked long and hard for them. As Keith A has stated summary executions were carried out by the French Army on the Western Front and by the Italian Army - but none by the British.

"Do you have any examples of these executions being denied anywhere"

Ehmmm Jim if something never happened just how the f**k do you go about denying that it happened. By the way, just who on earth would be around and be arsed enough to complain to the BBC about some artistic licence being used in a costume drama on television? It would appear only you made the mistake of thinking it was a factual representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:21 PM

"Not exactly true is it Jim - such summary executions would have been impossible to keep quiet"
Ermm - they weren't - they were common knowledge among the soldiery and talked about on a regular basis
That they weren't reported publicly was totally due to fact that the government took total control of the press.
"Once more you are running on rumour,"
Nope - i have pointed out that TALK OF the executions was so well known that they could be used in a BBC drama, WITHOUT ONE WORD OF PROTEST - NOT ONE
When Philip Donellan made his filed documentary, 'Gone For a Soldier' for television, the Beeb was inundated with protests which lasted for weeks - questions were asked in Parliament.
Yet here, a summary execution was carried out without a single word of protest - that's how F**in stupid you can get.
I asked you to provide a denial that they happened - they have been mentioned often enough
You provide none so we can only assume that you and your pet monkey are mounting a defence of them off your own bat.
I have provided two statements - one form a veteran, another from the grandson of a veteran - that they took place - you are totally unable to provide examples of them being denied - in fact YOU ARE MAKING IT UP ON BEHALF OF THE ESTABLISHMENT - WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF?
"NO-ONE who deserted in the UK was ever shot for desertion"
306 British soldiers were shot for desertion "In many cases, soldiers were clearly suffering from shellshock but officers showed no compassion for fear that their comrades would have disobeyed orders and refused to go "over the top" (Guardian 16 August 2006)
The fact that it may be true that none may have been actually executed in Britain is totally immaterial - the play was a work of fiction and never pretended to be anything else - but the fact that SUMMARY EXECUTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE PLAY WITHOUT A SINGLE LETTER OF PROTEST - NOT EVEN FROM COLONEL BLIMPS LIKE YOU PAIR indicates that it was fairly widely accepted.
I ask again - where are your official denials that they took place - reports of them have been made publicly - even by that "liar" Harry Patch - Britain's last WW1 veteran.
You really have made this up off your own bat - haven't you?
Pair of clowns, or what??
Jiom Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:15 AM

Bloody hell Teribus. You are getting so confused that even Keith A of Hertford has gone quiet in case what he assumes is his credibility gets woven into your confusion.

That's the problem with cutting and pasting from anything you find on the Internet. You can always find some bollocks that backs your point, however absurd and silly.

Reminds me of the account of an officer in WW2 whose men were afraid his ineptness and callous attitude would get them all killed. On the approach to Madaloni he was the only casualty in their section. A note from a general held by The IWM notes that everybody felt it expedient to gloss over the fact he was killed by a single bullet in his back.

Not nice this war game. Glorifying it with pomp and circumstance leaves a bitter taste both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:37 AM

Jim, have you ever seen the Indian Rope trick performed by a street entertainer? Hundreds, thousands possibly millions have heard stories about it and know of the trick - yet nobody has ever seen it performed.

Jim, have you ever heard of a thing called an "Urban Myth", hundreds, thousands possibly millions have heard them and believe them - yet none of them are true.

Do I think Harry Patch was lying? What about? Never having seen anybody suffering from Shell Shock? Or about having witnessed Officers summarily executing men frozen to inaction because of shell shock? Now as Harry Patch was only in France for three months at a time when it was the British Army that was on the offensive (late summer 1917) I would say that it was highly likely that Harry Patch never saw anyone suffering from shell shock and that he himself never suffered from it. Now if he telling the truth about that how could he possibly have witnessed the summary execution by an officer of a man suffering from shell shock - it is a contradiction, so what could account for it? The link so smugly supplied by Raggy is to the BBC History website, Harry Patch came back from the First World War and kept steadfastly silent about his experiences for 80 years, he then gave an interview to the BBC as a 100+ year old man. Who thinks that the article linked to is the complete article? It would be utterly remarkable if it was, everything is edited prior to publication, now how do we know what was left out? How do we know where the gaps were? It is undisputed that the French Army carried out summary executions on the western front, could they have been the stories that British troops heard about?

Ever since you and the Musktwats introduced alleged summary executions I have looked long and hard for any substantive evidence of them ever happening in the British Army - I have found NONE

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you talked to and recorded a man who you say was a WWI veteran over the course of three days and not once in all that time did he mention what theatre of war he served in or what regiment or corps he served in. Most common experience in talking to veterans of that period the first thing they will tell you is what branch of the armed forces they served in (Army, Navy or Air Force), where it was they served and saw action, and for ex-Army men they will ALWAYS tell you what regiment or corps they served with. Your man didn't and you made no attempt whatsoever to find out. If that is your approach to gathering "history" then any work you have produced can only be viewed as being highly speculative and unreliable.

Your inattention to detail is staggering Jim:

306 British Soldiers were executed for desertion - the word according to Jim Carroll

Here is a summary, all documented, all recorded of the Courts Martial undertaken during the First World War:

The outcomes of Courts Martial

In all, 5,952 officers and 298,310 other ranks were court-martialled. This amounts to just over 3% of the total of men who joined the army. Of those tried, 89% were convicted; 8% acquitted; the rest were either convicted without the conviction being confirmed or with it being subsequently quashed. Of those convicted, 30% were for absence without leave; 15% for drunkenness;***14% for desertion (although only 3% were actually in the field at the time***); 11% for insubordination; 11% for loss of army property, and the remaining 19% for various other crimes. The main punishments applied were : 3 months detention in a military compound - 24%; Field Punishment Number 1 - 22%; Fines - 12%; 6 months detention - 10%; reduction in rank - 10%; Field Punishment Number 2 - 8%.

3.080 men (1.1% of those convicted) were sentenced to death. Of these, 89% were reprieved and the sentence converted to a different one. 346 men were executed. Their crimes included desertion - 266; murder - 37; cowardice in the face of the enemy - 18; quitting their post - 7; striking or showing violence to their superiors - 6; disobedience - 5; mutiny - 3; sleeping at post - 2; casting away arms - 2. Of the 346, 91 were already under a suspended sentence from an earlier conviction (40 of these a suspended death sentence)."

YOUR 306 does not represent those executed for desertion they include all of the above minus those charged with and found guilty of murder. The Court Martial process and proceedings for every single one of those courts martial are available for you to read, study and examine.

***14% for desertion (although only 3% were actually in the field at the time*** the 266 executions were for desertion in the field. Those who deserted whilst in training, on leave, or on duty in the UK were not subject to the death penalty and none were executed in the UK.

Tell me Jim why is it that you can never get Donnellan's name right?

Are you seriously trying to equate a 105 minute long DOCUMENTARY broadcast in 1980 on the British Army covering some 150 years which was quite correctly lambasted and criticised for the biased and poor nature of its content to the extent that it was screened only once and the BBC banned any overseas transmission to a fragment of a BBC Drama that is 100% FICTION as evidence that summary executions took place!!! Utterly ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:49 AM

Inventing people who criticise him now.

This gets better.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM

I can think of two good reasons why reports of summary executions cannot be found. From the soldiers view they wouldn't want the next-of-kin to be presented with the "fact" that their son/brother/father/husband was a "coward". From the Army's viewpoint they wouldn't want it to be acknowledged officially that they responded in that manner. They certainly wouldn't write it in their official reports thus YOU can't find an example of such.

However many years later the last surviving soldier of WW1 decides that perhaps we SHOULD know what actually happened all those years ago.

I know I am not going to change your mind, or that of the professor. You are both too involved in maintaining support for your "masters"

I am more inclined to believe it did occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:21 AM

Oh Jim, just one other point, do any of those men who were summarily executed, either by Special groups of Military Police - current flavour of the month or by their own officers right there in front of their mates have any names in all of these stories you have been told? Indian Rope Trick, Urban Myths and Chinese Whispers - all rumour, hearsay, pure invention and lies and you Jim Carroll have swallowed the lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

And apparently so have you Raggy:

"However many years later the last surviving soldier of WW1 decides that perhaps we SHOULD know what actually happened all those years ago." - Raggytash

Ehmmm I hate to keep dragging your attention back to this Raggy but how on earth could the last surviving soldier of WWI state what actually happened all those years ago to soldiers suffering from shell shock when he himself clearly states that he never saw anyone suffering from shell shock or experienced the condition himself? Just asking, and to date you have not given any explanation as to how that could be - I on the other hand have - he did not "witness" it he heard stories - nobody knows where these stories originated from - but just along the front lines in the French section summary executions were being carried out.

Harry Patch was quite good with both names and knicknames of those he served with - yet he didn't come up with any names for people he had "seen" officers shoot, come to think of it he couldn't name any of the officers either, and believe me Raggy, everybody who serves knows the names of their NCOs and Officers.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:39 AM

You can't be jingoistic with your head bowed.

Cue arguments over how bowed you should be...............

Just saying!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:51 AM

Teribus, you only person you are convincing is yourself (and the professor of course)

As for Harry Patch, who you are convinced is lying, I am not too surprised he didn't mention names. Ye gods I couldn't recall the names of most of my schoolmates from 45 years ago. Half a dozen perhaps if I put my mind to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

THE only person *((??!!!%&$£)(***!!!!~@!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:58 AM

History is written by the victors. The dead can't speak.

And just to muddy the waters, very often you find the really brave don't tell you. They know they were lucky and foolhardy as well, and did it for necessity not ideology. And they deal with PTSD in their own way - silence.

age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. Neither should we!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM

"306 British Soldiers were executed for desertion - the word according to Jim Carroll"
Nope - the word according to The Guardian,   date and quote given - please pay attention and read what is put up.
"Urban Myth"
How do you know - where has it ever been denied?
You claim that no summary executions took place - who sez so - only you so far, the authorities have never dienied it when the statement was made publicly - since when were you appointed as a spokesman for the British military establishment (you certainly strut around as if you were)
Yo fellers make a great fuss about the Commemoration, even to the extent that on;ly you Christians take part, yet when any of the veterans step out of line and tells it as irt was (first hand) you're happy to flush what he has to say down the pan - what king of two-faced twerps are you people??   
You've had the facts of the executions - respond to what #has been said by these people who have been remembered recently and who you choose to dismiss as liars
I ask for any evidence that the British authorities have denied it - you offer none and insist on speaking on their behalf
"Tell me Jim why is it that you can never get Donnellan's name right?"
Tell me - why do you always resort to misspellings and typos whenever you run out of ideas - why are you people so ***** predictable?
You waffle on about press accounts of numbers, typos etc. - but offer s.f.a in return.
By what authority do you dismiss out of hand what WW1 veterans have to say when even the establishment can't be arsed to do so.
Are you frustrated that you never made it in the military, as you once claimed to have done, and only made it as far as cooking bad fry-ups in a galley - I think they call it a Walter Mitty Complex!
Think we're done here - don't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:04 AM

Loved this bit of nonsense from Raggy:

"I can think of two good reasons why reports of summary executions cannot be found. From the soldiers view they wouldn't want the next-of-kin to be presented with the "fact" that their son/brother/father/husband was a "coward". From the Army's viewpoint they wouldn't want it to be acknowledged officially that they responded in that manner. They certainly wouldn't write it in their official reports thus YOU can't find an example of such."

Ah so your best friend gets shot out of hand right in front of your eyes and you and all his other mates just stand there and do nothing - the first thing in your mind as the highest priority is We can't tell his Mum she will be upset!!!! - f**kin' laughable. If you yourselves did not immediately kill the officer who shot your mate, you would have shouted about the incident to any beggar with a pair of ears to listen, the one thing you most certainly would not do is keep quiet about it.

On to the second of your reasons - Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law so please, please,please explain to me exactly how it came about that all of a sudden Officers would be permitted to shoot troops under their command, and if such behaviour was indeed sanctioned by the Army Council and High Command why would the Army have any qualms about such instances appearing in official reports - have you any idea what is meant by logic, reason and commonsense? I ask as you appear to be sadly lacking in all three.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:10 AM

PS Raggy:

I hate to keep dragging your attention back to this but how on earth could the last surviving soldier of WWI state what actually happened all those years ago to soldiers suffering from shell shock when he himself clearly states that he never saw anyone suffering from shell shock or experienced the condition himself?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:31 AM

"state what actually happened all those years ago to soldiers suffering from shell shock when he himself clearly states that he never saw anyone suffering from shell shock or experienced the condition himself?"
It is perfectly obvious from his statement that he served with those who had witnessed and possibly experienced the results of shell shock - didn't soldiers talk to each other?
Why d you continue to denigrate veteran war heroes as gullible fools and liars - is the reputation of politicians and the military that important to you?
Where is the denials that these executions happened apart from your own?
- more than happy to drag you back to this at any time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 07:22 AM

The question was for Raggy Jim - He's a big boy and shouldn't need you to jump to his rescue.

Harry Patch never suffered from Shell Shock and he never saw anyone who did suffer from shell shock - Source Harry Patch himself in his own words.   I believe Harry when he says that I do not believe that he is lying - Do you and Raggy think he is lying in clearly stating the above fact?

Now if Harry is telling the truth there - then it becomes impossible by his own statements that he could have "witnessed" the summary execution of a soldier suffering from shell shock by an officer in a trench. He might have heard stories about it but if Harry Patch is telling the truth then he could not possibly have witnessed it.

By the way Jim can you dream up anything else that the British Goverment hasn't done that they haven't denied thereby proving beyond any doubt in your mind that they must therefore have done it?

Please indicate where anyone has formally accused the British Army of summary executions of their own soldiers THEN you might get an official response but I don't think that the Government is too fussed about what is discussed on a forum such as this or in the content of your tapes. Hey how about you, raggy, gnome and the Musktwats starting an action group, write a letter to the MOD copied to the Judge Advocate General and the Lord Chief Justice formally accusing the British Army of summarily executing British Soldiers then sit back and await the response. You could use your tapes and notes and produce them as "evidence".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 08:08 AM

"Do you and Raggy think he is lying in clearly stating the above fact?"
No I don'r but I believe that he could easily have talked to and fought beside people who knew about the executions first hand - do you consider this beyond the realms of possibility and that he was either lying or a gullible half-wit?
At no time did Patch claim to have witnessed shellshock why are you harping on him "witnessing it" - he makes it clear he didn't.

why are you suggesting he said something else - do you dislike and distrust veterans so much that you feel th need to twist their words

Once agabi, this is what he said -
"You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it – but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you.
An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war – they didn't. If you were there you were shot. And that was it. And there's a good many men who were shot for cowardice and they are asking now … that verdict be taken away. They were not cowards."

Still not find any official denials of these executions? - must be all your own work then
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 10:07 AM

Very good Jim, now tell your pal Raggy that at no time in his three months in France did Harry Patch ever see an officer summarily shooting any British Soldier. His mention of it amounts to pure hearsay, he doesn't know and cannot vouch that it ever happened with any degree of certainty at all, you suggest he talked about it and heard the story from "someone" who may or may not have seen such an act as they too could have talked about it to someone else, etc, etc - Not really all that convincing is it - 100% supposition. So much for Harry Patch who just because he was the last WWI Veteran to die does not convey any crown of infallibility on his shoulders, I say that because scores of other soldiers (And I MEAN soldiers, not officers, not Generals) wrote their memoirs and autobiographies, lots of them covering the entire span of what to them was known as the Great War, not just three months and guess what Jim? - NOT ONE mentions anything about summary executions in the field - funny that isn't it with all that talking going on, like a said "The Indian Rope Trick" and "Urban Myths" everybody has heard of them and none are real or true.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 10:20 AM

Apologies Jim I forgot to ask at the end of that last post.

How did your "Special Groups of Military Policemen" know where to position themselves in the line when they were tasked with forcing squaddies "over the top" at gunpoint instantly shooting any that didn't move quick enough? What was the time limit that defined "quick enough" and who set it? I mean it must have come down the chain of command - You obviously believe all this shit, yet you can tell us all very little about it, perhaps you need to refer to your notes, or round up some other distant relation to supply another load of unverifiable hearsay to fill in the details. Names, Regiments, places, dates would certainly be of some help. But we're not going to get any of that are we? You know it and so do I.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

If we had another go at the Germans tomorrow, MoD could employ Teribus to do the same as Comical Ali, the Iraqi who was feeding the press with bullshit about how they were winning. "What about the gunfire over there right now?" Said BBC's John Simpson. "I can't hear any?" Said Comical Ali.

Here, Teribus. Is that your only nom de plume? Only I notice Max Hastings came out with similar bullshit when he was defending the executions in his history revision 101.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM

Here, Teribus. Is that your only nom de plume?

He also goes by "Colonel Blimp".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

"Very good Jim, now tell your pal Raggy that at no time in his three months in France did Harry Patch ever see an officer summarily shooting any British Soldier."
So?]
"His mention of it amounts to pure hearsay, "
So?
He was there - he was fighting along other soldiers - He spoke too them presumably - he had a life preserving interest in what was going on.
Presumably the people who passed on the information too.
Wha are we honouring these lying bastards ya#ar after year - let them rot in hell, I say.
What kind of people are you that go to such lengths to defend an establishment that cold-bloodedly slaughtered a generation of British youth.
I asked whether it was conceivable that Harry got his information from people he fought with - you decline to reply
I ask to provide examples of denials of these executions - you decline to reply
Patch, and others who claimed these executions took place were there at the time fighting.
You were not, you have no evidence that these people were lying, you have no examples of others saying they were lying, yet you mount a one-man crusade to make them either liars or gullible eejits.
What exactly are you on?
If they are lying - where is your evidence apart from your own somewhat distasteful claims?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM

Hmmm Teribus, You seem to be cherry picking, as we all do, which bits of Harry Patch's testimony you want to believe.

Firstly you say he had not experienced "shell shock" although today "shell shock" seems to be an accepted "fact" today.

Do you really believe that he never met anyone suffering from "shell shock"?

I would proffer the argument that the term "shell shock" was not acknowledged at the time and that he didn't recognise the term. I seem to recall that "shell shock" was not an accepted diagnosis until quite late in the war.

Secondly in your rather convoluted logic you state "then it becomes impossible by his own statements that he could have "witnessed" the summary execution of a soldier suffering from shell shock by an officer in a trench. He might have heard stories about it but if Harry Patch is telling the truth then he could not possibly have witnessed it"

If he didn't recognise it as a condition he couldn't say he saw it. Being honest I believe

Thirdly, and I'm sure we'll come back to this point, I find this quite bizarre you state "Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law" Are you truly expecting us to believe this didn't happen? Do you want to tell us about the floggings of Indian troops?

Finally, as I know this is a subject you are deeply interested in,could I suggest that rather than making automatic responses claiming that the hierarchy of the British Army were all good men and true you contact the MOD, Judge Advocate General and Lord Chief Justice and just ask them the question.

Cheers

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 04:35 AM

Of the hundreds of thousands of front line soldiers, only one claims summary executions and even he does not claim to have seen it.
Is every other soldier a liar?
Many memoirs exist. Not one mentions it.
Two that I have read are those of Graves and Sassoon.
Both became anti- war and both are very critical of the establishment.
Graves says that the legal executions were not always reported, but he never mentions summary executions because they did not happen in the British Army.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:01 AM

"Of the hundreds of thousands of front line soldiers, only one claims summary executions and even he does not claim to have seen it.
Is every other soldier a liar?"

Could someone please explain the logic of this sentence to me because I'm buggered if I can see it.

So far Keith the only soldier to be called a liar is Harry Patch, by you. Remember when you typed " He was certainly wrong about it, but he never claimed to have witnessed such a thing"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:21 AM

In answer to the posts directed at me:

Firstly to Guest 12:24 and to Greg F:
Mock all you like but neither of you have ever been able to refute and counter a single thing that I have stated which makes your contributions to the discussion nothing more than irrelevant "white noise" - It would appear that you know nothing, understand nothing, are prepared to learn nothing, classic examples of boorish, pig ignorant buffoons who revel in portraying yourselves as being as thick as shit and proud of it - The pair of you make Dumb & Dumber look intelligent.

Jim Carroll:
"Hearsay" is not considered as being evidence of something having actually happened. Stories can simply be stories "urban myths" abound - none of them are true but thousands if not millions believe them to be true.

My explanation for Harry's story about officers summarily executing soldiers specifically states that he probably heard it from someone else and that the stories originated from British Units operating alongside French troops who had actually seen such executions IN THEIR ARMY.

"What kind of people are you that go to such lengths to defend an establishment that cold-bloodedly slaughtered a generation of British youth."

The kind of people who believe in the fundamental legal principle that someone who is accused of something is "Innocent until proved Guilty" - so far you have offered no substantive evidence at all to convince me of their guilt. I also believe that the people responsible for "slaughtering a generation of British youth" between August 1914 and November 1918 were the enemy, I also believe that that generation of men from Great Britain were responsible for slaughtering a rather larger number of Germans - That is what happens in War Jim, your own father must have fully realised that when he went to Spain to fight, he did not go down there to dissuade and befriend the enemy he went down there to kill and defeat them.

Now then Jim when it comes to declining to reply - tell us all about these "Special Groups of Military Policemen", how did they know where to position themselves? Who was it defined what the allowable time to "get over the top" was?

Harry Patch served as part of a Lewis Gun crew in the Cornwall Light Infantry and was sent to France with his Unit in June 1917, he was wounded in September 1917 and evacuated back to England to recover from his wounds. In France he would have moved, trained and fought alongside men that he had served with in England - He was not attending a social the other units he would come across would only be in passing as his unit moved up to the front. His main opportunity for talking to soldiers from other units would have been in hospital.

Finally Raggytash:
Cherry picking? No you specifically addressed my attention to that particular section of the interview and I answered the point that you were attempting to make, i.e. that what Harry Patch said in the interview was conclusive proof that summary executions were carried out - I merely pointed out the anomalies, which you have conveniently completely ignored.

The interview was conducted 80 years AFTER the event - if Harry Patch did not recognise the term Shell Shock in 1917 (By then the term had been coined and people were aware of it to the extent they were having misgivings about it) then he sure as hell would know what was meant by it when he gave that interview and when specifically asked to comment about it in 1997. - TRUE??

"Do you really believe that he never met anyone suffering from "shell shock"?"

While he was in France in 1917? Yes I do believe he never met anyone suffering from shell shock as his three months deployment to France would have consisted of:
- Transport to France with his Unit
- Training in France with his Unit
- Movement up to the forward area in the build up prior to the launching of the Passchendaele Offensive
- Fighting in that Offensive
- Suffering his shrapnel wound and being cleared to the rear as a casualty
- Evacuation as a casualty to Southampton.

By the way the extent to which I did not cherry-pick Harry's interview - I would suggest you read the bit right at the end about "the mutiny" where after the war while waiting for demob his section refused to turn out for bayonet practice - you will find out exactly what would have happened to any officer attempting to summarily execute one of their number.

"Thirdly, and I'm sure we'll come back to this point, I find this quite bizarre you state "Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law" Are you truly expecting us to believe this didn't happen?

On the contrary I am sure it did on occasion, but that does not negate the fact that such an action is an offence against the Army Act and if any Officer or NCO did strike a Private soldier he could face disciplinary proceedings for it - that being the case do you really think that summary execution would be sanctioned? Rhetorical question it wasn't if it happened it would be construed as "Murder".

"Do you want to tell us about the floggings of Indian troops?"
While punishment by flogging had been removed from the Army Act affecting British troops it remained as a punishment in the Indian Army (Unduly harsh?? Hardly, people are still flogged in Pakistan to this day - Pakistan being part of India during the First World War). Floggings were not carried out on the whim of any individual the punishment was handed down as part of due process - unless of course you have evidence which proves to the contrary.

"Finally, as I know this is a subject you are deeply interested in,could I suggest that rather than making automatic responses claiming that the hierarchy of the British Army were all good men and true you contact the MOD, Judge Advocate General and Lord Chief Justice and just ask them the question."

Ehmmm no Raggy the boot is firmly on the other foot. It is Jim Carroll, yourself and others that "believe" on the strength of pure unsubstantiated hearsay that those commanding the British Army during the First World War ordered or at least sanctioned summary executions of British troops by junior officers commanding them. It is therefore up to you to raise the matter with the proper authorities - that is if you can be arsed, which you would be if you really did think there was a case to answer - But you don't do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:05 AM

All bullshit designed to make veterans liars Terry
The existence of these executions are based on reports of people who were there - if they were false, they would have been denied long before now.
The authorities have respected the opinions of those who fought (those you claim are fit to be commemorated only by Christians) so much that they first forbade them to keep journals to describe their horrific conditions, then by keeping the ones that were written locked up for a century, because those experiences were as horrific as they were, even now they are available selectively.
A century after this horrific bloodbath, we still have only a partial view of the conditions undergone and the reasons men joined.
Maybe one day we'll get round to discussing honestly the justification for the war unclouded by the jingoistic bullshit.
Why the **** should we accept your one-man campaign - a serial establishment arselicker, a member of the Norman Tebbitt "Get on your Bike Club"
You haven't made your case that these men were liars and gullible morons - try harder!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:08 AM

Rag, one person in the whole period from 1914 to the present claims it.
No other of the hundreds of thousands there corroborate it.
If I put up such a thing as evidence you would rightly laugh me to scorn.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:09 AM

The existence of these executions are based on reports of people who were there

What reports?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:37 AM

You've had them Keith - there have been others, even naming the squads given the job of executing those who didn't go over the top fast enough - try to keep up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:46 AM

As asked by Keith A - WHAT REPORTS?
You cannot even verify that the Tommy Kenny you interviewed was ever in the Army FFS!! As research work goes your approach is just too damned sloppy to be of any merit or value at all.

If Journals were forbidden how come so many of them and we are talking tens of thousands here exist? There was no prohibition on keeping either a journal or a diary, what they did do was ban you from taking it into the front line - worked out as about 5 days a month - you see troops were regularly rotated - unlike the portrayal in Blackadder that they moved into their little dug outs for the duration. If what you state is true there would not be the wealth of memoirs and autobiographies of ordinary soldiers who saw action during the First World War would there. And oddly enough Jim none of those authors bang on about "special groups of military police" or about summary executions of British troops carried out by their own officers - perhaps because they were too busy writing diaries that they weren't supposed to have to have time to chat to those bending the ear of the likes of Harry Patch?

The material donated to the Imperial War Museum has been available to historians with proper accreditation for decades, but in most cases the material is normally donated on the death of the author.

I can go back to find out but it was you and your fellow travelers who challenged the three points put up in a post by Keith A relating to the First World War that post 1970 historians concluded that:
1 - The war was necessary
2 - That the people of Great Britain understood why it was necessary to fight it
3 - That in general compared to other combatant powers the British, Commonwealth and Empire armies were well led.

It was you who tried to tell us that all those volunteers were mindless morons, idiots who didn't know what end was up, fools who could be easily lied to and manipulated. Keith A, myself, Lighter and a number of others countered those slurs of yours and demonstrated that those men, those volunteers were educated men who were fully aware of the situation and responded as they did out of principle, duty and respect for freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

"As asked by Keith A - WHAT REPORTS?"
That's official then - we only take the word of the authorities and not the men who fought?
Can't say plainer than that - thanks
"who didn't know what end was up,"
Nope it was programmes like Paxman's who went in depth into why men joined up - and that's part of history
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

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. Those expressions have only come from your side.

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.

And please Teribus can we not go back to the mind numbing and pointless 3 points, that was tedious by any standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:42 AM

"I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons"
It hasn't - that is Terrytoon's interesting take on what has been said.
Men joined up for a whole variety of reasons - because a "short war" was a way out of poverty, for the romance, emotional blackmail, white feathers 0- some because employers threatened them with the sack if they did not.
The main reason was a massive, totally unprecedented campaign of lies and distortion (propaganda) which ran out of steam within 18 months and was replaced by enforced conscription under threat of imprisonment and even death (when Kitchener left office he was demanding that conscientious objectors should be executed).
The "mindless morons" bit is further evidence of the#is jingoist's contempt for the serviceman
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:52 AM

Nope it was programmes like Paxman's who went in depth into why men joined up - and that's part of history

What Paxman actually said.

"Don't insult my Uncle Charlie or his comrades. Their sacrifice in WWI foiled Germany's plan to rule the world,"

"Yet we are stuck with the default conviction that the First World War was an exercise in purposelessness. That was not the prevailing view at the time. On the contrary, 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.
The great harvest of anti-war memoirs and novels did not appear until ten years after the Armistice. Throughout it all, the resolve of the British people did not weaken."

"What aggravates our ignorance is the false assumption that we do understand the First World War. We need to cast ourselves back into the minds of these men and their families, to try to inhabit the assumptions of their society rather than to replace them with our own.
How, one wonders, would the teacher explain to her students that after writing his celebrated denunciations of battle, Wilfred Owen returned to the Western Front to continue fighting and, furthermore, described himself in his last letter to his mother as 'serene'? It was, he said, 'a great life'."

"The retrospective narrative of innocent conscripts, dullard generals and boneheaded battle plans has become tiresomely familiar. It is precisely because the Great War changed so much that we understand it so little."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:54 AM

First Paxman programme of his BBC series on WW1,

About 9 minutes in, Paxman to camera.

"Most people seemed to have accepted that the war had to be fought.
To honour treaties. To defend the empire. To protect Britain.
And, what else were they supposed to do?
To sit back and watch as Germany amassed an empire from Russia to the shores of the English Channel?
Now war had broken out, almost everyone backed it.
Most trade unions suspended strikes, which had been common."

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:55 AM

" GUEST - 20 Nov 15 - 08:06 AM

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

More importantly GHOST - Have you?? If so please appraise us of what it is that alters anything stated so far. It would appear that Keith A knows the work and can actually give it it's correct title. Does she recount "special groups of military police" roaming about the front line gunning down British troops? Does she identify the incidents where British Officers summarily executed their own troops? Still can't get my head round the fact that NONE of these Officers or their "victims" have names - I mean if I'd joined up with my "pals battalion" I damn near would have known a good proportion of that band of 1,000 men and the Officers under whom we were all serving - Jim and the usual suspects haven't yet explained that little fact away have they - So boys, all you who know more than anyone else, tell us if the practice existed how come there are NO NAMES - not holding my breath, as they will not answer.

The other one, addressing the main point is how come if we were so appallingly led did we ever mannage to:

- Increase the size of our army tenfold
- never have a single instance of our troops mutinying at the front as occurred in the French Armies fighting alongside us.
- be the only army capable of mounting an offensive after having withstood the massive German Offensive in the spring and early summer of 1918
- carry-out what is recognised and acknowledged as being the most successful military offensive ever undertaken by British troops
- Win the war.

Over to you and your "experts" who for some strange reason very seldom happen to be specialists in the subject, or if they are are all pre-1970s vintage, whose works and conclusions have been discredited by information that has come to light since 1970.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:57 AM

"Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit""
So you say Mr Woodcock
"245 men being shot for desertion and a further 17 being shot for "cowardice""
Nothing to be proud of considering they were shooting men with shellshock - or is that another lie?
"WHAT??? Debate against the likes of this?"
Keith lies, backtracks and contradicts himself and - like you, when caught out, refuses to respond on the grounds you might commit yourself - in his case, his putting up the fact that it was an Imperialist was when he denied it, and in yours that soldiers were not afraid of officers - you've been given the level of discipline dolerd out at great length |(and the rest is silence)
Keith is the only one to "take the piss out of historians" in the way he misquotes them and doesn't read them
Attempts at bullying will never replace information my galley swabbing friend!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:00 AM

I do find it a bit strange that people who dismiss historians pre 1970 are quite happy to believe in the teachings of the bible written 2000 years ago.

Just saying like.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:08 AM

"never have a single instance of our troops mutinying "
ONLY HALF THE STORY
"have a look at how the Germans treated the indigenous tribes under their care "
Didn't comment on how the Germans behaved - just that the "freedom and democracy" excuse for going to war was bullshit.
It was an Imperialist war - Keith said so, so it must be true
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 12:31 PM

Keith thinks that a person giving an opinion is an extension of being a historian therefore you can't argue with the opinion.

That's a bit like the mental leap that vicars know a bit about theology therefore their opinion that sky fairies exist (well, not all of them believe in that tosh but I digress) isn't one you should argue with.

Historians set the scene. Your own intelligence provides the opinion. The only people who borrow opinions are shallow God botherers.

Slowly but surely, the Keith in the couch is revealing his condition. Once we have the diagnosis we can get nurse to rig up the enema hose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM

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

Obviously.

Well done, Keith. That is exactly what I have been saying. Glad we can agree on something.

So we gave gone from A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse. to Sheffield only said that 1919 would have been much worse. to saying that everyone knows that Gary Sheffield cannot possibly know what the world would look like etc. in the space of a few short posts.

Glad to see that your mind can be changed after all. Thank you :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 01:37 PM

Rag, all sides in every war use propaganda, but the Germans really did massacre hundreds of civilians including children in 1914.

Jim, of course there were executions, but they were not summary executions as you claimed, and most of those condemned were not actually executed.

Pennell said it was a "myth" that British and Irish people were "deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict."

She said "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."

That directly contradicts your position Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

Dave, here is the whole paragraph,

"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."

Only a complete moron would expect it to be spelled out that Sheffield can not actually see alternative histories!
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 how he supports his views with hard facts.
His peers would rip him to shreds if he could not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM

"but they were not summary executions "
You've been given them and all you can do is call the soldiers who spoke of them liars.
"and most of those condemned were not actually executed."
Doesn't make any difference to those with shellshock who were =- none should have been
"Pennell said it was a "myth" that British and Irish people were "deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict."
Out of context again - she said a great deal more - mentioning fear of humiation - and particularly that the reasons were complex fro enlisting - why do you persist in this - you have lied about reading her book - you are dealing with misleading half-quotes - again.
PARAGRAPHS ARE NOT ENOUGH - READ THE BOOK
None of these people said what you claim if you read the articles in full.You are trying to score points yet again
Does being a Christian encourage you to lie for your country? - I don't know any Christians who behaves like you - I really don't.
You are a shining advert for atheism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 03:26 PM

"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"

The comment I made was addressed to the professor. However I could quite happily extend it.

BTW Just for your delectation Teribleonacompass


This one has a compass on, Just for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:14 PM

Only a complete moron would expect it to be spelled out that Sheffield can not actually see alternative histories!

Absolutely agreed, Keith. No one, as far as I can see, has said he can. I do not believe anyone has asked for it to be spelled out either. I said quite categorically that Sheffield cannot see alternative histories. You agreed. Why bring it up again? Are you as amazed as I am that we agree on something?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:41 PM

"I do find it a bit strange that people who dismiss historians pre 1970 are quite happy to believe in the teachings of the bible written 2000 years ago."

And where Raggy have you ever read anything that I have stated that leads you to believe that I BELIEVE IN THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE WRITTEN 2000 YEARS AGO - Ball is in your court come up with something that I have written or shut the fuck up - you add and contribute absolutely nothing to this forum all you can do is bully and snipe reveling in your complete and utter ignorance. In future please do not address any further inquiries in my direction I will refuse to respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:46 PM

GUEST - 20 Nov 15 - 12:31 PM

About the most ridiculous comment I have ever seen on this forum. If it needs to be explained why I find that so then you are further gone than even I suspected.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:55 PM

OK then Jim, Raggy, Gnome, nameless GHOST tell me why none of those who were summarily executed by their own officers or by "Special Groups of Military Policemen" have any names - I mean you have stated, and you believe that they were shot in front of their comrades at the moment they were ordered to "go over the top" - how come nobody knew who they were - now c'mon give us just ONE F**kin' NAME.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:37 PM

I haven't been in this thread. I don't know much at all about WWI. But what I do know, reading the three posts above this one, is that we are dealing here with a complete maniac. I'd say the best policy is to not respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:11 AM

The most ridiculous comment on this thread cannot be sought by a mere time reference. There are many contenders. One way of whittling them down to a finalist showdown is to concentrate on person not time. Start with anything by Teribus or Keith A of Hettford and take it from there.

Some howlers.....

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:36 AM

"I don't know much at all about WWI." - Steve Shaw

Suggest then that you just leave it at that then Steve - Can you offer any explanation as to how men were shot in front of their friends and not one of these so called "witnesses" to these murders can name the victim? If you can't then I can - they didn't actually witness anything, they heard stories and rumours about what was happening to soldiers in regiments in the French Army.

GUEST 21 Nov 15 - 02:11 AM

Really GHOST? - care to give us some examples and explain exactly what makes the content of those posts "Howlers"? Personally I don't think that you'll come up with any as the post referred to above is just another example of throwing some wildly inaccurate statement out there without one whit of substantiation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:46 AM

Sorry I forgot to ask my other question in that last post of mine.

Jim you haven't yet told us how those in command on the "Western Front" knew where to locate those "Special Groups of Military Policemen" prior to any offensive operation? I mean you do believe they existed yet you can tell us absolutely S.F.A. about them - I find that rather strange, but there again you'd take merest rumour over fact any day as long as it fits your preconceived notion - wouldn't you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM

Jim, even you can not deny that the Times Higher Education Supplement reviewer did read Pennell's book.

He says she argues, "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"."

Another direct quote from the book, "the majority of people - including those in Ireland - supported the onset of war in a spirit of seriousness and acceptance of duty".

"That support for the war was no late-summer madness, born of a foolish optimism and the expectation of early victory, is demonstrated by recruiting figures. "

" It is significant that it was in September 1914, after the retreat from Mons and the revelation in The Times of 25 August of just how hard-pressed British forces were, rather than in the first weeks of war, that the greatest number of recruits came forward. As it became clear from military reverses that there was little hope of a swift and glorious end to the war, and as reports of German atrocities in Belgium circulated, so resolve hardened. This was no "war fever", but a commitment to victory by a UK convinced of the justice of its cause."

"the concept of popular support as an irrational fit is demolished convincingly by Pennell. 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."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/a-kingdom-united-popular-responses-to-the-outbreak-of-the-first-world-war-in-britain-and-ireland/420302.article

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:28 AM

I gave you a quote of Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan,
"Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "

I gave you quotes from the Paxman/University of East Anglia programmes saying the same.
Also Sheffield.
They ALL say the same.
You will find no single exception among historians that your view is just a myth Jim.

I challenge and defy you to produce a single dissenting historian on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:58 AM

"They ALL say the same."
You haven';r read "all" so how the hell do you know what they say.
You've made it fairly evident that you haven't read any - certainly not the ones you've quoted.
Go and read what's available on line of Pennell's writing - what she says doesn't bear any the slightest resemblance to what you claim - you;ve taken the bit that suits
"now c'mon give us just ONE F**kin' NAME."
I have no idea who they were and you ***** know it - I believe that it happened because people who were there said it happened.
I have no way and no intention of accessing records locked away in archives - the fact that much of what happened in generally inaccessible (including the unofficial soldiers' journals) is still inaccessible after a century is par for the course.
The only way you can deny these events is to call the veterans liars - you're happy to do that because you're that kind of feller - with your head rammed so far up the arse of the establishment you could clean its teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM

Teribums, you say OK then Jim, Raggy, Gnome, nameless GHOST tell me why none of those who were summarily executed by their own officers...

Yet I have not mentioned any such thing. Why ask me? Are you getting confused?

Mind you, you also said, of Raggytash and me, neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway Yet you continue to argue with us and even quote our words. Why is that?

Apologies if it is some sort of mental illness.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:51 AM

Go and read what's available on line of Pennell's writing

I already posted this.

" 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: 21 Nov 15 - 06:13 AM

From her own mouth, 3mins 5 secs - 3.34.

"A strong sense that Britain's cause was just, compounded by the miserable atrocities in Belgium and France committed at the hand of the advancing German Army, resulted in a stoic determination to fight, no matter what the cost, for victory. In other words, the task ahead was dutifully accepted other than enthusiastically embraced."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W0657Bwn_A

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:17 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."

I have no doubt at all of the veracity of this statement. What we are not told is of equal significance though. What proportion of the general public were less than enthusiastic about the war? What proportion were only informed of the facts that the government wanted them to know? How many changed their minds once they saw what was happeing?   

"People supported the war" is another vague statement. Of course there were many people who did support it for the right reasons. No mention is made of those who were 'duped', those who volunteered for the wrong reasons or those who were stridently opposed.

We are talking about real human beings here for heavens sake, not just battlefield statistics. There were thousands killed, on all sides, who had no wish to harm anyone and no axe to grind in the family disputes of their 'betters' at all. Lest we forget...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:20 AM

"Suggest then that you just leave it at that then Steve "

If you can give yourself a moment of respite from your bluster and wade back through this wearisome thread, you'll see that that is exactly what I have done and, from here on in, what I propose to carry on doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM

Go and read what she has to say instead of looking of out of context clips - she goes on to say immediately after that that the reasons for joining were far more complex - shje mentions propaganda, fear, peer pressure and much much more - go read what she has written instead of dishionestly claiming that you have (not not a first for you).
No historian has ever presented a picture of people flocking to join up for 'freedom' - as you have.
If people had have done they would have been gullible idiots because, as you have pointed out, it was an Imperial war for territory - a war to gain and defend countries that none of the protagonists had a right to and all of them were plundering - Britain - Germany and especially "gallant little Belgium - a horrific Colonial master.
Your cut-'n-paste fully accepted that this was what it was about and nobody else has ever challenged that.
As Pennell points out, they did so for a whole host of reasons and 18 months into the war those reasons wore thin and compulsory conscription was introduced.
The War was sold like soap powder, Bottomly depicted it as something to be laughed at and a foregone conclusion - he made a million out of sending young man to their deaths.
Had our great national hero Kitchener, remained in office, conscientious objectors would have been executed for refusing to take part.
Men with shellshock were executed for "walking away from the noise" as Tommy Kenny put it, he described officers beating men up the ladders with their swagger-sticks, into murderous hails of bullets - fair to many accounts of this happening for even you pair to deny.
Some mamy fave gone out of a sense of duty, but many many others were tricked and eventually forced by law to go.
AS the lady said - "complicated" - read her book instead of claiming you have.
Go on - break the habit of a lifetime - read something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

It's no good, Jim. Most people have preconceptions and will read things that confirm these more than things that undermine them. We all do it as it is simply human nature. What I will never say, however, is that an opinion or argument can ever be wholly correct. Keith's isn't. Yours isn't. Mine isn't. They are opinions. We take in information and we gain experience. From these actions we form our opinions. We don't have to justify them. We do not have to explain them. They are our opinions and people can ignore or agree with them as they please. No one is exempted from this. People should realise that the more complex an event gets, like a world was for instance, the more sides there are to every argument surrounding it. None of them are wholly correct but some are more humane than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 08:32 AM

None of them are wholly correct but some are more humane than others.

Not to mention that some are more fact-based than others.

Not all opinions are equal.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 08:43 AM

Can't fault what you write Dave. Do you think others will agree to differ?


Not a prayer!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:11 AM

Jim,
Go and read what she has to say instead of looking of out of context clips

I have, and my quotes are wholly representative. They are NOT "out of context." I supplied links so they can be seen in their original intended context.

she goes on to say immediately after that that the reasons for joining were far more complex

No. She says that they were "more complex" than your "myth of war enthusiasm would suggest."
It is YOU trying to put quotes out of context!

Dave,
What proportion of the general public were less than enthusiastic about the war?

Not enthusiastic. They just believed it had to be done.
Paxton said "most people."
MacMillan would not have said, ""Britain certainly thought" unless she knew it to be most people.

Pennell clearly meant most people or she would not have said, "the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause." and " People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."

Most people Dave, and right to the end of the the war.
Most people Jim.
The myth you cling to is debunked and discredited, not by me, but by hard facts and hard evidence researched by leading historians who head university History Faculties.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:38 AM

Propaganda 3

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:40 AM

Propanda 4

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:42 AM

Propaganda 5

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM

It's surprising that with all those people queuing up to enlist that we needed all this propaganda and conscription isn't it.


Apologies Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM

Dense lady tuppence.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:02 PM

if we are wondering about the effect of propaganda etc 100 years ago why not look at it from today's perspective? surely we can have a better understanding of that? foreigners all suspect or worse. immigrants attacked. and the fascist press calling on our government to bomb someone - anyone- to make our ignorant, pathetic, little englander government look as if it is doing something positive. depressing, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:51 AM

Well said, achmelvich.

So, most people knew they were doing what had to be done did they? What if they were lied to? As described above. Were they doing what they knew had to be done or doing what they were told had to be done? Were all their lives given for the just cause they believed they were frighting for?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM

The government was not lied to.
They went to war over the invasion of Belgium and Britain's treaty obligations.
That was not a lie.
The people supported that, and most historians think they were right to.
No-one is lying to the historians.

Margaret Macmillan said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "

The myth you all desperately cling to is discredited and debunked.
Rubbished.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:29 AM

So, did most people believe that they were supporting a just cause or were they lied to?

What myth am I desperately clinging to?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:38 AM

"Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says."
You have pointed out that that reason was an Imperial one - part of one of your cut-'n-pastes.
It is not the job of historians - and historian - to pronounce whether that was legitimate - that is a moral, ethical or philosophical question, not a historical one.
Empire was about exploiting entire nations and using people and natural wealth for the benefit of the most powerful - go back in history as far as you want.
The British Empire collapsed under its own excesses a few decades after WW1   
If the war was one over colonies it was wrong - immoral - unethical.
The British people didn't benefit from any victory - we got nothing for the slaughter of our youth.
Things returned pretty much to the way they were at the beginning of the slaughter and before the twenties were out men were marching the streets demanding bread for their families.
The war never brought the improvements promised to those who fought - so which historian is qualified to say it was right - and why?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:19 AM

Dave,
What myth am I desperately clinging to?

The myth that people did not understand or know what it was about, what they were fighting for, that they were deluded, duped and manipulated.

Pennell, "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."

She knows that based on her extensive researches.

Based on nothing but your extensive ego, you are suggesting she is deluded, as are all the other historians who have separately and independently come to the same conclusion!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:22 AM

You have pointed out that that reason was an Imperial one - part of one of your cut-'n-pastes.

No I have not.
The government and most British people wanted Britain to keep out of the building conflict right up until the German armies swept into neutral Belgium.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:35 AM

Based on nothing but your extensive ego, you are suggesting she is deluded

I have suggested no such thing. In fact, of your quote, I specifically said "I have no doubt at all of the veracity of this statement." If I have suggested she is deluded, show me where and I will apologise.

I am asking a question of you. Do you believe that most people believed that they were fighting a just war? Not an historian's opinion. Not anyone else's opinion. Do you, Keith A of Hertford, believe that most people who fought in WW1 believed that they were fighting a just war?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:40 AM

Sorry - Misformated. Italics should be off after the first line.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:47 AM

Do you believe that most people believed that they were fighting a just war? Not an historian's opinion.

Yes I do.
I do not have a vast ego to compare with yours Dave.
I do not believe that I was born knowing everything.
I have not spent years doing research on original sources and I am not over a hundred years old, so I form my opinions on historical periods by reading history books.

I actually find it hilarious that people like you come on here and set themselves up as knowing more about history than the historians.
You even ridicule people for learning their history from history books instead of just imagining how things might have been and demanding that you empty head whims be given equal authority!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:57 AM

Questions for you professor, seeing as you have such a grasp of the subject:

1. Why if everyone thought is was a bloody good idea to go fight the Hun did the government put out so much propaganda.

2. Why did they then introduce conscription.

(just for your benefit) Propaganda:- "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view"

Please use the OED Definition of propaganda and not YOUR definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:30 AM

I do not have a vast ego to compare with yours Dave.
I do not believe that I was born knowing everything

Where did that come from? The only thing I have ever said that I know for certain is that I know very little. I am a constant student and fully understand that, even on those subjects that I may know a something about, I will never know everything. Please show me where I have claimed superior knowledge on anything or desist from such foolery.

Anyhow, back to the main thread rather than spurious claims. You agree that most people believed they were fighting a just war. Yes? So, approximately 50% of the combatants were duped. Logic dictates that if one side were fighting a just war, then the other side were fighting an unjust one. How did the German government fool their soldiers into believing they were fighting a just war if they were not? Or were the British people more intelligent that the Germans? I really am curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM

As to I actually find it hilarious that people like you come on here and set themselves up as knowing more about history than the historians.
You even ridicule people for learning their history from history books

Well, I have never said I know more about history than anyone and well you know it. I have ridiculed you on many occasions, but not for learning about history. Just for being a pompous ass. (From 'Urban Dictionary: Pompous Ass. A person who seems full of themselves and who grabs every opportunity to let others know of their feelings of superiority.) Seems to fit rather well.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM

I do not believe that I was born knowing everything

Perhaps not, Professor, but you sure as shit think you know everything now.

knowing more about history than the historians.

WHICH historians, Prof? The liveones or the dead ones. All historians, or just the ones whose works are available in "real bookshops"? he oners you have actually read (< zero) or the ones you quote by way of out-of context clips from the internet? & etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 12:49 PM

Before we discuss German public opinion, which I know nothing about, I would like to establish that British public opinion was that the war needed to be fought.

I have been unable to find a single historian who has expressed a different view, and none of you have either.
I have only found one historian, Niall Ferguson, who thought that Britain did not need to fight, and that was because of his far right views on Empire and Britain remaining a leading world power.

I do dot deny the findings of all those historians.
I accept them.
Do you?

And Rag, do you really think that historians specialising in WW1 are unaware of propaganda and conscription, and that they would change their views if only they knew what you know?
Really Rag?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:09 PM

"She knows that based on her extensive researches."
Which you haven't read - and you are still ignoring what she actually said - suits your jingoist case to do so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM

British opinion was mixed. Education was not as good as it was up till recently and people borrowed their views from what they read far more readily than now.

That said, being encouraged to fight and doing so willingly is very different to understanding the reasoning behind it. Imperial ambition and carving up territory meant little to a postman from Barnsley, but being told a German will rape his sister possibly had an effect.

You can only look at now with people thinking further bombing of Syria will make the nasty people go away. That's a popular opinion, shared by readers of most newspapers and shallow politicians, so anyone looking at it in a hundred years might mistake it for reasoned assessment by the masses.

By the way, nobody on here has not accepted the findings of a single historian. Perhaps Keith might find a friend to explain the difference between evidence and judgement? Overview and assessment? Fact and fiction? Hypothesis and conclusion?

Although this discussion is stupid anyway. Most of the historians Keith refers to give a broader assessment than his cherry picking anyway and only a couple venture into personal opinion, and then contradicting each other.

Mind you, dismissing Ferguson because of his political views whilst worshipping Hastings gave me a chuckle.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:33 PM

I do dot deny the findings of all those historians.
I accept them.
Do you?

Yes I do. I have never disputed any of their findings. I cannot because I do not know enough about it. Something I have stated time and time again. Which is why, I suppose, instead of addressing my points you imply that I do dispute them and cast erroneous aspersions on my character.

So, let us get back to the point. If the popular opinion in Britain was that we were fighting a just war, which I have never disputed, how was public opinion manipulated in such a way that both us and our our European neigbours believed the same thing and yet fought to the death about it? Does it not make you wonder about popular opinion and how it can be shaped? How it is still being shaped today, as was pointed out earlier.

And are you ever going to give us any evidence of my having said that I know more about anything than anyone on here? Or are you just going to continue on that track whenever you feel threatened?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:55 PM

Which you haven't read - and you are still ignoring what she actually said -

What she actually said,
"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."

By the way, nobody on here has not accepted the findings of a single historian.

Yes they have, including you.
The historians agree that British people believed the war to be a necessary evil, and all but one agree that they were right about that.

worshipping Hastings
Huh??

And are you ever going to give us any evidence of my having said that I know more about anything than anyone on here?
Do I need to?
My views are just those of the historians, and you have been challenging me over them for years now.

Earlier you asked
So, most people knew they were doing what had to be done did they? What if they were lied to? As described above. Were they doing what they knew had to be done or doing what they were told had to be done?

You had just been shown that the historians said that their views were not influenced by lies and propaganda, but were carefully thought and sensible. You clearly rejected all that. You must have believed you knew better.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:56 PM

I will attempt to put this as simply as I can.

Any historian, right, left, centre, published in popular bookshops or newspapers or the Internet paint A picture of WW1 not THE picture of WW1.

Most people accept this and glean information from it. Most people do not accept as "Gospel" the things that are written.

We apply the knowledge we have gained from other books and treatises and deal with the new information accordingly.

We do not accept that the particular historian is 100% correct, we apply a degree of logic to the things we read.

Thus when one person says THIS historian or THIS group of historians are correct we look at the other information we have gathered and think perhaps the TRUTH is somewhere in between.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:24 PM

Dave,
I have never disputed any of their findings. I cannot because I do not know enough about it.

I have only ever expressed 3 opinions about WW1, the first two being that Britain had no choice but to fight, and that the people supported that.

You have just been shown, again, that those are the findings of the historians.

DO YOU DISPUTE THEM?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM

Rag,
Thus when one person says THIS historian or THIS group of historians are correct we look at the other information we have gathered and think perhaps the TRUTH is somewhere in between.

On the points that I have defended, no historian has been found by any of us with a contradictory view.
You and your little group say you disagree with all of them.
You must believe that you know more about history than the historians!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

Once again professor you have demonstrated your complete inability to understand the written word.

The history you profess to read is just ONE picture of that period. They are not and cannot be the WHOLE picture.

Some people, that is those with any degree of intelligence, read absorb and decipher the information presented and consider ALL the available data.

We do not dismiss historians merely because we do not agree with their politics or that their books are not sold in High Street bookshops or because they wrote more than 20 years ago or they have an axe to grind. We accept that and judge their work accordingly.

To dismiss any historian is extremely foolish, but sadly we have come to expect no more of you.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It's really quite simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:00 PM

22 Nov 15 - 02:24 PM : ...the findings of the historians.

WHICH historians, Professor? The live ones or the dead ones? All historians of every nationality all over the world, or just the ones whose works are available in British "real bookshops"? The ones you have actually read (< zero) or the ones you quote by way of out-of context clips from the internet? & etc

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:10 PM

"What she actually said,"
You have put up just a few words of what she said
There is actually a greeat deal of what she said on line and a talk by her - you are selecting a few words out of context and once more making the term "historian" a laughing stock, not to mantion yourself.
In fact every historian available on line contradicts what you have to say oif you read it in full - you have edited your selections by missing out the bulk of what they have to say - as is your wont
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:15 PM

DO YOU DISPUTE THEM?

No, I don't and never have, as you well know. Instead you keep harping on about my ego and how I dispute what the experts say. I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:47 PM

"None of them are wholly correct but some are more humane than others.

Not to mention that some are more fact-based than others."

Only trouble with that Greg is that Jim Carroll and usual suspects can't come up with any facts - the best they can come up with is rumour, hearsay and fairytales - God knows they have been asked often enough to provide substantive details to support the things they contend but as now they have failed singularly to do so.

Jim Carroll just havers on in his bigoted , biased, "class warrior", Wolfie-Smith persona way while Shaw, Gnome and Raggy just like mobbing Keith A - it would appear to be their sole purpose in life - odd then that none of them have ever managed to take Keith to task on any details that he has provided

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 04:00 PM

Raggy somewhere along the line you forgot to supply any detail to back up this little contribution of yours:

"where Raggy have you ever read anything that I have stated that leads you to believe that I BELIEVE IN THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE WRITTEN 2000 YEARS AGO"

As to discussing historians whose speciality is the First World War:

Those who studied, researched and wrote about it in the period 1972 to the present day had far more comprehensive information than those who wrote about it in the period 1929 to 1969. Perhaps you might dispute this but any grounds you might have for believing that would be very shaky indeed as the premise flies in the face of commonsense and logic - If A has more information from more varied sources than B, then A's work on the subject will be far more detailed and far more reflective and representative of reality than B's work on the same subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 04:19 PM

You flatter yourself Teriblunder. If you care to read my remark again I think you will find that no names are mentioned. It must be your immense ego at work ....... again.

I also see to recall that only recently, a day or two ago that you said that you would not engage with me again. I do wish you would stick to that.

Are your promises as good as your map reading.

I live in hope.


Bye for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 04:21 PM

"Only trouble with that Greg is that Jim Carroll and usual suspects can't come up with any facts -"
Bit rich for someone who makes pronouncements with no verification - ever - we are expected to take the arrogant pronouncements of a galley swabber - c#um a#wannabe soldier
You have been given the facts and you dismiss them as lies and urban legends - even when they are passed on by people who were there - "liars all"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:05 AM

Has anyone noticed that GUEST is quoted by Keith as having said x y and z?

Apparently the many who don't wish to have Teribus find irrelevant bits about them to bully them with and those whose cookie had crumbled, not to mention those who forget to put a name and lastly those who want text not author to be considered all say the same thing!!!!

In a way that's true I suppose. Not everybody works on the same intellectual level as Keith A of Hertford and his fascination with his toy soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:20 AM

"did most people believe that they were supporting a just cause or were they lied to?" - Gnome - you are asking the wrong person the question - With apologies to Mr Suffet and to quote from his excellent song:

"Ask the people of Belgium, or Alsace-Lorraine,
If my life was wasted, if I died in vain.
I think they will answer when all's said and done
That they welcomed this young man with a tin hat and gun."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:55 AM

"Questions for you professor, seeing as you have such a grasp of the subject:

1. Why if everyone thought is was a bloody good idea to go fight the Hun did the government put out so much propaganda.

2. Why did they then introduce conscription." Asks Raggytash

In answer to your first question, between August 1914 and December 1914 over 1,200,000 men volunteered to join the British Army during a period where the British Expeditionary Force [80,000 strong out a total Army strength of 440,000] came close to being wiped out in Belgium and in France. So great was the response for men that the Army recruiting centres and training depots were completely overwhelmed. As to propaganda? All of the combatant nations churned out propaganda Raggy and do please go back to your examples and give us dates for them - because at the moment you are trying to put the incorrect idea across that they all date from August 1914. The propaganda campaign was not only targeted for home consumption - it was directed at countries that were so-far "neutral" primarily the United States of America in an attempt to convince THEIR politicians and populations of a need to become involved.

In answer to your second question. In 1914 Britain had a professional army of 440,000 men, by 1918 that Army had expanded to some 3,000,000 men [During the course of the war 2.6 million men volunteered and 2.7 were conscripted - all who joined the fight on the British side from Ireland, Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and India - were ALL volunteers], to undertake such an expansion in time of peace would have been difficult enough for any organisation, to do it in time of war when your forces are being hard pressed makes those difficulties ten times more daunting. The fact that it was accomplished and that the British Forces not only remained intact but went from being seen as "a contemptible little army" to the armed force that represented the greatest danger to the Germans on the western front indicates just how well led and trained Britain's first citizen army was. On the other hand since Napoleonic times France, Prussia(latterly Germany), Austro-Hungaria and Russia all had possessed citizen armies that relied on mass conscription. In 1914 the British Army had only light field artillery, the Germans had extremely good medium artillery to support initial attacks, the French had excellent field artillery and the thing that saved them in 1914 the best heavy artillery in the world. So Britain had to design, build and create all medium and heavy artillery, Haig "junked" two thirds of his cavalry divisions to create the Machine Gun Corps and the Royal Tank Corps - by 1916 when conscription was introduced the British Army needed men and needed to be able to assign those men to where they were needed - much easier with conscripts than with men who volunteer for service in a particular Regiment, Corps or Service. So in introducing conscription Britain just joined the rest.

No mutinies at the front during the entire course of the war, no riots or strikes at home during the entire course of the war, the same cannot be said for the Germans, the French or the Russians. That too indicates that most of the people of Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire supported the Government in the struggle.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:09 AM

"You agree that most people believed they were fighting a just war. Yes? So, approximately 50% of the combatants were duped. Logic dictates that if one side were fighting a just war, then the other side were fighting an unjust one. How did the German government fool their soldiers into believing they were fighting a just war if they were not? Or were the British people more intelligent that the Germans? I really am curious." - Dave the Gnome.

That statement of yours above Gnome certainly shows that on this particular subject "that you know very little".

"One side fighting a just war the other fighting an unjust one"

Now I can see instantly why it would be considered just to come to the aid of a small country whose sovereignty has been guaranteed and whose existence as a free and independent nation is seen as being vital to my own country's national interest. Now explain to me how on earth it could in any way shape or form be viewed as right or justified to attack and invade that country and threaten total annexation just to fulfill your country's war aims.

By the way as explained in a previous post of mine the German Army as mobilised in 1914 was a citizen army that was already formed, their soldiers Gnome did not have to duped and lied to, all the German High Command had to do was to order them to attack, how the individual soldier in the German Army felt about it was of no consequence I do not believe that at any time he was consulted.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:22 AM

Ah Jom, when was it that I was a "galley swabber" as you put it? Or did your little troll feed you that little piece of "Made Up Shit"? If you believe it then it simply proves my belief that you will believe anything on the basis of no supporting evidence as long as it falls in with your tooth-sucking, biased and bigoted "class-warrior" agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:25 AM

"That statement of yours above Gnome certainly shows that on this particular subject "that you know very little".
More unqualified proclamations - you say no evidence has been provided - where is yours?
If the soldiers thought they were fighting a just cause - they were duped into a lie - 10 million dead and millions more disfigured Congloese testify to that fact
There was nothing "just" about the brutality of Empire.
When are you pair of establishment arse-lickers going to address that fact.
It was a war to defend a predatory, murderous system and the British people went in, made their sacrifice, and ended up no better at th end of it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:28 AM

Keith

You had just been shown that the historians said that their views were not influenced by lies and propaganda, but were carefully thought and sensible. You clearly rejected all that.

No I have not rejected it. I have simply expanded it to include all sides. Considering that both sides could not be fighting a just war then one of them must have been fighting an unjust one. The people of one country must therefore have been influenced by lies and propaganda to support it.

Teribums

I am sure Keith is quite capable of answering for himself but, seeing as you have brought up the subject of Belgium, twice, I think we could well expand your idea of asking other people what they thought was right. Maybe we should ask the people of the Belgian Congo if they thought 'brave little Belgium' was worth all the effort?

Both - I am not arguing history here but humanity. Something that you both appear to lack.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:33 AM

Several points Teribus.

1. You did state very recently you would not respond to any of my questions.

2. The questions were specifically put to the professor.

3. At no point did I mention any dates for the propaganda, in fact I only placed links to articles that I though even the professor would acknowledge (last 20 years, real historians etc)

4. We know the figures regarding volunteers v conscription I put them on another thread some months ago. The question is if support for the war was still so strong why was conscription necessary.

5. Let the professor answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM

Rag and Dave,
The history you profess to read is just ONE picture of that period.

OK, but it is the one picture that all the historians writing about WW1 paint.
If you reject it, you are claiming to know more than the historians.

Some people, that is those with any degree of intelligence, read absorb and decipher the information presented and consider ALL the available data.

That is the job of historians.
I read their findings and that forms my views.
On what grounds do you refuse to accept them?

To dismiss any historian is extremely foolish, but sadly we have come to expect no more of you.

I do not, but historians now reject the views of some who wrote decades ago without the benefit of evidence now available.
There used to be some with different views on those points I have put, but now they are discredited and debunked.

You have been left behind.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:00 AM

Jim,
You have put up just a few words of what she said

Yes, and it is unequivocal.
They do not contradict themselves elsewhere. How could they?

Pennell, "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."

Margaret Macmillan said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "

Quite unequivocal Jim.
They reject your view completely, and you will find not one single historian who challenges either of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:03 AM

Rag and Dave,
The history you profess to read is just ONE picture of that period.

I have said no such thing. Nor is the subsequent conversation anything to do with me. Why are you ascribing things that others have said to me, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:10 AM

It's one of his traits Dave, he said I said things you didn't say either.

Never did get the apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:21 AM

"Maybe we should ask the people of the Belgian Congo if they thought 'brave little Belgium' was worth all the effort? "

Why Gnome? If you think for one instant that they would have been better off under German domination - then you had best think again.

As Keith A has stated I haven't yet seen so many people who admit that they "VERY LITTLE" about a subject have so many opinions and argue about it. If I started out "knowing very little" I would try to educate myself before entering the discussion. I originally came to these WWI threads in response to you and your friends unremitting bullying and mobbing of Keith A who as I read and understood his posts was putting forward fairly good points for discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:24 AM

"I haven't yet seen so many people who admit that they "VERY LITTLE" about a subject have so many opinions and argue about it."

Should of course read:

"I haven't yet seen so many people who admit that they "KNOW VERY LITTLE" about a subject have so many opinions and argue about it."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM

So Keith has formed an opinion?

I thought he said historians do that for him and if you think you know more than historians you are deluded?

Mind you, reading the prosaic and sometimes hilarious howlers from Keith and Teribus, you get an impression of how simple people get dragged into other people's wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:37 AM

Why Gnome?

Well, I assumed that seeing as you asked me to refer to a folk singer who's words were simply a parody of anothers, then it would be OK for me to refer to people who far more involved in atrocities than Mr Suffet. Still, I suppose that, like Keith, you have your rules for these things that the rest of us are not party to.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:40 AM

...and how come you are still arguing with me seeing as I never bring anything germane to these debates? Are you daft?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:56 AM

Dave, the confusion arises because you now say you accept the historians' findings, but for years you have been ridiculing me for accepting the historians' findings.

The historians are clear that the British Public agreed the need to stand against the invading German armies.
You will find none that contradict that.
Do you accept or reject the findings of the historians on that Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:04 AM

but for years you have been ridiculing me for accepting the historians' findings.

I think you will find I addressed that point 22 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM and on many occasions before.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this. I am sure that the British public did agree the need to stand. I am sure that the German public did agree the need to invade. I an sure that they could not both be right. There are two (or more) sides to every issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:16 AM

I remember it all. I was 7 when the war started, 13 when it ended; & perfectly conscious of what was going on. Coming from a large family [my mother was one of eight children, my father one of five] I had countless relations in the armed services. I was in London throughout the Blitz of 1940 & the flying bombs and rockets of 1944. I missed weeks of education when my school was destroyed by a 1940 landmine & the King & Queen came to inspect the damage. There was an unmistakeable spirit of public dedication and universal determination to resist invasion.

Just as well for me, at that: having been born to a Jewish family, I would never have become a senior schoolmaster, theatre critic, folk music journo, award-winning amateur actor, &c&c&c if invasion had occurred...

I would have become a bar of soap

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:20 AM

... or a lampshade

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:22 AM

GUEST of posting Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM.

Reading through this thread you (presumably) have been asked before to give examples of these "Howlers" you refer to. You failed to do so when asked before, if I predict that you will refuse to provide any such examples in response to this request, what odds does the forum in general think I'd get from Ladbrookes that I'd be backing a winner?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:27 AM

Coincidentally I came across this while browsing. It seemed very apt.

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change."

― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:08 AM

If you were seven when the war started, that makes you 108.

Well done.

We'll let you know when and if we get the usual suspects away from the "great" war and onto the war that had a consensus, other than Teribus's favourite newspaper, had to ge fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:33 AM

You can't count GUEST. My mention of 1940 made it quite clear which war I ref'd to -- WWii which started 3 Sep 1939. Which, my having been born on 12 May 1932, made me 7. And my present age 83.

Just bear in mind, would you, that nobody loves a smartarse.

And go away.

And in future have the goodness to acknowledge your fatuous posts with your name. Ashamed of it or something, are you? We Mudcatters despise pusillanimous anonymous soi-disant Guests who don't even have the manners to be civil to their hosts.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:01 AM

Actually Michael you said you were 7 when the war started and finished that sentence with a full stop. You then said you came from a large family and again ended that sentence with a full stop. Then you said you were in London during the blitz of 1940.

As this topic is primarily about WW1 and the guest not knowing you it was not altogether beyond the bounds of possibility you were referring to WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM

Dave,
I am sure that the British public did agree the need to stand.

Thank you Dave. Jim and Rag, you have lost Dave's support on that.

I am sure that the German public did agree the need to invade. I an sure that they could not both be right.

I do know that both British and German historians are now clear that Germany was primarily responsible for the war and was the aggressor.
So if the German people supported it, they were duped, deluded or motivated by jingoistic nationalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM

"Thank you Dave. Jim and Rag, you have lost Dave's support on that."
Still not a point-winning game Keith - you make your point by producing alternative arguments, not by gaining support
"Yes, and it is unequivocal."
it is out of context and incompete and had you read what she wrote in full, as you dishonestly claim, you would be aware of that (as you probably are but 'all's fair in love (of one's establishment)and point scoring)
"If you think for one instant that they would have been better off under German domination - then you had best think again."
Ten million of them were never given the opportunity to find out - they certainl;y would have been better off under anybody - as would those who got their hands hacked off.
Still blustering without backup I see.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:37 AM

The upshot of that last post must mean that you consider that the average German was much less intelligent than the average Britain.

If they were duped, deluded and motivated by jingoistic nationalism they can't have been well informed, erudite and educated.

Is this what you are saying?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:18 AM

Rag, not what I am saying.
Jim,
it is out of context and incompete and had you read what she wrote in full,

These can be seen in context by using the links I provided, and they are quite unequivocal.

Pennell, "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."

Margaret Macmillan said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:19 AM

Do you accept or reject the findings of the historians...

WHICH historians, Professor? The live ones or the dead ones? All historians of every nationality all over the world, or just the ones whose works are available in British "real bookshops"? The ones you have actually read (< zero) or the ones you quote by way of out-of context clips from the internet? & etc

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:34 AM

Thanks, Raggy. Don't think I have ever had anything I had written so minutely and exhaustively deconstructed before. Out of interest, do you favour the approach of Jacques Derrida above that Ferdinand de Saussure? Or perhaps Luce Irigaray? Or Hillis Miller?

I think we should be told!

Still think that anon GUEST a monumental pain·in·the·ɷ at that.

≈M≈

And I do wish they would go back to banning anon posts just headed GUEST -- if only becoz one never knows if two posts are from the same copulatory-stinking-bloody GUEST or two different ones & it all gets so intolewably confusing for my paw-ickle-bwain...

Max! Joe! Anybody listening? Please!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:37 AM

I have always said that I do not know enough about WW1 to dispute or agree with any of the factual statements given. I have no idea what is accurate and, as always, give people the benefit of the doubt. Why do you suggest that anyone has lost support that was never there in the first place? What I am sure of, but only by the postings on here, is that you are a pompous ass. In real life you may well be a nice bloke but until you stop pontificating and attempting to score points I will continue to ridicule you.

So if the German people supported it, they were duped, deluded or motivated by jingoistic nationalism.

Here we have a very significant statement. The British public were clever enough not be duped by propaganda. The German public were not. Nice to know that we are the intelligent ones while those nasty krauts are stupid. No wonder they lost the war...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:42 AM

You couldn't make it up could you!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM

"These can be seen in context by using the links I provided, and they are quite unequivocal."
Then explain here references to "fear" and "propaganda"
As I said, if people were persuaded it was a cause then i
it was a horrifically unjust cause - explain that
The Paxman programme spent a great deal of time on the recruiting methods used , the deception, the bullying the emotional blackmail that took place and the fact that this noble cause was so important to the people, after 18 months it collapsed and enforced conscription was introduced - if the cause was so noble - why did that happen - explain that.
You have studiously avoided the immorality of the war, of the near wiping out of almost an entire generation - is that so unimportant to you?- it obviously is - you "Christians" really curl me up.
In two years and over the space of half-a dozen thread you have refused to respond to any of these points and have clung to out-of context quotes by historians you have not read (but claim you have)
What kind of people are you - you certainly lack a shred of humanity?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:19 AM

"the fact that this noble cause was so important to the people, after 18 months it collapsed and enforced conscription was introduced - if the cause was so noble - why did that happen - explain that."

After 18 months it collapsed? Where Jom? In Australia, in Ireland, In Canada, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in Newfoundland, in India? Are you trying to tell me that nobody from those countries volunteered after March 1916? Are you trying to tell me that there were no volunteers from Great Britain after 1916? If so then you would be wrong. Every other combatant nation had started out with conscripted citizen armies, Britain and the British Government were told on day one that they too would have to raise one and that Jom old son was exactly what they did - however they did not have to rely in any way on conscription until the war was nearly half way through.

"You have studiously avoided the immorality of the war, of the near wiping out of almost an entire generation"

The immorality of the war?? What started out as a minor dispute between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia was manipulated and forced by German meddling and intransigence into the largest conflict the world had seen - Now then "Wolfie" I can see the immorality in that, especially as part and parcel of that German meddling was the goal of annexing Belgium and their colonies and robbing France of hers in order to then go on and attack the British. Tell me Jom, all those British workers beavering away and earning their daily crust producing and manufacturing all those widgets back then in 1914 before the war - where were they sold? Rhetorical question chump, they were sold to customers in the British Empire, her Dominions and her colonies. Now had the Germans managed to destroy the British Empire (As they tried to do by their support for the Boers in South Africa) who would all those workers in British factories be making stuff for? Or would they have found themselves out of work? And that "Wolfie" was a consequence that Niall Ferguson failed to grasp when he made his case for Great Britain staying out of what was known as the Great War.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM

"I have always said that I do not know enough about WW1 to dispute or agree with any of the factual statements given. I have no idea what is accurate and, as always, give people the benefit of the doubt." - DtG.

Absolutely risible, Gnome - In your self-confessed ignorance of the subject under discussion, when on earth have you EVER given Keith A the "benefit of the doubt

Looks like Guest Observer is going to win his bet if indeed he/she placed it - But for the GUEST he was referring to (Most likely Musktwat) the above from the Gnome - Now that really is a HOWLER of the first magnitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:34 AM

when on earth have you EVER given Keith A the "benefit of the doubt"

Always, Teribums. Evidenced in multiple threads and responses where I have said I have no reason to doubt him. I even believe stuff you tell me. Sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:35 AM

...just because you believe someone doesn't stop them being a pratt.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:46 AM

Dave and Rag, I do not even know how much support there was in Germany.
I have never looked into it.
You say there was Dave, but you do not tell us how you know.
And do you know how independent their press was?

I would never suggest that any population is more clever or stupid than any other.

My actual post,
"So IFthe German people supported it, they were duped, deluded or motivated by jingoistic nationalism."

Perhaps it was the latter.
Remarque's book "All Quiet On The Western Front" has the main character and his friends persuaded to enlist by the nationalistic, jingoistic fervour of their schoolmaster.
Remarque was writing of the common experience of Germans, and he would not have included anything unusual or atypical.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:58 AM

"After 18 months it collapsed? "
It did in Britain Cookie - I thought that's what we were talking about.
No idea what happened in those countries - what on earth has it to do with the opic on hand apart from it being another rat-hole to hide in.
IT COLLAPSED IN BRITAIN - OR IS THIS ANOTHER URBAN MYTH?
Banck to th pot and pan's I'm afraid Mr Woodencock.
The war was a defence of colonies - a family dispute over who got to milk the poorer nations, or in Belgium's case, who got to slaughter and hack pieces off them - may not b immoral to you Tebbitites, but pretty sick to the rest of us.
If the war was inevitable it was due to the predatory nature of colonialism - that it why a generation of British youth were sacrifed because they had been sent to slaughter the same genration of German youth who they did not know and had no quarrel with - pretty obscene, doncha think - my mistake, of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be putting up such efforts to tell us how noble it all was.
Can I smell burning bacon - sorry for distracting you fromk your work - back to your stove.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 11:10 AM

You say there was Dave, but you do not tell us how you know.

I don't know, Keith, but certain news articles indicate that the war was enthusiastically accepted in Germany. I believe a young Adolph Hitler was at a rally in Munich celebrating the outbreak of war but I am, as ever, willing to defer to someone who knows for sure. You say you don't know either. Anyone out there who does know what German reaction was?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 11:31 AM

Dave, you said, "I am sure that the German public did agree the need to invade."

How can you be sure?
I have no idea if they did or not.
IF they did, was it just the nationalistic fervour that they demonstrated again a few years later and which Remarque wrote about?

Were they lied to?
You tell us, because I do not know Dave.

I do know that the British public were not deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict.

Margaret Macmillan said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did,"


Pennell, "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."

The University of East Anglia (Paxman programmes) say the same as does Sheffield, Todman and every other historian who has expressed an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:25 PM

More cut-'n'pastes - no honest responses
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:42 PM

Found any quote that supports you view Jim?
No.
Found any that contradict mine.
No Jim.

The historians findings are quite unequivocal.
The myths you cling to are discredited, debunked and rubbished.
Sorry Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM

"I do know that the British public were not deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict"

But you are quite happy to believe the German population were.

Is there no end to this man's ignorance? What ******* planet does he live on?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 01:50 PM

"Found any that contradict mine."
]You have been given examples of what your own "historians" have said, stretcing back to last yers threads and you choose to ignore them - your latest "lets not go there "historian" being typical
She talks about propaganda and peer pressure, the fear, the emotional blackmail - all historians that have gone public do so
She also points out the complex reasons for joining up[, as do many others.
The fact you choose to ignore itt and only take the bits that suit is basically what you do.
You did it with Kineally, who blew up in your face when it turned out that she was saying exactly the opposite, yet you still clung on as you probably will now.
Your obsessive urge to defend every shitty thing Britain has ever done makes you one strange individual.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM

Ah but Jom what would have happened to all those workers producing widgets for the Empire, houkin coal to power the factories and ships needed to carry those widgets to their markets and bring back raw materials to make even more improved widgets - all of them out of work Wolfie, what on earth could they have turned their hands to? Folk Music? They could have followed your example and wandered round the country cherry-picking unsubstantiated and unverifiable stories to suit their own bigoted views on any subject you like, so that at a later date they could bore the pants of everybody retelling the tale.

Conscription was introduced because it made sense and was simpler. The British people knew very well why they fighting, why Germany had to be defeated and they knew what they were fighting to preserve.

Germany had only been a country for just over 40 years and they most certainly were extremely "nationalistic", all aspects of the country's foreign policy were held in the hands of the Emperor and a militaristic autocracy that lusted after supreme power in Europe and the establishment of an empire overseas. Wellington at the Congress of Vienna predicted that rabid nationalism was extremely dangerous and would tear Europe apart - how right he was.

Now then Jom tell us again why if "your" witnesses" saw soldiers from their own units being summarily executed why those same witnesses chatting away into your tape recorded couldn't refer to any of the victims by name? You see my commonsense, reasoning and logic tells me that IF such a thing ever occurred and a person saw it it and every detail related to it would have been seared on their minds forever. But there again you didn't even check to see if the old boy telling you the story was ever even in the Army did you - some bloody researcher you are - totally useless. By the way Jom, what is it that you have against cooks, that compels you to regard them with such contempt that you use their job title as an insult? Not very egalitarian, liberal, or charitable of you my little "wannabe working class hero".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM

Mudcat allows a person to be judged by what they type, not who they are. Please note Mr Lion or whatever your name is.

I like the idea that bullies such as Teribus and Keith A of Hertford have to either address what you put or ignore you. (Even if they address it, they ignore what you put anyway and waffle on with irrelevance and silly point scoring.)

So rather than scream that you don't know who is typing, try reading what they type instead prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:41 PM

The English, the English, the English are best
I wouldn't give a tuppence for all of the rest







Sadly some silly buggers actually believe this.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:50 PM

--Your obsessive urge to defend every shitty thing Britain has ever done makes you one strange individual.
Jim Carroll--
,..,
Find myself rather oddly reacting, Jim, to your apparent obsessive hatred of your own country. To hear you tell it, you appear to think that "shitty things" are all Britain has ever done. I appreciate that much of what you write is responding to other people's points, the exigencies of argument making you emphasise certain aspects to the detriment of the whole picture. But with all due respect, I find it peculiarly off-putting. Reminds me of Koko's Little List in The Mikado, which included

The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:02 PM

"Find myself rather oddly reacting, Jim, to your apparent obsessive hatred of your own country"
No I don't Mike - I hate what the politicians, bankers and big businessmen have done to my country.
The same goes for Ireland, where I now live.
The people I have spent my life with fill me with admiration and total respect - but the politicians - of all breeds - something else.
"what on earth could they have turned their hands to? Folk Music?"
Could have joined the army - saw that on a beer-mat in the Scottish Borders once - can't get a job - join the army.
Not sure what you're saying Popeye, me old shipmate - that the Empitre wasn't predatory - that they were an ungrateful lot for wanting out and biting the hand that fed them?
Gi'e us a break!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:35 PM

Sadly some silly buggers actually believe this.

Not just the UK, if that's any consolation. Plenty of butt-heads in the U.S. believe in nonsensical "American Exceptionalism".

Find myself rather oddly reacting, Jim, to your apparent obsessive hatred of your own country.

Well, EmGee, puts me in mind of the idiotic "America: Love It Or Leave It" jingoism. And you commonly react oddly- its one of your trademarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:22 PM

Ay don't do anything 'commonly', if you don't maind, may dear Gee·Eff.

& if it's one of may ©'trademarks'©, then Ay'd better not ketch you traying to imitate it, hed Ay!

Wouldn't be may ☕ at all!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM

Mr Lion or whatever your name is
...

My name is Michael Grosvenor Myer, as anyone who knows anything about the Folk Scene, or about Mudcat, knows.


try reading what they type instead prat...

Now, now; temper, temper! Just behave yourself on this decent forum, on which you are officiously intruding your unwanted and ill-informed presence, you vulgar little nonentity. If you are a Guest, then oblige us by conducting yourself with appropriate civility to your hosts, please; and refrain from telling them what, in your inaccurate opinion, may be permitted on their own forum.

Avaunt and quit my sight -- Macbeth

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:10 PM

Missing the point aren't you Jom. Had Great Britain stood apart and ignored it's treaty obligations and decided than it was unimportant to look after the national interest then millions would have been out of work within 15 years.

Empire purely a force for evil?? A pretty naive view on things if applied to the British Empire which when all said and done was established on trade not conquest. Was it all sweetness and light? A bed of roses? Did those who ruled get it perfectly right all the time? Of course they bloody well didn't and nobody is attempting even remotely of suggesting that. Suggest you read Naill Ferguson's Book "Empire" he puts it far better than I could. Now without Great Britain and her Empire Jom:

- The Slave trade would have continued and expanded without a stutter, it was the British and the Royal Navy that broke it.

- Piracy would have hampered and limited trade and acted as a brake on development throughout the world, it was the British and the Royal Navy that ended the scourge of piracy allowing merchant ships of all nations to trade and sail unhindered.

- Development throughout the world was rapid due to the British industrial revolution which provided wealth and employment

- British inventions and engineering made the world smaller and more accessible.

- Advances in medicine took on and greatly reduced, and in some cases eradicated, some of the worlds greatest killers

- Spread of Parliamentary democracy, rule of law and order, came as part and parcel of the British Empire

The list Carroll goes on and on. Ferguson also states that by the 1880s the Empire was actually costing Great Britain money and it would have disappeared anyway.

On two occasions Great Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire came to the world's rescue and stood against would be tyrants, it cost her dear, but the costs of not acting were far higher. You ignore all that if you wish to, I won't and every time you trot out your idiotic, biased and bigoted beliefs I will pull you up on them. Those aired in this thread and in previous threads on WWI have been shown to consist of nothing but fairytales, whereas everything that has been stated by either myself, or Keith can be backed up by verifiable substantive evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Recidivist
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 11:08 PM

Mr. M.G.M., I appreciated your story.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Recidivist
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:29 AM

MGM Lion thinking just now I'd like to share one with you.

My Dad (orphaned at three (1920) was taken-in by a extended family of German Jews who his maternal aunt had married into. Long story short...in his 90's he candidly admitted being glad he wasn't raised by his own family (and honestly so am I (bunch of rough-necks).

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:07 AM

Much gratified by your appreciation, Recidivist; and very interested in your father's experiences. Thank you.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:04 AM

Dear Michael Grover Myer

I've been going to folk clubs and festivals for nearly forty years but haven't heard of you, if it helps.

My point being that who you are is irrelevant. It's what you type that allows me to start my day with a chuckle.

If Keith A of Hertford and Teribus posted anonymously, it wouldn't be difficult to notice patterns but more importantly each post by them would invoke the same opinion from me and I suspect, most people.

Yet their egos think it is something to do with them not the shit they spread on the Mudcat field. Your pompous post seems to self elevate you up to their depths.

Yours sincerely,

Person who enjoys debate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:49 AM

Did I miss anything?

No. Still as daft as ever, this type of thread.

Hi Terribulus. Keep reading your newspapers. Clapton forbid you might learn something. Keith, Keith, Keith. Tell you what. If we give you double points for 24 hours, will that do? We can't have you not scoring points. zzz

Micha...

Nurse! He's out of bed again!






Eyup co Messiahs. What have I told you about playing with the Philistines?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:54 AM

"Had Great Britain stood apart and ignored it's treaty obligations and decided than it was unimportant to look after the national interest then millions would have been out of work within 15 years."
The war wasn't sold on treaty obligations - one of the great catchalls that persuaded young men to sacrifice their lives for 'Poor little Belgium' complete with pictures of nuns being ravaged and bayoneted - a pretended humanity that was sadly missing when Conglese rubber workers were being massacred in their millions and having their hands chopped off.
It was a colonial war for territory and it never pretended to be anything else (until now) - still remember the three volume set of 'The Great Imperial War' on our school bookshelf as late as the early 1950s.
"A pretty naive view on things if applied to the British Empire"
Natives being incapable of ruling themselves without the British Empire - Jay-sus - that takes me back to my schooldays!!
A gentle reminder that Britain was the main instigator of slavery and the powers that be fought ***** hard to keep it in its place until it was replaced by a different kind of slavery of the type that slaughtered a million Irish people (just 60 years before W.W.1). as "God's punishment for indolence".
Colonialism was an appalling system of oppression and exploitation and is now recognised as such in the civilised world (even reactionary Ronnie Reagan used the term as one of abuse when he referred to The Soviet Union as 'The Evil Empire')
But it's great to be back in the mid-1950s for a short visit as a reminder of those arrogant and patronising good old days.
You pair really are stereotype anachronisms
Made my day, you really have!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM

Rag, But you are quite happy to believe the German population were.

I have said no such thing.

Jim, You have been given examples of what your own "historians" have said, stretcing back to last yers threads and you choose to ignore them

If that is true give an example. You can not deny the unequivocal quotes I have provided.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:48 AM

Ah yes Teriblunder, the wonderful twenties and thirties for the average working Brit. Lack of investment in new techniques, depleted coal reserves, depression, decline, poverty, unemployment over 2,000,000 by the mid 20's, the great strike of 26 and the fantastic Wall Street crash of 29 leading into the depression of the 1930's.
Unemployment up to 2,500,000, crumbling industry due to lack of investment, the Jarrow Marches, more depression, the Means Test.

My God it makes you proud to be British.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:49 AM

Final programme of the Paxman series, made in collaboration with the University of East Anglia History Faculty,

29 minutes in. Paxman to camera,
"Britain now had a tactically smarter, better organised army, capable of deploying men and machines to devastating effect"

He and the team clearly saying that the army was well led.

57 minutes in. Paxman to camera, "
Later generations would contend it had been a futile war. The war was terrible certainly, but hardly futile.
It stopped the German conquest of much of Europe, and perhaps even of villages like this.

Never before in the nation's History had a war required the commitment and the sacrifice of the whole population, and by and large, for 4 years, the British people kept faith with it."

He and the team clearly saying
1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM

Guest of 24 Nov 0304 am ==

"Not to know me argues yourself unknown" (Paradise Lost) IV 830

Obviously during those 40 years you were not a reader of Folk Review whose regular tailpiece I wrote for 4 years as well as some hundred + reviews & features; nor of The Guardian, whose regional theatre critic and folk record reviewer I was for ¼C, late 60s-90s; nor of The Times Ed or The Times for which I reviewed folk records, festivals, concerts &c for about 20 years. You don't seem to have gone very deeply into the subject.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:08 AM

Glad to afford you a chuckle, nonetheless...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:12 AM

"In June 2014 Paxman, speaking at the Chalke Valley History Festival about his new book, Britain's Great War, confirmed "what many had suspected about his political leanings", admitting he was a "one-nation Tory"


History credentials ................. none I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:30 AM

Gosh can I have your autograph?

I've heard of Colin Irwin if that helps.

Of course, them as can do and those who can't teach. Reviewers and critics are often shocked to find how much they are dismissed as irrelevant so no wonder nobody had heard of you.

So,.. Now we know your knowledge of WW1 to be as second hand and subjective as anyone's, care to make a contribution to the debate in hand rather than tell us all how important you are?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:54 AM

"That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;"
Not the perogative of either Historians or TV presenters
"If that is true give an example."
You've been given examples over and over again - why the hell should I dig out more for you to ignore
You really aren't important enough with your quaint jingoism to put in any more time - you fake the attitudes of historians you haven't read and you ignore everything they have to say.
By the way - Paxman dealt with some of the military disasters of the war caused by shoddy leadership - the "wrong shell" fiasco by Kitchjener being a prime example.
Another case of your taking somebody out of context to back up your jingoism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:18 AM

Anotehr incident deal#t with by Paxman was the Battle of Loos - again a fiasco caused largely by underestimating the opposition - neatly summed up here -
"The failure at Loos led to the removal of General French from his position as commander-in-chief of the British Army and he was replaced by General Haig on 19 December 1915. Despite the severe setbacks, volunteers continued to swell the ranks of Kitchener's New Army which was fortunate because by March 1916 the British sector of the front extended from Ypres to the Somme, the French having abandoned Artois to fight in the infernal cauldron of Verdun.
Astonishingly, the grave errors committed by the British High Command at the Battle of Loos were not learnt from and were to be repeated on the first day of the Battle of the Somme which ended on 1 July 1916 in the greatest disaster in the history of the British Army."
Dare we mention Gallipoli?
Would you likje to tot up the number of dead that resulted because of these cock-ups
Good leadership my arse.
It was the job of the leaders to send the soldiers they had at their disposal (excellent word to describe their job) over the top in enough numbers to make headway - how long did it take to take Passchendaele, how many lives were expended and what was gained at the end of it?
That is good butchery, not good leadership.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:55 AM

Jim, it was you who decided that Paxman was relevant to this thread.
Rag, he was just the presenter.
The history content came from the University of East Anglia.

Not the perogative of either Historians

Er, it is history Jim. Who else's prerogative? (You think it is yours obviously!)

You've been given examples over and over again - why the hell should I dig out more for you to ignore

You have not. Quotes from the historians all support my views (that is where I got them!) and rubbish yours.

And Jim, in a four year war of a kind never known before, mistakes inevitably were made.
You will find no historian who finds the British leadership incompetent or less effective than that of any other of the armies involved.
You have your opinion, and the people who have studied all the evidence say it is shit.
Sorry Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM

Somme 30th June 1916
Aide: What do we do tomorrow General?
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 1 July
Aide: General we got 57,470 casualties 19,240 killed what do we do tomorrow General
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 2 July
Aide: Load more casualties General, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 3 July
Aide: Load more casualties General, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 4 July
Aide: Load more casualties Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 5 July
Aide: Load more casualties Sir, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 6 July
Aide: Loads of dead and maimed Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 7 July
Aide: We've lost a shed of men Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 8 July
Aide: Loads more wounded and killed, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 9 July
Aide: Same as yesterday Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 10 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 11 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the

Somme 12 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 13 July
Aide: Loads more dead and maimed Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 14 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 15 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 16 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 17 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 18 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 19 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 20 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 21 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 22 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 23 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 24 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 25 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 26 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 27 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Some 28 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 29 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 30 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 31 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top


And so on all through August, September, October and into November.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:23 AM

I doubt any of the people you refer to have read Jim's assessment so how can you say they reckon it is shit?

Evidence, references, citations... Come on, we are waiting.

Actually, there were quite a few mistakes. Enough to fill a book. What shall we call the book? I know what, let's call it Donkeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:32 AM

"Astonishingly, the grave errors committed by the British High Command at the Battle of Loos were not learnt from and were to be repeated on the first day of the Battle of the Somme which ended on 1 July 1916 in the greatest disaster in the history of the British Army."

Hmmm grave errors committed by the British High Command? Or grave errors imposed upon the British High Command at the insistence of the French Generals who when all said and done were at all times formed the Supreme Allied Commanders in France.

At Loos in August 1915 Haig told Sir John French that the area assigned for his First Army's attack by Joffre was far from suitable (As described by the French General), Haig also advised Sir John French that for the plan to have any chance at all for success the Reserves had to available instantly so therefore had to be held close to the front. Sir John French ignored Haig's advice - As you will no doubt refuse to take my word for it then read the words of a man who was there:

"A great deal of nonsense has been written about Loos. The real tragedy of that battle was its nearness to complete success. Most of us who reached the crest of Hill 70, and survived, were firmly convinced that we had broken through on that Sunday, 25th September 1915. There seemed to be nothing ahead of us, but an unoccupied and incomplete trench system. The only two things that prevented our advancing into the suburbs of Lens were, firstly, the exhaustion of the "Jocks" themselves (for they had undergone a bellyfull of marching and fighting that day) and, secondly, the flanking fire of numerous German machine-guns, which swept that bare hill from some factory buildings in Cite St. Auguste to the south of us. All that we needed was more artillery ammunition to blast those clearly-located machine-guns, plus some fresh infantry to take over from the weary and depleted "Jocks." But, alas, neither ammunition nor reinforcements were immediately available, and the great opportunity passed.
— Richard Hilton, who was present at the battle acting as a Forward Artillery Observation Officer.

In March 1915 the British First Army under Haig attacked at Neuve-Chapelle, All objectives were taken but Sir John French kept the reserves too far to the rear so that they could not deployed when they were needed to exploit the break through - The Germans mounted numerous counter attacks and lost heavily - Jom listen to this next bit, something that none of your 1929 to 1969 historians and playwrights ever heard about because it wasn't known till much later once German records were researched and translated - Neuve-Chapelle so frightened the Germans that it became policy after this battle that for the German Army when facing British Troops the lines of defence had to be doubled in strength and prepared in depth. That was the factor that met Haig's First Army at Loos and once again they very nearly succeeded. Two fuck-ups to Sir John French so he was sacked and replaced by Haig (Under the Buggins's turn system prevalent in the pre-war British Army the job should have gone to Robertson, but he had no experience of combat in France against the Germans, Haig had by now given the Germas a fright on two occasions so at Robertson's insistence Haig took command of the Army in France and he accepted the job of Chief of the Imperial General Staff)

The Somme in 1916 again was a fight picked for the British Army in France by British Politicians at home [David Lloyd George] and French Supreme Commanders with the primary objective of relieving pressure on the French defending Verdun. As at Loos Haig argued that to attack on the Somme was to attack at the wrong place place - Haig wanted to attack in Flanders in 1916, but again as at Loos Haig was over-ruled. The attack had to be made in conjunction with the French and that meant the Somme. However things were going so badly for the French at Verdun that roughly half the French troops who were supposed to have been attacking with the British on the Somme on the right flank of the British were withdrawn and sent to Verdun instead, as the "junior partner" Haig had no say or leverage in the overall scheme of things. The German Commander in the west in 1916 Falkenhayn started the year off promising to bleed the allies white using simple attrition - by the end of 1916 it was the Germans who had been bled white and Falkenhayn was dismissed - the Germans after 1916 knew that they could not defeat either the French or the British on the western front until after they had defeated the Russians in the east. The 1st of July 1916 might have been a bloody day and a disaster for the British Army, but 1916 ended up as being a bloody year for the German Army and a year that they never recovered from, we on the other hand did. It also caused the Germans to build and withdraw to the Hindenburg Line

And as you mentioned Passchendale Jom here we have another instance of David Lloyd George's meddling. Lloyd George completely mesmerized by the promises of the planned Nivelle offensive ordered Haig to attack at Passchendale in order that the ports on the Belgian coast being used by German U-boats could be captured, Haig argued that the ground on the Somme would be better for the tanks he know had at his disposal - Once again the advice and opinion of the man tasked with doing the job was ignored by those sitting hundreds of miles away from the action.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM

Brilliant, blame the French it was all their fault !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:47 AM

GUEST - 24 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM

And AFTER November 1916 GHOST?

- German Army had lost the best they had and just simply could not replace them

- That German Army considered by many throughout the world as being the best in the world had been beaten by Britain's first ever citizen army, who now knew with 100% certainty that they would win.

- That German Army come September of 1916 began constructing the Hindenburg Line to their rear and in November 1916 retreated to their new DEFENSIVE position

- The German Commander Falkenhayn was sacked and replaced.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM

Well then GUEST - 24 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM if you are the same prat who posted at 08:02 AM if it was all Haig's fault because he was in Command then it must surely follow that the person who's actual fault it was has to have been the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and at all times from August 1914 until November 1918 he was a Frenchman - Or didn't you know that? You'll be telling us about REDTOPS next.

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

He was a General for ***** sake not the teaboy.

You create a fuss, a big one involving governments . You say these bastards are killing all my troops.

You do not stand by and let it happen day after day, week after week, month after months.

OR you resign.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:47 AM

And how many armies have you commanded Raggy? How many battles fought with you in command where others have picked the time, the place and the enemy?

I would venture to guess that the answer to both of the above would be NONE - Yet for someone who says they know very little about the War and the period you trot out that rubbish ( Raggytash - 24 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM)

In the vast expanse of your relevant experience Raggy can you tell me how many Generals have resigned in time of war whilst on active service? IIRC "resignation" is not an option open to them, they can protest and complain all they like, they can act and seek dismissal but if done they face the music for it when they reach home.

Oh and for your information on the Somme the horrendous British losses were restricted to one area of quite an extensive front. Joffre insisted on feeding more men into that particular area but Haig refused, instead he reinforced commanders who were making ground and at the end of the battle:

"British and French forces had penetrated 6 miles (9.7 km) into German-occupied territory, taking more ground than any offensive since the Battle of the Marne in 1914."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM

You seem to forget you are not replying to me. Haven't you anyone to tug your forelock to today.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM

And how many armies have you commanded Raggy?

Et tu, T-Bird?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM

Rag, you and Jim cling to your myth of incompetent generals.
Only sad old class warriors still believe that, and because they are just sad old class warriors.

You will find no single historian who believes that.
Again you are arguing against the historians about history.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM

And only idiots like you believe everything that you read.

Some of us read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come to a reasoned conclusion based on ALL the evidence we have digested, not just the evidence that suits our preconceptions.

You have shown time and time again you are incapable of such reasoned analysis.

Oh, by the way, don't bother to tell me the 3 points again I've heard them all before.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:27 PM

Keith
**** Paxman - **** your historians
You claim to have "made a life-long study of WW1
If that is true If you claim the war was well led - YOU EXPLAIN SEBASTAPOL, LOOS, THE FIRST DAY OF THE SOMME, THE AMMUNITION COCK-UP
you have persistently hidden behind historians you have nott red by misquoting or only partially quoting them
When this is pointed out to you, yo ignore it, go on with your claims, the claim that nobody else had given proof you have lied.
You are the most dishonest and shameless contributor to this forum
If you have "made a lifelong study of th war, explain the aboove, and tell us why the war was well led and not the simple bu#tcchery of sending men to be slaughtered as fast as they could get them under their command - where are the tactics that made it a "well conducted war" as you pair of clowns claim?
Failure to answer these points - not a mythical historian - YOU - will confirm what we already know - that the pair of you are mindless jingoists
By the way - which one of you is General Melchett and which Darling?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

Many historians conclude that the generals were incompetent in many ways, including a callous disregard for the safety and welfare of those in their charge. Dereliction of duty, as Sheffield, a historian, noted.

If Keith A of Hertford repeats his mantra enough times, he thinks others might believe him. The evidence, fields of the fucking things, says otherwise. The hours of carving on thousands of war memorials say otherwise. The evocative words "lest we forget" says otherwise.

Incompetent military thinking goes back as long as you can think. From bad planning by the French at Agincourt, our less well known fuck ups of the time, through to the Crimea, via Galipoli and the whole of the western front, via small fishing boats rescuing the soldiers poorly led and planned in WW2 to Suez, Cyprus and NI, all the way to poor planning and inadequate equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's before we look at military incompetence at MoD in learning to spell the word "budget." Any chance of recruit training without coroner fucking inquests?

So... Why, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, should anyone believe that military top brass just happened to become competent for four years out of a few hundred? Especially four years when all over Europe, a whole generation were butchered and damned, to coin the phrase.

It's funny to read the bullshit and aggressive bollocks of Teribus and Keith A of Hertford, but their silly point scoring and cap doffing attitude is displayed here on a very serious subject. And displays rather poor taste. Some here actually know what they are talking about. A pity they are derided by ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said I may not know much about history, but I do know about humanity. Haig and Co. may have been the best generals in the world, with the backing of historians and the adulation of the press but they still callously sent thousands of men to their deaths. OK, call them the heroes that won the war but don't forget the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

"only idiots like you believe everything that you read.

Some of us read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come to a reasoned conclusion based on ALL the evidence we have digested, not just the evidence that suits our preconceptions.

You have shown time and time again you are incapable of such reasoned analysis."

Do we believe everything that we read? I don't believe much of what A.J.P. Taylor wrote about the First World War. I certainly do not believe or agree with the conclusions drawn by many of the 1929/1969 "revisionists" (Especially the likes of Alan Clark who like Jom just "Made Up Shit") Why? Because others followed who studied and researched the period armed with far better knowledge and new and far better information from a far greater, varied and wider range of sources - and their conclusions were vastly different from the idiotic likes of "Donkeys", "Blackadder Goes Forth" and "Oh What A Lovely War" (I know the latter was dear to the heart of someone once married to Ewan MacColl - which means that Jom has swallowed all that shit ""hook-line-and-sinker). Would those be the sources that some of you (For some read "The Musktwats", Raggytush, The Rotund Balding Gnome and Steve Shaw) "read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come" up with a load of complete and utter bollocks that doesn't even withstand the most cursory challenge. All in all it seems a bit strange because to date we have:

1: Dave the rotund gnome
2: Ragged Arse
3: Steve Shaw

All professing that they all know very little about the First World War, yet here we have Ragged Arse stating that he believes that they have "read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come to a reasoned conclusion based on ALL the evidence we have digested" Well I would have said having considered and digested that information that over the course of the last 18 odd months we've been discussing this subject that by know if indeed you had done as you have stated you have done, you would ,or should by now know a great deal about the subject - and yet you don't, in fact you are as clueless today as you were when all this started as an attempt to bully and drive Keith A from this forum - an attempt that I am pleased to say has failed spectacularly.

As for the bit about just believing the evidence that suits your preconceptions - that is precisely what you have done throughout. Do you actually want me to detail the stuff that you have claimed as being true yet cannot provide a single shred of evidence to back up your statements. Not once have you been able to challenge a single thing stated by either myself, Keith A, Lighter, GUEST# and others. All you have succeeded in doing is to make yourselves out to be complete and utter fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:05 PM

Well, apart from, once again, I have never disputed any historical facts, I don't carry on arguing with someone who I have already stated adds nothing to the discussion do I teribumkins?

Who's the fool now?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest - if you must know
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:18 PM

The person behind the anonymous moniker Teribus appears to be someone who should restrict their internet usage if they can't get beyond dismissing anyone who doesn't share his personality disorder.

Regarding the original post, I feel it is jingoism these days on the back of what was commemoration of those the original cenotaph standers actually knew.

Old men who cannot come to terms with not being heroes in the eyes of those who see as as abhorrent coupled with politicians and clergy for whom war is convenient. Look at how we are forgetting welfare, NHS, social care and equitable spending in the last week because the government, thankful as ever to ISIS, are taking the opportunity to spend what they have on boosting their ability to control people, security and yes, irrelevant military spending that is neither designed nor competent to deal with disillusioned communities and countries we fuck with.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM

Rag,
And only idiots like you believe everything that you read.

I believe the historians when they all say the same thing.
Only an idiot would imagine that they knew more about history than they do!

Jim,
If that is true If you claim the war was well led -

I am not an historian and make no claims about history.
I do claim that all the historians say our leadership was competent, and they do know about all those issues you listed.

Guest,
Dereliction of duty, as Sheffield, a historian, noted.

No he did not.
You made that up. A silly lie from a silly man ashamed of his identity (Musket.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:38 PM

What Sheffield really says,

"One undeniable fact is that Britain and its allies, not Germany, won the First World War. Moreover, Haig's army played the leading role in defeating the German forces in the crucial battles of 1918. In terms of the numbers of German divisions engaged, the numbers of prisoners and guns captured, the importance of the stakes and the toughness of the enemy, the 1918 'Hundred Days' campaign rates as the greatest series of victories in British history.

Even the Somme (1916) and Passchendaele (1917), battles that have become by-words for murderous futility, not only had sensible strategic rationales but qualified as British strategic successes, not least in the amount of attritional damage they inflicted on the Germans."

"He(Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

Teribus, dear boy, as I have refrained from contributing anything at all to the substantive in this thread, I would thank you for not dragging me in for your contumely as if I have. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM

Magaret Macmillan,

The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:20 PM

GUEST with regard to your post of 24 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

The first bit and the "made up" quote from Sheffield - Well maybe it wasn't made up maybe some "man-in-the-street" in the city of Sheffield said it but certainly not Dr Gary Sheffield the historian whose specialty is the study of the First World War - Keith A has quite comprehensively just blown that little invention of yours out of the water.

Let us therefore have a look at rest of your post.

"If Keith A of Hertford repeats his mantra enough times, he thinks others might believe him. The evidence, fields of the fucking things, says otherwise. The hours of carving on thousands of war memorials say otherwise. The evocative words "lest we forget" says otherwise."

What Mantra? I recall he listed three points that represented the current prevailing historical opinion with respect to Great Britain's involvement and prosecution of the First World War, he put those points up for discussion and was attacked for doing so on the basis that those points of view had been formulated by Keith A himself - not really his fault that his moronic attackers could not read and comprehend basic English. The "evidence" you are emotively trying to refer to are the graves, which are to be used as the metric for judging the competence of those who led the British Army? If that is the case then please explain why those who commanded the French and German Armies do not feature? After all of the three main protagonists fighting on the Western Front the British suffered the fewest killed and wounded, was that down to the poor quality of their leaders?

"Incompetent military thinking goes back as long as you can think."

Hate to burst your bubble but:

"Incompetent thinking in all walks of life, both in peace and in war goes back as long as you can think."

Only trouble is that looking back through those ages in terms of military thinking Great Britain's Army and more importantly her Navy did rather well when asked to act in defence of the realm.

When it comes to incompetence and waste related to Government Ministries and their "budgets", why highlight the MOD (After all their "Budget" is tiny compared to those of the real wastrels) C'mon GUEST tell us about the billions wasted in Health, Welfare and Education. On Coroner Inquests I don't think our hospitals come out too well there especially the Stafford Hospital - tell us the number of deaths deemed to be excessive due to lack of care over a two year period - IIRC it was roughly three times our entire Afghan fatalities which were spread over 13 years of combat - Incompetence you prat with those figures it meant that you were safer on foot patrol in Sangin District of Helmand Province in Afghanistan in 2007 than you would have been if you were admitted to that hospital's A&E Department the same year.

"So... Why, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, should anyone believe that military top brass just happened to become competent for four years out of a few hundred? Especially four years when all over Europe, a whole generation were butchered and damned, to coin the phrase."

What evidence to the contrary? The achievements and innovations introduced by the British in those four years were astounding considering the starting points for each of the main 1914 combatant nations. And if victory is any metric by which to judge military success and most people who DO KNOW about such things would say that that is an important, if not THE most important, marker then over those hundreds of years you were wittering on about earlier on, then we have done far, far better than many we have had to come up against - and believe me GUEST there IS overwhelming evidence of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

Total Casualties WW1

          killed            Wounded          Missing       Total

ALLIES    5,000,000         13,000,000       4,000,000   21,000,000

Axis      3,300,000          8,300,000       3,600,000   15,200,000

But that doesn't matter to the likes of Teribus and Keith BECAUSE most of them were FOREIGNERS and WE won.

YAR BOO SUCKS, NAR NAR NA NAR NAR!

Truly, truly pathetic.

SOURCE:HISTORY LEARNING SITE,

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:35 PM

Ah Raggy, having to shift goalposts now I see. You and your pals challenged the conclusions drawn by a number of historians who specialized in the study of the First World War who with respect to Great Britain's involvement who stated that in general the British Army was well led (NOTE THAT SMARTARSE - British Army NOT Allied Forces).

Now toddle off and come back with what the British casualties were in comparison to the other major combatants who fought on the western Front.

You and your pals who have all said that they know little about the war really should do some real reading about it before you flounder about desperately trying to find facts presented in such a manner that fit YOUR preconceived notions - so far all that you have established beyond any doubt is that you are on a hiding to nothing.

And you have the utter gall to accuse others of being pathetic - f**kin' unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:43 PM

Do I really need to remind your poor little tired brain that you said just a few days ago you were not going to respond to me. I do wish you would keep your promise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:58 PM

But Raggy how on earth can I fail to respond when you, who have clearly stated that you know little about the subject, keep attacking things I have stated with information that is completely inapplicable and irrelevant to the point you are trying to attack - or do you always compare apples to oranges?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:16 PM

Just for you Teriblunder. In the past year or so I have read a good deal regarding WW1. None of which is so simplistic as you and the professor would have us believe.

Anyway I'm in the middle of a good book a the moment, not related, so I'm going back to that.

Do try and keep your promises, go and polish your Masters boots or something, there's a good little pleb.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest if you must know
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 03:07 AM

More selective quoting from Keith A of Hertford. As I said, Dr Gary Sheffield concluded that senior military leaders were both callous and incompetent. He also mitigated on the basis you can't be stupid and wrong all the time, although Haig did have a good stab at it.

I am aware, as someone who reads a bit of Mudcat banter that there are a few people under the umbrella name Musket. I am also aware through reading that they seem to have the usual suspects weighed up. But isn't it amazing that anybody who points out (it isn't difficult) the glaring outrageousness of such people get accused of being Musket.

I don't know any of them but I'm sure they must be laughing if any of them read this. I see a similar complaint in other threads by someone at the same level of intellect and reason as Keith A of Hertford. Are you sure it's Hertford and not somewhere in Scotland?

For the record, I have read Sheffield's assessment but disagree on some of his conclusions. His verdicts don't always follow his own evidence, an elementary mistake but understandable if your pressure comes from book publishers. He got it right but looked for too many exceptions with which to sanitise a rotten lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:00 AM

"I am not an historian and make no claims about history."
Yes you do - you claimed that you have made "a life-long study of World War One" - a claim that nobody here has made, yet, having claimed that the war was well led, you decline to comment on badly conducted campaigns that
Gallipoli casualties totalled 89,000
At Loos, the "good leadership amounted to:
By 28 September, the British retreated to their starting positions, having lost over 20,000 casualties, including three major-general
British casualties at Loos were about twice as high as German casualties.
8,000 casualties out of 10,000 men in four hours
British casualties in the main attack were 48,367 and they suffered 10,880 more in the subsidiary attack, a total of 59,247 losses of the 285,107 British casualties on the Western Front in 1915
On the first day of the Somme there were 57,470 British casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed - the highest by far of all the combating armies (Germany was a runner-up with between 10 and 12 thousand)
The leadership of the war was appalling (if anything, Blackadder payed it down!!) - sacrifice as many young many young lives as possible - that is not leadership simple butchery.
You claim to have made a lifelong study of the war - you have now admitted you lied - you know nothing of this war and you continue to excuse the death of many millions of young lives.
All historians do not back your claims - you have misquoted less than half a dozen of them and you have now scurried back behind historians who you have obviously not read, - not one single one of them
Your bullying blustering galleymate is exactly the same - now refusing to answer on the grounds that the questioner "knows nothing" (same as you, apparently.)
Your campaign to justify the bloodbath is about as well-conducted as was the bloodbath itself.
Your case becomes more and more idiotically dishonest.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:09 AM

More selective quoting from Keith A of Hertford.

Not true.
I provided whole paragraphs and linked to the whole article.
I can produce many more examples of him saying the same.

As I said, Dr Gary Sheffield concluded that senior military leaders were both callous and incompetent.

As you lied, actually.
General French has come in for some criticism, but who else?

You say you(?) disagree with Sheffield's conclusions on Haig.
The fact that other historians do agree will make that easier for him to live with!
What is your opinion worth when it is rejected by all the people who actually know anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM

Sheffield,
"When Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig died in 1928, the major controversies about his reputation were still to come. His death was a cause for national mourning; a moment that loomed as large in the nation's consciousness as the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997. For many, the achievements of Haig and his fellow commanders was worthy of that tribute."

"The British generals of the First World War were not an homogenous group. They performed a variety of functions and roles and they did so to differing degrees of effectiveness. A few were incompetent, most were not, all were operating under incredible pressure. "

"Haig led his armies to decisive victory in the 1918 Hundred Days offensive that ended with German capitulation on 11 November. The contributions of other Allied armies must be recognised; indeed all Haig's offensives need to be seen in this context. Battles earlier in the war, such as the Somme in 1916, saw heavy loss of life but were also strategic successes for the Allies. Haig argued they created the conditions for the victories of 1918 by wearing down the strength and morale of the German army. I agree with this assessment - traditional victories were not possible in trench warfare, so attrition was a vital and valid method."

"The British army, like all other armies, began the war using outdated tactics. These were progressively replaced by cutting-edge methods incorporating the latest technology, including artillery, air power, machine-guns, gas, and tanks. By 1918 Haig's forces had evolved a war-winning weapons-system that enabled them to defeat the German Army in battles such as at Amiens in August that year. As for casualties, win or lose, Western Front battles were costly in human life. A French commander, General Mangin, rightly remarked, 'whatever you do, you lose a lot of men'."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:18 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zq2y87h

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:38 AM

You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why - that is mindless.
You claim you have made a life-long study of the war yet all you can do is provide yet another cut'n-paste which you have hastily sought out which in no way explains the fiascos that took place (which you have just been given)
That is both mindless and dishonest
Owzatt - you're our
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:57 AM

You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why

Yes I can.
That is the findings of the military historians.

all you can do is provide yet another cut'n-paste

Yes. Quotes of historians unequivocally rejecting your views.
I do that because I can.
You can produce nothing to support your baseless assertions.
There is nothing out there for you.

Your views derive solely from your extreme class war politics.
I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some, any, support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 05:53 AM

"That is the findings of the military historians."
No it isn't - not all of them by any means - you refused to read the list of nearly 200 you were given because it was "tto large"
You dismissed the historians who actually said it was ba
dly led because they wer "dead" or "not real historians" or obscure and "didn't sell their books in "real" bookshops"
You ave refused even to comment on the actual examples of bad leadership on the grounds of your now self-confessed ignorance (having claimed you have made a "lifelong study of the war"
You have sought out out-of-contexts quotes fro, less than half-a-dozen historians which you have not read, nor do you understand (or more likely - have deliberately distorted).
Historians are not gods - their opinions as to the justification of this colonial family squabble which ended the lives of millions of young men are worth no more than those on historians who describe th war as a waste of human life - historians don't deal in the ethics of colonial wars - it is not their field.
Sheffield is an employee of the military establishment making his views of the history of the war suspect and the morality of the war useless yet he continus to be one of your gallant less-then-half-dozen witnesses!!
Yoiou sais you studied thewar - you didn't
You claimed to have read a book by one of your historians - you obviously haven't, and you refuse to respond to what she actually says.
As I said - the most dishonest contributor to this forum by far.
Your only support for your case is from a bullying, blustering no-mark who would like us to believe he has a service record but in fact never got nearer that the sink in a ships galley.
You have no case - you have never had a case yet you continue to justify the decimation of a generation - and you call those who fought in it "liars" if what they had to say challenges your jingoism.
It seems the war isn't the only thing lacking ethics.
Jim Carroll

.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM

"In the past year or so I have read a good deal regarding WW1. None of which is so simplistic as you and the professor would have us believe."

IF that indeed is the case then your contributions do not reflect that fact. Nobody has ever pretended to make or put forward the case that anything to do with the conflict was simple, but plain facts and truths as stated by myself and by Keith A are correct - evidenced by yourself and your pals being unable to refute anything we have stated.

One thing that puzzles me Raggy, IF as you say that over "the past year or so I have read a good deal regarding WW1." why do you post to this thread stating that you know very little about the subject? Is that because you find it difficult to take things in, or were you simply being "economical with the truth"?

"go and polish your Masters boots or something, there's a good little pleb."

The subject matter is WWI. Here is a quotation from someone

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Now this good little pleb would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1: Identify who it was that stated the above?
2: Who is the "YOU" mentioned in the quote?

After you have done that you can go back to your book.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM

Where's that GUEST who was going on about "Howlers" when you need him?

"You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why? - Jim Carroll

Ehmm Jim you have been told time and time again - get your head round the fact that as far as you are concerned anything about any subject on earth that you haven't come up with simply does not feature, anything told to you that fits your view must be taken as being "gospel" without any check being made by way of verification.

But here it is again by Dr Gary Sheffield:
"He(Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature."

The British Army and its Divisional Commanders started learning in 1914 and continued to learn throughout the war. Fortunately for the rest of Europe the German Army and its Commanders DID NOT exactly the same thing stopped them in their tracks on the Marne in 1918 as stopped them in their tracks in 1914.

"Gallipoli casualties totalled 89,000"

And on two occasions during the Dardanelles Campaign had the Allies advanced the intended aim of the campaign would have been accomplished, Turkey would have been knocked out of the war and a secure supply rout to arm the Russian Army would have been secured. It came that close to being a complete success. 1915 both in overall command of the troops at Gallipoli and at Divisional level at Suvla you have examples of poor British Generals - Neither of them were Douglas Haig.

"At Loos, the "good leadership amounted to:
By 28 September, the British retreated to their starting positions, having lost over 20,000 casualties, including three major-general
British casualties at Loos were about twice as high as German casualties.
8,000 casualties out of 10,000 men in four hours
British casualties in the main attack were 48,367 and they suffered 10,880 more in the subsidiary attack, a total of 59,247 losses of the 285,107 British casualties on the Western Front in 1915"

This was the first big British attack, they had carried out a smaller one earlier in the year at Neuve-Chapelle. Basic rule of thumb is that if you attack a defended position you must outnumber the defenders by at least 3:1 - why do you think that is Jom? You have read, or maybe you didn't bother, from a man who was there, right in the thick of it as an Artillery Observation Officer. At Neuve-Chapelle and at Loos, Haig's advice and placement of the reserve required to achieve the breakthrough that was there in both battles were ignored by Haig's superior officer General Sir John French who was simply too timid and as a result of that timidness and inability to think and act quickly was dismissed from his command and replaced by Haig and from that point on the British Army didn't look back, it went from strength to strength employing new tactics that continually evolved and improved upon.

"On the first day of the Somme there were 57,470 British casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed - the highest by far of all the combating armies (Germany was a runner-up with between 10 and 12 thousand)"

On the first day of the Somme eh? 1st July 1916. So on one day in a war that lasted for 4 years and 3 months you have managed to find one day when the British Army suffered more casualties. Congratulations Jom. Now what was the position once the campaign and the battle drew to a close in November 1916 - talking about the entire battle here Jom not just ONE DAY of it. The 1st July 1916 might have been a bad day for the British Army but 1916 was a bad year for the German Army - a year they never recovered from. 1916 to the First World War was what 1943 was to the Second World War - after those years in both those conflicts the allies knew they were going to win and for the first time in both the Germans stared the spectre of failure full in the face.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

Try re-reading the post yesterday at 07.07pm and then come back and tell me that the Allies (we were fighting with others on our side remember, you tried to place all the blame on the French yesterday) lost more men than the axis forces.

And THAT is the crux of most of the discussion, you and your sidekick don't seem to care about the humane issues.

No, we WON the war, jolly good, well done lads, we taught those pesky Hun's a thing or two didn't we. What? all those bodies, oh never mind them we'll get someone round tomorrow to have a tidy up. Now then chaps who's for polo.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:33 AM

"Ehmm Jim you have been told time and time again "
No we haven't - you explain Loos (think you said it wasn't a defeat on a previous thread)
You explain Gallipoli
You explain the armament cock-ups
You explain the catastrophic losses at the opening of the Somme
You explain how any of these can be put down to "good" leadership"
You explain how "good leadership" was ever anything more than forcing masses of young men to be cut down by other young men they, knew or had any argument with
You haven't so far - neither has anyone else.
If you want to make a plea for good butchery, you may have a point.
You have the figures of casualties for these glorious battles - explain how any of them can be put down to "good leadership"
It was simple carnage and all your bluster doesn't make it anything else.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:42 AM

Ragged Arse - The point under discussion as raised by Keith A what seems like ages ago now concerned Great Britain and the British Army. Don't you dare try moving the goalposts now - Haig did not coimmand the Allied War effort - the French did, on the western front both the French and the Germans lost more men than the British - Tell me and everyone else just how the hell that could have been Haig's fault, tell me just how thoise deaths came about because of poor British military leadership?

I will ask you one more time:

The subject matter is WWI. Here is a quotation from someone

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Now this good little pleb would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1: Identify who it was that stated the above?
2: Who is the "YOU" mentioned in the quote?

If you don't answer then in my next post I will - you bloody two-faced hypocrit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:50 AM

Talking of hypocrisy I seem to recall you were not going to respond to me.

It's one of the few things that you've typed that I really wish you were correct about.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM

Who's "ME" GUEST? How many different GUESTs post on Mudcat? And how do any of us who do use constant cookies to identify ourselves tell which GUEST is which.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:30 AM

I have oftened questioned your intelligence. If you cannot figure out who posted that without a name how the hell can you pretend to understand WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:53 AM

Out of all your posts on this subject Jom your contribution of 25 Nov 15 - 08:33 AM has one little bit right at the end that actually sums up the reality of the First World War in a nutshell:

"It was simple carnage and all your bluster doesn't make it anything else."

And Jom neither Keith A, or Lighter, or a number of others (myself included) have ever tried to state that it was anything other than that.

Yes it was simple carnage it was a static war fought for the first time ever on a truly industrial scale, so just for once in your life look at the entirety of it.

Taking all of the main combatant powers who were there from the start in 1914, Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire suffered fewer fatalities and casualties than any of the others. What do you put that down to Jom? As a percentage of everyone mobilised in the main combatant armies deployed on the western front casualties amongst the British & Empire forces, French forces and German forces were ~35%; ~75%; ~70% respectively fatalities in the British & Empire forces were the least by quite a margin.

In 1914 on the western Front between Germany, France and Great Britain, who had the smallest army? Can you explain how that army survived through 1914 to become one of the largest and most effective armies in the field by 1918?

In the spring of 1918 once the Germans had transferred the bulk of their armies who had been fighting the Russians, who was it they threw against? In 1914 it had been the major threat - the French. In 1918 the Germans saw the greatest threat to them as being the British. Now how did that come about Jom?

In 1918 the Germans from March onwards into Summer mounted five major offensive operations aimed primarily against the British in northern France. Yes they pushed the line back almost to their 1914 high water mark, but in August 1918 only 21 days after their last gasp attempt at victory in the west Haig went over to the offensive and 100 days later the war was over - Tell me Jom does that look like poor leadership? Certainly does not to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:58 AM

"If you don't answer then in my next post I will - you bloody two-faced hypocrit.
Every time you paint yourself into a corner you beat a hasty retreat ad refuse to respond - on the profit made from ceramic poppies, on the War, on every single point about the Irish Famine - despite constant requests, you remained silent - making you a "bloody two-faced hypocrite".
Let's see how you get on with Loos, Gallipoli, the early days of The Somme and the wrong ammunition cock-up - won't hold my breath though!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:05 AM

Ah Raggy posting as an anonymous GUEST - if you are ever accused of doing so again please don't deny it.

But none the less as promised:

The subject matter is WWI. Here is a quotation from someone

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Now this good little pleb would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1: Identify who it was that stated the above?
2: Who is the "YOU" mentioned in the quote?

The answer to question 1 was Guest Raggytash
The answer to question 2 is me - Teribus

The quote comes from a message I received from Guest Raggytash on the 17th November 2015. The message was one asking for help and advice, which I gave.

As to the hypocrisy charge please take a look at the forum exchanges between Raggy and myself since that message and then judge whether what Raggytash says person to person in private reflects what he states when posturing on the open forum. Judge for yourselves whether in public Raggy considers me to be obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum.

Now then Raggy go off and read your book.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM

OK Teribums off you go and read your compass ..................... oh you can't do that either.

Not that you have ever admitted that mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:12 AM

Shot and completely miussed the target again Jom I see:

Jim Carroll - 25 Nov 15 - 09:58 AM

Read my last post which is addressed to Raggy as was the charge of hypocrisy.

Hate to say this Jom but it isn't all about you - truth be told very little of it ever is, you are too much of a bigot to really bother about - but at times "Wolfie" you do make me laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM

Good Raggy - is that really all you've got? No vehement denials that you sent me a message stating that I am "obviously interested in the subject [First World War] and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

My compass reading is probably a damned sight better than yours part-timer. But by all means if you wish to discuss how well connected the port of Cork was to the hinterland to the south and west in the mid-1840s to mid 1850s then by all means feel free to open your own thread on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:31 AM

Teribus is more interested in who is writing rather than what they write. What's up? You don't need to get concerned about a cookie in order to clarify the bullshit you keep spewing.

Oh gosh. All the historians seem to agree with Sheffield's conclusions so why be bothered with the conclusion of someone else given the same evidence? I don't know what, if anything Keith A of Hertford does for a living but I hope it isn't being a teacher or lecturer. First off I doubt "they" do, not that there is a "they" to make such a silly claim from and secondly, Sheffield himself has published various conclusions at different times. He's a historian not a god botherer.

Eeh, it's worth coming on here just to tour the cages and give them the odd rattle when the zoo keeper isn't looking.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:32 AM

My word !!! Are those goalposts moving again?

I may find the pertinent post later if I'm bored

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM

Jim,
- you refused to read the list of nearly 200 you were given because it was "tto large"

Not true Jim. If it was you would be quoting some of them, but you can not quote any.
I know that there used to be a few who believed what you still do, but knowledge has moved on.
Nothing written in the last twenty years supports your views.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some, any, support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:45 AM

Rag, I have never defended any army bit ours, and I have pointed out how much better led ours was than the French, and most definitely the Russians.

Jim,
You explain how any of these can be put down to "good" leadership"

I refer you to the work of the historians and military historians, all of whom know much more about the Somme and all your other issues than you do, and are still quite clear that the army was well and competently led.

You have still not found anything written within the last twenty years that finds otherwise.

Jim and Rag, I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some or any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 11:20 AM

"Not true Jim. "
Oh not again!!
"Jim and Rag, I suggest we leave it there "
Surrender -= you mean?
You have nor made your point - you two have not convinced anybody with your jingoism, you have faked history and you have lied throughout
Happy to leave it there unlessw you'd like to explain the examples of bad leadership you have been given, of course!!
As with Cap'n Pugwash - won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 12:10 PM

You might, of course, look at what your old Ally, Max Hastings jas to say about the war – somewhat typical of the way you have misused historians in this argument

OR THIS

OR THIS
Jim Carroll

The Wisdom of Max Hastings from a review of his book 'Catastrophe'
Why does Max Hastings have such a hatred for the British military?
David Crane is taken aback by the particular contempt Max Hastings appears to reserve for the British at the outbreak of the first world war
14 September 2013
One of the great problems for any historian writing writing of 1914 and the slide into conflict is that everyone knows the causes of the first world war and those of us who don't still imagine that we do. It is clear that no historian can simply ignore the causes and get straight down to the fighting, but with the best will in the world it is hard not to feel like some poor Easyjet passenger, stranded on a Gatwick runway and sadly watching the precious take-off slot slipping further into the distance while the cabin crew go though the familiar old pre-flight safety instructions that they know perfectly well nobody is listening to.
Serbian ambition, the internal incoherence of the Hapsburg empire, the Kaiser, Alsace-Lorraine , the 'first blank cheque', the 'second blank cheque,' Pan-Slavism, Ulster, mobilisation, uncertainty over Britain's intentions, fear of decadence, fear of Russia, fear of socialism — none of them can be any more dodged than can the emergency doors or the oxygen mask. But when half the world seems to be writing about what happened in 1914, or should have happened and didn't, it is an uphill struggle to make it fresh or interesting. It is immensely to Max Hastings's credit that he manages to dispose of it all as economically as he does; but this huge, compelling, argumentative bully of a book only really hits its stride when the fighting starts, and the full catastrophe that the 'absurdly amateurish' 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip unleashed with the assassination of the unloved and unlovable Archduke Franz Ferdinand begins to unfold.
'A bullet does not go precisely where one wishes,' was how an apologetic Princip explained away the unintended murder of Franz Ferdinand's morganatic wife, Sophie; but Hastings will have no truck with the idea that a chapter of accidents brought about the war, or with any liberal, guilt-ridden guff about equal moral and political responsibility of the warring belligerents. There is no reason to think that Germany was gunning for war when it gave Austria their 'blank cheque' for the extermination of Serbia, but they were certainly prepared to live with the consequences in the firm belief that they were in a stronger position to win any war against Russia and France in 1914 than they would be in the years ahead.
One of the great strengths of Catastrophe is the space and energy it gives to the less familiar theatres and aspects of the conflict — the barbarism of Austria's Serbia campaign, the chaos of Galicia, East Prussia and Tannenberg, the Home fronts, the North Sea, German 'beastliness' — but like the fortunes of the war itself, the book stands or falls on the Western Front. From the start the Germans had gambled on the rapid and total defeat of France before turning their full attention to the east, and by the time they realised that no number of victories over Russian armies was going to win them the war, they were inextricably mired in the bitter stalemate in France and Belgium to which the strategic fantasies of Schlieffen and his disciples had doomed them.
It is the story of the Germans' bid for a quick and crushing victory in the west, told with an equal richness of detail and sure narrative sweep, that is at the core of Catastrophe, and no story better deserves the name. In the popular imagination the first world war is always going to be associated with the miseries of trench warfare; but the trenches were the consequences of this first fluid phase of the war, a place of troglodytic sanctuary from a war of open movement in which 19th-century strategies and armies led into battle by mounted officers and bands playing came up against modern technology.
Eighteen thousand French and German dead in the Ardennes on 23 and 24 August alone, 329,000 French dead by the end of the year, 800,000 German dead or wounded in the same period, 150,000 Austrian, 16,000 British, more than half of Samsonov's 230,000 Russians, killed, wounded or captured at Tannenberg in the last week of August — it is impossible, or at least it ought to be impossible, to write about the first world war without a sense of moral indignation at the waste and futility and stupidity of its leaders. But Max Hastings saves his particular animus for Britain and her army. There are precious few generals on either side of the war who escape his wrath, but if he is rightly contemptuous of Moltke and dismissive of his army commanders, the British seem to inspire something approaching a hatred — it is the only word to convey the level of hostility — that adds a startlingly bitter edge to this formidably impressive book.
Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading. Anyone travelling down the 900-odd Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries that mark the line of the old Western Front from Ypres to the Aisne might be forgiven for thinking otherwise, but Britain no more won the first world war by herself than it did Waterloo and here is chapter and verse. Whatever happened later, it was the French who saved France in 1914 and saved it in spite of everything our own Sir John French could do to scupper the alliance, and with the centenary looming it is important to be reminded of that. 'No part of the Great War compares in interest with its opening', wrote Churchill, and Hastings does full justice to its appalling drama. He is, unashamedly — thankfully — a historian in the Barbara Tuchman tradition andCatastrophe is rich in unexplored sources from every side of the conflict and every theatre of the war. He is wise, too, to end the book where he does, with the German defeat at Ypres. I, for one, could not take much more and — more to the point — I'm not sure the author could either. If the performance of the old army that died at the First Ypres can reduce him to such frustration, God knows what, the 2nd and 3rd Ypres, Loos, Gallipoli, Kut and the Somme might do.
It is going to be a long five years of grim anniversaries, so triumphalists might want to pencil in 8 August 2018 — Ludendorff's 'black day of the German army' — for the next centenary we can really look forward to.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM

I am still quite amazed that teribums seems to be oblivious of the fact that I am not disputing any of his, or Keith's, 'facts' when even Keith seems to have eventually twigged that. I have always said that it is the attitude of some posters that is particularly obnoxious, not the content. How anyone can be so intent on winning completely useless points while seeming to be completely oblivious of the human suffering is, I suppose, a reflection of their wartime role models. Fortunately none of the merry little band here are in a position to cause anyone any damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:27 PM

It's not what you say, it's their prejudice against reading your name in the title block. Hence their having a paddy when we post anonymously.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM

Jim, your two links are to two anonymous pieces!
Historians put their names to their work, so no credibility there at all Jim.

You provide a review of a book that is only about the outbreak and lead up to the war. Nothing about the actual conduct of the war at all!
The reviewer himself has written nothing about WW1 except something about monuments!
He finds things that no other reviewer has found and that Hastings has never said.

So Jim, you still have provided nothing on the issue of leadership, or support for the war, written by any actual historian!
I have found plenty that rubbish your views and can produce more if you like.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some or any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:08 PM

A wonderful independent voice is Max Hastings, public school, Oxford, Knighted, member of The Other Club, editor of the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail columnist. Not that I'd expect him to be biased or anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 05:13 PM

You know I posted an urban dictionary definition earlier. I just realised I did not post the whole thing. The example at the end seems strangely coincidental...


Pompous Ass
A person who seems full of themselves and who grabs every opportunity to let others know of their feelings of superiority.
This professor sounds like a complete pompous ass. (See from time 3:00 of this recording: soundcloud dot com/kingston-university/music-at)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:04 PM

Ah but Jayzus Gnome, unlike others I could name, you could never accuse the man of being a coward, a bigot, a hypocrite or a liar now could you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM

Rag, Why do you believe that no Tory voter can have a valid opinion about WW1?
That is most English people.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:03 AM

In the same way as you think no left wing historian can.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM

Gary Sheffield is a left wing historian.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:21 AM

" My politics, however, lay on the Left, not Right."

I can not do links for pdf files.

PDF]The Centenary of the First World War: An unpopular view by ...
https://www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1406712453&id...
article by Gary Sheffield in this edition of The ... and a half years Professor Sheffield will be one of the ... 'Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths ..

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

Jim, your two links are to two anonymous pieces!
So **** what - just as Gary Sheffield before you trwaled him out of the ether, or any other historian you have ever put up - you wouldn't have a clue who they were if they were identified - you don't read historians and it is obvious you are more interested in defending the past honours of the British establishment than you are of political facts.
They are two valid pieces from historical sites - no political prejudices, no agendas evident - they are a historical analysis every bit as valid as your unqualified Max Hastings and they are saying what the rest of us have always known
Your rejecting history because it doesn't suit your of quaint jingoism is long over - about time you came to terms with it.
One of the pieces is a brilliant analysis by a group of international historians who are taking a holistic approach to the subject - ie - not presenting it from the point of view of interested nations
It is exactly in line with much that has been said by soldiers who actually fought the war, who you pair of disgusos have written of as gullible liars.
You totally ignore what your hero Hastings has to say - because it goes against all your claims (you did so a year ago when I first linked to it - that's the way you work)
You are a pair of clowns, though your technique is a little different - you go for the Uriah Heep, hand wringing approach while your mate favours the Bill Sykes thuggish approach to arguing of sneering and shouting down.
Both clowns, and sometimes entertaining nevertheless - as now.
Keep up the good work
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM

Hoisting your own pair of hairy petards there, I think Mr Hertford.

By your own weird logic, historians cannot as historians be left right or up their own arses. According to Keith A of Hertford they are infallible. People on here are scoffed at for forming a different conclusion to their research.

So.. Which bit is left wing? Collecting evidence? Reading it? Laying it out, presenting it or giving your own perspective on what to conclude?

A historian you quote as gospel appears to be politically motivated? Tut tut. Next you'll be saying he is therefore selective to ensure his conclusions are backed up by selective cherry picking of evidence.

Busted
Fucking
Flush



I personally would like you to carry on spouting because I could do with a laugh and Teribus's drivel is too long winded to fully enjoy, but if I were you, I'd keep my mouth shut and go away and learn a subject before attacking anyone who doesn't see life in the wannabe tin soldier fantasy that you inhabit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:50 AM

Keith, most English people are not tory voters. Even most English people who voted are not tory voters. Its only our undemocratic electoral system which gives them a majority in parliament, and the ability to push through their extremist policies.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM

Now then I wonder where and when Keith A ever said that "historians" are infallible - perhaps Harry can enlighten us. I believe that what Keith A has pointed out, quite a number of times, is the rather reasonable and logical comment that "historians" who specialise in the study of the period covering the First World War, who have written on the subject post 1970 have far more information, from far more sources, than their predecessors ever had. Which means that the work that they have produced is better informed and provides for far better understanding of the period and the events of the times. The main objectors to the conclusions drawn by the "historians" mentioned by both Keith A and myself cling with the tenacity of limpets to conclusions, myths, half-truths and misrepresentations of "historians" whose conclusions have been discredited in the light of newer, and more complete information. Keith A's main critics on this forum prefer to quote as "gospel" the work of playwrights with a particular axe to grind that had nothing whatsoever to do with WWI and the output of television drama and comedy scriptwriters.

And as those objectors admit that they have little or no knowledge of the "Great War" I can hardly see how those people can possibly have formed any sort of different opinion to be scoffed at if they have not studied what all of that new information has turned up. My guess is that out of pure idleness they have simply adopted their automatic default position without making the slightest effort to actually inform themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:52 AM

Jim,
You totally ignore what your hero Hastings has to say -

No I do not.
Produce a quote that challenges anything I have said.

Re your two anonymous sources.
What universities do they teach at, and what acclaimed books have they written?
Obviously none or it would be specified.

There are lots of people, especially on Mudcat, who have seen Lovely War and Blackadder and believe they know all about WW1.

I can quote actual, named historians to support my views.
You can not find a single one who still believes that shit you cling to.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some or any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:54 AM

Ferguson

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:58 AM

Furguson does not claim the British army was incompetently led, nor does he deny that the ordinary people and soldiers supported the need to fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:14 AM

Dominic Alexander

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:30 AM

Dominic Alexander has published no single book on WW1 and is not an academic at any university.
His "work" only appears on an extremist website. You can not take seriously anyone whose stuff only appears on extremist sites, whether extreme left or right.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some or any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

Par for the course, dismiss anyone who doesn't fall into your little boxes. Can't be bothered anymore, basically Keith because you are as boring as hell.
Jim, Dave the Gnome, Raggytash, #, Rahere, Steve Shaw, Musket(s),Greg F, Ed T, Big Al Whittle, Troubadour, Some Bloke in Scotland, Modette, Jim 1, Bill D, et al I don't know why you bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:11 AM

GUEST - 26 Nov 15 - 06:54 AM in what way does Ferguson support either "your" dogma or good ol' Jom's? Does he cast light on roaming bands of special groups of Redtops gunning down British soldiers who aren't moving at the desired rate? Does he argue that even although British casualty rates were lower than any other combatant powers on the western front that Britain's Generals were the poorest leaders, or that British forces were the worst led? By the way what exactly is "your" dogma? After all you've never told us what you think, and why you think it.

GUEST - 26 Nov 15 - 07:14 AM in what way does Dominic Alexander support either "your" dogma or good ol' Jom's? Does he cast light on roaming bands of special groups of Redtops gunning down British soldiers who aren't moving at the desired rate? Does he argue that even although British casualty rates were lower than any other combatant powers on the western front that Britain's Generals were the poorest leaders, or that British forces were the worst led? By the way what exactly is "your" dogma? After all you've never told us what you think, and why you think it.

As none of these questions will be answered all we have is just more GUEST "white noise" which it would appear that Keith A is silencing quicker that nameless GUEST can come up with suggestions. Now why is Jom not coming up with suggestions of his own - ah of course Jom's sources are drama and comedy scriptwriters and an ex-wife of Jom's most holy of holy's - Ewan MacColl "blessings be upon his name" - standing by for next incoherent rant interspersed with totally unwarranted, negative aspersions and contempt for those usefully employed in kitchens and galleys throughout the land and on the high seas. Strange really I thought that Jom always fancied himself as a champion of the working man, mind you he hasn't sunk so low down the scale as to call them "plebs" yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:21 AM

Baldrick

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM

"Produce a quote that challenges anything I have said."
"'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading." - will do for a start.
The review (by the right wing Spectator) objects to Hastings' book as undermining the official view of the war.
"Dominic Alexander has published no single book on WW1 and is not an academic at any university"
Real books by real historians from real universities - you are a ***** joke Keith.
"There are lots of people, especially on Mudcat, who have seen Lovely War and Blackadder and believe they know all about WW1."
Give one example where anybody has ever used either as historical fact - I seem to remember that used a song from Dad's Army to prove your point - but then again, you are a law unto yourself
"Dominic Alexander" is every bit as qualified to have a point of view on history as does Max Hastings, and you fought tooth and nail to have him (a right wing tabloid journalist who cut his teeth on a newspaper that openly declared itself in support of Hitler and fascism) accepted as a credible historian.
"Now then I wonder where and when Keith A ever said that "historians" are infallible"
Keith's whole argument is based on the claim that THE HISTORIAN HE HAS CHOSEN ARE INFALLIBLE AND ALL WHO DISAGREE, OR ARE DEAD, ARE LEFTIES AND THEREFORE WRONG - wake up cookie or you'll burn the pans again!!
He continues that argument now
" Strange really I thought that Jom always fancied himself as a champion of the working man, "
Nope - I am a working man, or was one until I retired and I have never suggested them to be either gullible or liars (and before you repeat it - it is not gullible to believe the mass of misinformation and emotional blackmail that was pumped out to gain support for this colonial family squabble - at the time, the media was the only source of information that the working man had.
When they broadcast the idea that Germany was about to invade and bayonet us and rape our women, as they were doing in "gallant little Belgium", who was to deny them tell us it was all a foregone conclusion that would all be over shortly,?
I have never called a soldier a liar to make a case as you pair consistently have.
"I don't know why you bother."
It's good fun to see these two squirm as these two worms are, and, using the same logic as did the courts martials and execution squads - as a warning for the future.
Don't think these two will ever be taken seriously again, with their real historians and flag-wagging crap - do you?
Have to admit that I can't suppress a smile whenever the word "historian" is mentioned - it's become a punchline.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 09:49 AM

That was not a Hastings quote Jim.
Just some bloke called David Crane who has written nothing about WW1.

A review of the same book by an actual WW1 historian in the paper Hastings once edited,

"Hastings's second adversary is more amorphous: what he calls "the poets' view" of the war as a futile struggle for a few blood-drenched yards of mud, which wasted a whole generation, solved nothing and which Britain should have steered clear of, allowing those funny foreign fellows to slaughter each other without compromising its splendid isolation.
This view, propounded by various powerful voices from the great economist John Maynard Keynes in 1919 down to the scriptwriters of the television comedy Blackadder Goes Forth, has been hammered so relentlessly into our heads that it is now the received opinion on the war. "
"Hastings, who received a knighthood in 2002, will have none of this."

"Hastings pushes the parallels between the two world wars even closer. He details the barbarities perpetrated by the Kaiser's armies as they marched through Belgium, showing that such atrocities, though smaller in scale than the Nazis' crimes in 1939-45 (6,000 civilians murdered rather than six million), were inflicted in the same wanton spirit. With irrefutable logic Hastings argues that if it was right for Britain to wage war in defence of Poland in 1939, then it was also correct to take up arms in defence of Belgium in 1914."

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/historybookreviews/10382547/Catastrophe-by-Max-Hastings-review.html"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM

"That was not a Hastings quote Jim."
It is a summing up by a reviewer of what Hastings wrote - are you in all your great wisdom and after " a lifetime of study" going to contradict what he has written (after having read Hasting's book, of course - maybe you'd like to claim you've read that one too!!!)
Pis off Keith - you are making yourself a bigger and bigger joke each time you put finger to keyboard
And you can piss off with selective pieces you have neither read nor could understand if you ever broke the habit of a lifetime and actually read something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:53 AM

No other reviewer said anything like that Jim.
There is much written by Hastings available on line.

Why can't you find a real Hastings quote?
Because Jim, your claims are bollocks!

About the British Army in 1914.(Hastings' book is just about the outbreak)

Because Britain neither intended nor expected to be involved in the brewing conflict, its army was not prepared to fight it.
Not the army's fault.

The Germans heavily outnumbered them, and had far more machine guns and artillery.
Not the army's fault.

The British Army were attacked by overwhelming force and had to retreat.
Not the army's fault.

They fought a remarkable fighting withdrawal and just managed to halt the German advance before Paris.
A remarkable achievement of arms.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:59 AM

Ah God Bless you Jom - you never let me down:

"standing by for next incoherent rant"

Gentlemen I give you ----------------------------------

Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM

(Damn me though I should have predicted "stand by for the next incoherent multi-coloured rant - Still I'll know for the next time)

One question for you Jom (I know I do have so many) - This apparent "hard-on" you've got for Max Hastings - he didn't happen to have been a cook at any point in his career did he? - I mean you do have this apparent massive downer on them so I just wondered.

One last point I would like to make Jom. As far as this bit of your last "multi-coloured rant" goes:

'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading.

In November 1918 the victory celebrations were held in London and in Paris - NOT Berlin or Vienna.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

Max Hastings in his own words.
A real quote Jim, not some prat trying to tell us what he thought he said but didn't!

". But his own(David Cameron) and his colleagues' knowledge of 1914-18 derives chiefly from watching Blackadder when they were in short trousers.
They learned to think of the struggle simply as a pointless tragedy in which Britain's idiot generals committed mass murder.
This 21st-century view has also been strongly influenced by the satirical musical Oh, What A Lovely War!, and by the 'trench poets' Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, whose impassioned pens depicted in the most vivid and moving terms the nightmare to which their generation was subjected in France.
But no poet ever identified a route by which the British, French and Belgian people could have escaped the conflict, save by accepting the Kaiser's domination of Europe. Germany's 1914-18 war aims fell not far short of those of 1939-45, except that there was no genocidal programme against the Jews.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2339189/MAX-HASTINGS-Sucking-Germans-way-remember-Great-War-heroes-Mr-Cameron.html#ixzz3scM6rRU5

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM

Just popped in.

Think I'll pop back out.

It's bad enough that The Daily M*il exists without being encouraged to read it by the resident TC.

Tatty bye

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

I really do think we've finished here - don't you.
Soldiers are liars, historians are liars - Spectator reviewers are liars
Have you gone completely insane in your efforts to defend your lords and masters?
It's over Keith llie down - unless you can prove the Spectator review is a leftie plot
"Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM"
Sorry Cookie - lost me there
Perhaps you could explain your rather aggressive and bullying posting (nothing new there)?
Would you also like to explain the Spectator review for your friend?
"This apparent "hard-on" you've got for Max Hastings"
Not mine Cookiue - he's Keith's friend and both of you displayed your own "hard -on's" supporting him
I use him here to explain the dangers of doing so without reading what he has to say first.
As far as I am concerned, he is a right wing tabloid journalist who learned his trade in a fascist supporting bumwipe of a newspaper - one of your own, in fact.
You explain your feet in mouths for using him as a witness to your anachchronistic jingoism
"Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading."
Take it up with the author - nuffin' to do with me, it was a direct quote from the review.
I have litle doubt that you know volumes more than he does - or anybody else, judging by your permanent contemptuous tone
PLEASE, PLEASE TELL US THAT THE SPECTATOR REVIEWER DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT - NOW THAT REALLY WOULD MAKE MY DAY - MY MONTH, IN FACT!!
Amazing how much you can learn when you have a break from cooking fry-ups!!
I think it's time you both had a bit of a lie down, don't you?

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 01:36 PM

Ah but Jayzus Gnome, unlike others I could name, you could never accuse the man of being a coward, a bigot, a hypocrite or a liar now could you.

No teribums, I couldn't. He has the courage of his convictions and is no coward. I could not say he is a bigot but some of his statements about certain races being predisposed to certain crimes are, in my opinion, ill considered and may be viewed as bigoted by some. Hypocryte and liar? Tough one. As I said, I will always give the benefit of the doubt. When Keith has said one thing and then, when challenged, changed it to mean another, I always consider it a breakdown of communications rather than a deliberate deceit. I hope I am right.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:00 PM

Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

A recycled multi-coloured rant

1: Soldiers are liars - Wouldn't know Jom - you prove to us that you actually talked to an ex-soldier and maybe I'd start to believe you - Oh but your and your "interview team" didn't bother to check anything did you, this ex-serviceman did not tell you where he served, he did not tell you what regiment he served in, he told you some cock-and-bull story about first military police, which then became special squads of military police executing British soldiers, unfortunately he never specified any time, or place and although those being shot would have been in the same platoon or company "your soldier" couldn't put a name to any of his friends he saw being shot for not getting out of the trench quick enough. Hundreds of memoirs and autobiographies of soldiers who served and fought during the Great War exist and no mention of these summary executions exist - I believe them, they most certainly were not liars.

2: historians are liars - No historians who wrote about the Great War in the period 1919 and 1970 did not have access to the information that historians who wrote about the same period post 1970 to the present. As the latter day historians have more information from more varied sources (Primarily foreign sources) their studies are more comprehensively researched and provide us all with a far better picture as to what actually happened and why. Obviously such work "discredits" views and conclusions reached in the pre-1970 works.

3: Spectator reviewers are liars - Spectator reviewers are only giving their opinion on what they have read, they are most likely riding to the instructions given by their editor who has told them what "slant" to put on it. The opinion of a reviewer is as valid as the opinion of anyone else.

4: "Max Hastings" - As far as I am concerned, he is a right wing tabloid journalist who learned his trade in a fascist supporting bumwipe of a newspaper - one of your own, in fact.

Now talking about feet being in mouth Jom old boy:

Taking them in reverse order
(a) I do not, nor have I ever, owned a newspaper.
(b) I believe the newspaper in question ceased to support fascists about five years before Max Hastings was born - Before the death of the first Viscount Rothermere in fact.
(c) Max Hastings learned his trade as you put it working for the Evening Standard.

All a matter of record you prat - all you have to do is look it up. Oh but I forgot your style of doing "research".

5: "Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading."

Taking all of the above at face value, care to explain how it was that in November 1918 the victory celebrations took place in London and in Paris - NOT in Berlin or in Vienna Jom? It is a simple enough question, if the answer to it was because the British learned from their mistakes and put in place the changes necessary to come out of the greatest conflict mankind had ever experienced on the side that was victorious then poor leadership and a reluctant populace would not explain it - good leadership and a country four square behind it would.

Rant on Jom - it must be playing absolute hell with your blood pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:28 PM

Jim, you are arguing against the historians about history.
You can not find one who still believes the shit you cling to.
Ask yourself why Jim!

Will you name one now who still believes those old myths?
No.
You can't.
Ask yourself why Jim!

Will you produce a quote from someone with an actual name who agrees with you?
No.
You can't.
Ask yourself why Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:33 PM

Take it the Americans played no part then.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:48 PM

Jim, here is a review of that book FROM HASTINGS' OWN WEBSITE.

"His narrative of the early battles will astonish those whose images of the war are simply of mud, wire, trenches and steel helmets. Hastings describes how the French Army marched into action amid virgin rural landscapes, in uniforms of red and blue, led by mounted officers, with flags flying and bands playing. The bloodiest day of the entire Western war fell on 22 August 1914, when the French lost 27,000 dead. Four days later, at Le Cateau the British fought an extraordinary action against the oncoming Germans, one of the last of its kind in history. In October, at terrible cost they held the allied line against massive German assaults in the first battle of Ypres."

"His narrative pricks myths and offers some striking and controversial judgements. For a host of readers gripped by the author's last international best-seller 'All Hell Let Loose', this will seem a worthy successor."
http://www.maxhastings.com/2015/catastrophe/


Guest, yes they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:57 PM

Faint praise indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 03:18 PM

Review of the same book by American military historian Max Boot.

"World War I continues to be misunderstood by most ordinary people who have not yet caught up with the evolving consensus of historians. Three big myths, in particular, dominate the popular perception. First, that it was an accident, a war nobody wanted — a view immortalized in Barbara Tuchman's beautifully written if factually questionable 1962 book "The Guns of August." Second, that it didn't really matter who won — that there was scant difference between the Central and Entente Powers. And third, that soldiers were needlessly sent to slaughter by unfeeling and cloddish generals — "lions led by donkeys" in the popular parlance.

In "Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War," the prolific British military historian Max Hastings does an excellent job of assembling a chronicle of the war's first few months, from August to December 1914, that puts paid to all three perceptions"

"Hastings also argues that it is unfair to blame the ineptitude of these generals for the horrible stalemate that took hold during the fall of 1914. This deadlock was almost inevitable given that the armies fighting one another were so closely matched in size and capabilities. Only after four years of war, by which time Germany had been exhausted and America had joined with Britain and France, would it be possible to end the impasse.

"There was never a credible shortcut," Hastings concludes. For all the glamour associated with peripheral struggles in Africa and the Middle East, which produced heroes like Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and T. E. Lawrence, the war's outcome could be decided only in Western Europe and only after a prolonged period of mutual battering. "

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 03:23 PM

Don't wet your knickers Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:39 PM

"Wouldn't know Jom - you prove to us that you actually talked to an ex-soldier and maybe I'd start to believe you"
Do you honestly believe I give a shit whether a half arsed right wing wannabe squaddie believes me or not
You've dismissed and tried to denigrate harry Patch, you dismissed reports of summary executions told by an old soldier to his grandson - christ only knows what you are dismissing now from the quagmire your mate has dropped you in.
You and Keith supported Hastings as a credible historian even though your mate wouldn't accept other historians who he claimed were not "rel" or didn't sell their books in "rel bookshops" or hadn't been to "real universities" or were dead or unpublished or unknown.
Now you see
m to be claiming that modern historians are invunerable "their studies are more comprehensively researched and provide us all with a far better picture as to what actually happened and why.".
Your beligerent contempt for anybody who disagrees with you makes you what you are - the least you can to is calm your mate down before he combusts - how do explain the review - another lie, perhaps.
Have you actually read a book or do you trawl the net for the miniscule number of actual quotes
"Jim, here is a review of that book FROM HASTINGS' OWN WEBSITE."
Really don't care Keith - you have had a copy of the review - do you think the spectator was lying - if so, why didn't Hastings sue?
You've really done it again - you've carefully selected the bits you think make your case without knowing what the author intended - the ghost of Christine Kinealy bites your bum again.
Sleep well, the pair of you, d'you hear now?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:51 PM

"Jim, here is a review of that book FROM HASTINGS' OWN WEBSITE"

Just suggest Mr A that you wrote a book. Lets suggest that book got 10 reviews. If 8 of them were shite reviews but 2 were good which would you put on your website.

Duh

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:03 AM

"Foot-in-mouth" time for you again Jom:

"You and Keith supported Hastings as a credible historian"

Well if he was considered good enough to become a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society then who am I to argue?

C'mon Jom go for another - tell us all again how Max cut his teeth and learned his trade as a journalist at the Daily Mail - really shows how much of a grip you have on factual detail and reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:14 AM

Im a fellow of the Royal bed wetters and y front soiling society but I don't expect you to take my views on dampness as gospel.

Wonderful cap doffing Mr Teribus. Do keep it up. We expect it from the oiks dontcha know?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:37 AM

"Im a fellow of the Royal bed wetters and y front soiling society"

Wouldn't doubt your word on that for a second Ghost. About the most credible statement you've made on this thread thus far.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:28 AM

Jim, Boot explains more eloquently than I could why you can't find an historian who agrees with you.
There aren't any.

He speaks of the "consensus of historians" that your views are "myths" that have been "put paid to" by all the historians including Hastings.

Historians have the knowledge Jim.
You just have outmoded political dogma.

I have not won. I just agree with the historians.
You are arguing against the history books and the people who research and write them.
You have lost.
That was always the only possible outcome, and continuing just makes you more and more ridiculous.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:39 AM

Guest,
If 8 of them were shite reviews but 2 were good which would you put on your website.

I would put up the one that most accurately described the message of the book.
I would probably write it myself.

Jim claimed on the basis of one review by some right wing non historian that Hastings meant something else.
He did not.
The reviews I posted were all by other military historians and make clear that the book, like all the others written in recent decades, find that Jim's view's are just discredited myths.

I have been telling you all that for years now.
I was right.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM

Keith
There was a time I used to get embarrassed for you and hoped you would stop - now I hope you will go on and on with this
You'll never get a free lunch in this town again - the pair of you. THE SPECTATOR REVIEW???
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

The Spectator review was shite, as all the other reviews of the same book show.

If you are claiming that Hastings supports your views you realy have lost it.
He rubbishes those myths of yours with almost every word.

Have you found any historian that does not?
No!

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 05:10 AM

"I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1."
I'm sure you do!!
The crap review was written by historian David Crane - ONE OF THE "REAL" HISTORIANS YOU PUT UP IN DEFENCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT WAY BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS
Yup - I must have lost it.
Game, set and match, I think (using your own logic for participating in these discussions)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 06:31 AM

ONE OF THE "REAL" HISTORIANS YOU PUT UP IN DEFENCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT WAY BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS

I did not. He is not an historian of WW1.
As I just told you he has written nothing about WW1 except something about monuments.

You still have found no historian who still believes those old myths you cling to.
I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 06:41 AM

"I did not. He is not an historian of WW1."
Yes he is - not only an expert on the subject but a stretcher bearer during that war
Stop this stupidity - you've lost - the plot, it would appear.
Your stupidity and viciousness have made you a laughing stock - another day made for me.
You are a pair of vicious jingoists who have been given your comeuppance
"You still have found no historian who still believes those old myths you cling to."
Plenty - but Max Hastings will do til a "real" one comes along.
Have a good day now - d'ye hear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 07:28 AM

Just when I thought we'd finished Jom comes up with yet another "Foot-in-mouth" moment in this exchange:

""I did not. He is not an historian of WW1." - (says Keith A quite rightly)

Yes he is - not only an expert on the subject but a stretcher bearer during that war.

Stop this stupidity - you've lost - the plot, it would appear." - (says Jom)

I take it we are talking about the David Crane who is still alive and well and living up in the Scottish Highlands, who wrote:

- Lord Byron's Jackal: A Life of Trelawny (1999)
- The Kindness of Sisters: Annabella Milbanke and the Destruction of the Byrons (2002)
- Scott of the Antarctic: A Life of Courage and Tragedy(2006)
- Empires of the Dead: How One Man's Vision led to the Creation of WWI's World Graves (2013)

Here is a photograph of the man Jom:

David Crane

So according to your extensive researches this man was a Stretcher Bearer during the First World War was he?

So Harry Patch was not the last surviving Tommy who saw service in the Great War - David Crane must be. Mind you he appears to be in damn good nick for someone who must be over 115 years old - worn well has he Jom or have I caught you out just making up more shit.

Reality must indeed be a different planet to you old son - stick to writing about "what is folk music". Take your own advice:

Stop this stupidity - you've lost - the plot

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 08:27 AM

David Crane has every bit as much credibility as a historian as has Max Hastings
He has written extensively on historical subjects - noticeably not included in your list.
He read history and English at Oxford University before becoming a lecturer at universities in the Netherlands, Japan, and Africa.
His highly commended work on locating and researching war graves makes him a hands on expert on the subject rather than a desk-bound one - though, unfortunately, he didn't make the Fascist bumwipe, the Daily Mail, which disqualifies him being a "real historian" by your criterion.
I apologise for mistaking his war record - you can't win them all (but at least it gives you a chance to ease up on the typos as a substitute for argument).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 08:29 AM

Oh - anything more on why Max Hastings hasn't sued the Spectator over that review yet?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:35 AM

Your mistake on his war record is just one in a long line of mistakes, but it does highlight the slapdash approach you always seem to take with regard to research - tends to loss of credibility:

Why should Hastings sue someone over a review, as previously stated, it is only one person's opinion. Otherwise Hastings work tends to receive fairly good peer review in academic circles.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:57 AM

"Your mistake on his war record is just one in a long line of mistakes, "
Of which you have been unable to point out one
Never been able to make my mind up which is the worst - someone who never apologises or someone who is unable to accept one graciously - both apply with you pair.
You really do miss the point with Hastings, don't you?
It's not his scholarship that's at question hre, but what he has written in 'Catastrophe'
Let me remind you of the summing up:
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading.
I would also remind you that you attributed that summing up to me.
"One last point I would like to make Jom. As far as this bit of your last "multi-coloured rant" goes:"
Don't remember your having retracting that accusation - let alone apologising for it - but then again, you pair don't go there, do you?
Why are you pair so ***** unpleasantly arrogant in the way to take part in what the restr of us regard as an exchange of ideas - Im sure Freud would have had an explanation for your behaviour.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 11:06 AM

Keep going. It's the little things that help the rest of us through the day.

Jim does get confused on many subjects but on this, even his little mistakes can't even be thwarted by the combined brains of Britain we call Keith A of Hertford and Teribus. I'd give it a rest myself, but do carry on.

Ha Ha Ha!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM

Jim,
Let me remind you of the summing up:

That is not Hastings summing up.
It is not a Hastings quote.
It is David Crane, who is no historian of WW1.

The historian reviewers, like Jones and Boot, are quite clear that the book rubbishes all your myths.
The review on Hastings' site, probably by Hastings, says the same.
I have given you actual quotes of Hastings rubbishing all your myths.

Hastings is not your saviour Jim.
Like all the others, he knows that your claims are worthless, debunked and discredited myths.

I agree with the historians.
You are arguing against the history books and the people who research and write them.
You have lost.
Continuing just makes you more and more ridiculous.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 11:45 AM

"'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading."

Och aye ma wee tooth-sucking scouser, as a've said before even taking that all at face value we still were on the winning side at the end o' it a' - After the hightide mark of the German advance in the summer of 1918 was reached (No further than they had managed to get in 1914 for exactly the same reasons) It was those "Dodgy" Battalions of the British, Commonwealth and Empire Army under the command of Douglas Haig freshly replenished with stores, ammunition, provisions and equipment that went over onto the offensive and hey presto Jom 100 days later the war was over.

Never pointed out any of your mistakes Jom - I thought that I just had with regard to David Crane. Then there was that other one regarding Max Hastings "learning his trade at the Daily Mail" - he only started writing his column for the Daily Mail in retirement FFS - If that is not a "Howler" then I do not know what is:

That prompts a question - what happened to that GUEST who was asked to point out all the "howlers" made by Keith and myself - He's gone kinda quiet hasn't he Jom? - in fact we never did hear back from him, don't think we will either do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 11:49 AM

What quaint use of language - How do you "thwart a mistake"?

You can point out a mistake and you can correct a mistake but thwart one??

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

Jim does get confused on many subjects but on this, even his little mistakes

Claiming that a current writer of reviews saw active service in WW1 is more than a little mistake.
It shows how tenuous is his grasp of reality, never mind history.

Something else that was more than a little mistake.
He said I had referred to David Crane as one of the historians agreeing my views.
Entirely made up. A blatant lie.
How could I quote him when he has written nothing on WW!!?

Google shows his only previous mention was a year ago when Jim last produced that same shit review.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 12:14 PM

You can't resist being unpleasant - can you?
"It is David Crane, who is no historian of WW1."
He is as much a Historian of WW1 than your tabloid journalist is.
Still missing the point - there has to be a point that it becomes deliberate.
I'm not the slightest bit interested in defending who won what in whatever battle - the skill of the generals was to send more men over the top to get slaughtered than the Germans did - battled of attrition.
One more time - I didn't comment on Ypres, Crane did and the Spectator ran it.
As far as I know, nobody has ever disputed what he wrote, not even Hastings.
Had he been misrepresented to the extent you pair of eejits claim he has, then there would have been blood and snot flying all over the place - certainly as prominent a Journal as 'The Spectator' would never have run it for fear of repercussions from their fellow right-wingers.
The pair of you have backed a horse that has run away with all your money -
Keith has a habit of coming with pre-set ideas then scrambling round the ether for out of context quotes to back them up, you, in your turn rushed to help this particular lame dog over his stile - both of you have ended in the clarts.
Elswhere, Hastings view of the war leadership has been described as "trenchant", he particularly targetted French for criticism.
I have not the slightest interest in the conduct of this shitty war - it was an obscenity that decimated a generation - all for political power and economic supremacy.
One Empire was as bad as the other, and the War produced cracks that led to its end - and good ****** riddance.
I don't share your Empire Loyalism and you contempt for foreigners who couldn't make their own way without our guiding hand - we were still singing hymns about being foreighn was to be "in error's chain" into the fifties, for Christ's sake!
Like Capital Punishment - all gone - no more tomorrow.
Stop avoiding the point - and stop spitting at people - you really aren't bright enough.
Just as well you didn't make the armed forces - your superiority complex would have lasted about five minutes among real soldiers.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:03 PM

"It shows how tenuous is his grasp of reality, never mind history."
No Keith - it shows the dangers of multi-tasking - you don't honestly think I spend the time waiting for your next missive -do you?
You - who refuse to apologise for anything, seem incapable of accepting one when it is made
Why not - the pair of you are that sort of people.
Still no explanation of why the "shit" review was published and why nobody responded?
Didn't expect one really
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:38 PM

Jim, you are claiming that Hastings supports you because of what Crane said, even though Hastings himself says your beliefs are myths.

Hastings does not support you Jim.
I quoted him rubbishing your views.
Did you read the quotes?
Did you understand the quotes?
Hastings does not support you.
NO HISTORIAN DOES!

Those delusions you cling to have been debunked.
You are arguing against the historians about history, and making yourself ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

I was going to ask if someone could just make this nonsense go away but I was reminded of the famous Eagles song. They can stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill thebeast.

If this argument were to go away some fuckwit would just resurrect it in a different thread later.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:23 PM

You seem to follow it though Dave.
You used to be a player until a few days ago.

I see that a mod has confirmed that Harry Forest was really just Musket lying. (See free speech thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

Just the same old Professor & Terribyte (or is that trilobite?) show.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:38 PM

"Hastings does not support you.
NO HISTORIAN DOES!"
You haven';t read Hastings, nor from the quality and content of your postings, any other historian, so you would be the last to know what they support.
"You are arguing against the historians about history, and making yourself ridiculous.
You have been given accounts of what the historians you have trawled up - you choose to ignore them
Tou don't read historians - you were actually forced to admit that on Ireland and have half admitted it here - matter of time before you tell us you are not interested as you have done before.
Ghost historians you haven't read don't hack it - your attitude to WW1 is si#ted squarely in the first half of the 20th century.You once calaimed that WW1 was ot an Imperial war (then inadvertently put up a cut-'n- paste stating it was - noticeably, you have steered clear of the causes of the war.
You say irt was well led, yet when it is pointed out that "good leadership" amounted to nothing more than sending as many young men as possible to their deaths, again, you remain silent.
You have been given what Hastings said about the leadership, particularly in reference to ield Marshall French, you remain silent.
You are asked to justify your claims on the review of Hastings' book - you remain silent.
Silence seems to be your main ploy in these arguments - had you adopted the tactic earlier, you might not be held in the contempt you now are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:55 PM

" the skill of the generals was to send more men over the top to get slaughtered than the Germans did - battled of attrition."

Really?? Is that what you think a "battled of attrition" is (Whatever the F**k it means) Could of course be "a battle of attrition" but even there you've got it wrong.

Ehmm a battle of attrition is when you keep fighting until one side can fight no more or it becomes obvious that one side's losses cannot be sustained so they withdraw. Remember you banging on about that first day on the Somme? Well in 1916 a German General adopted the tactic of attrition and vowed to bleed the allied armies on the western front white - Falkenhayn fought and poured men into the fight at Verdun and on the Somme where he had to defend against British and French attacks. By the end of November 1916 the Germans knew that they could not possibly win on the western front with the forces they had available - i.e attrition had worked against them it had become obvious to the Germans that their losses could not be sustained so they withdrew to a defensive line. Thereafter the Germans bemoaned the fact that it was the allies who selected where to attack and that each attack bit lumps out of their line and the allies held onto that ground and on each occasion the Germans lost men that they knew they could not replace. They had to finish off Russia first so that they could transfer the 1.5 million men from the eastern to the western front. Unfortunately for the Germans the allies were getting stronger and the Germans logistical problems remained the same as they had been in 1914. The launched their last gasp attack in the Spring of 1918 and it failed for exactly the same reasons it failed in 1914 - they lost their war of attrition because they lost more than we did - and yet you clowns say it was OUR leadership that was bad??? 9 out of every 10 men who fought in the British Forces came home from the First World War - approximately the same as came home from the Second World War.

Harry Foster = Musket, thought so, dare say he has appeared as anonymous GUEST as well - you can tell by the style, the language, the stance taken and give away phrases or the mention of little things that tick him off. Talking of which I have yet to discover why Jom holds Cooks in such contempt - he has obviously never worked away in his life - If he had he'd know Rule One: Never piss off the Cook - Reasoning behind Rule One: You have to eat what he Cooks. Strange though thinking how such a champion of the working man looks down and sneers at folks working in what he obviously sees as being menial and degrading positions - some bloody communist/socialist, but there again as any good socialist knows "some animals are more equal than others" eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:54 PM

You seem to follow it though Dave.
You used to be a player until a few days ago.

I see that a mod has confirmed that Harry Forest was really just Musket lying. (See free speech thread)

What the fuck is that supposed to mean and are the two events related?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:58 PM

Ahhhh - Just read the mod post. It mentions 'Muskets', which as anyone with half a brain knows, are at least three people who post from the same proxy and cannot, to all intents are purposes, be told apart. I can make even less sense of your ramblings now.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 05:22 PM

Reviewers and critics are often shocked to find how much they are dismissed as irrelevant so no wonder nobody had heard of you.

Another somewhat facile and desperate post, anon Guest. Many members of Mudcat have 'heard of me', as has been demonstrated time & again on threads on the forum. Moreover, as well as being a critic, I was also an active performing member of the folk scene: as eg

-- Member of the Easy Riders skiffle group way back in those far-off 1950s skiffle days [before your time I daresay]; ran the Sawston, Cambs, Folk Club for several years in 1970s, and sang regularly at all other local folk clubs (Cambridge Folk Club, Crofters, Linton FC &c), as well as gigging further afield thru E Anglia, Midlands, London &c -- I had a Midlands agent called Tony Savage in the 1970s-80s who got me a lot of paid professional gigs around there -- remember doing FCs at Lutterworth, Leicester, Peterboro &c.

My record Butter·&·Cheese·&·All (BH8904) was issued by the (alas-now defunct as its owner Eric Cowell died a few years ago) Brewhouse label of Cambridgeshire.

You will find 40 or so videos of mine on my YouTube channel which received mainly kind comments on this forum when posted about 5 years ago --

http://www.youtube.com/user/mgmyer

I quote that line from Milton's Paradise Lost yet again —

Not to know me argues yourself unknown

Regards
≈Michael·GM≈

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 06:05 PM

...so now, GUESTIE-BUMS, let's see what other spiteful & ill-natured insult you can think to come up with to throw at me — just because you can, from behind your self-assumed cloak of anonymity.

Hate to say it, but you really do come over as rather a despicable little entity you know, Mr GUEST...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:44 AM

You haven';t read Hastings, nor from the quality and content of your postings, any other historian,
Reminder Jim, you can find no single historian who still believes your shit, but I have quoted and continue to quote many.

Hastings has only written one book on WW1, which only deals with the lead up to it and the outbreak, so of limited interest to me personally.
I can obtain a copy if you want to discuss it.

Hastings has written numerous articles and essays about WW1. They make clear his findings, in line with the other historians, debunking those old myths you cling to.
I have quoted his actual words many times doing just that.
You yourself Jim know well that he does because you have been arguing against him for years now.

You are arguing against the professionals who research and write the history books.
They do not need my help to expose your idiocy.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 04:34 AM

" Could of course be "a battle of attrition" but even there you've got it wrong."
Typos again shipmate and yet more talking down to -that short of argument again?
If you can't understand the sentence, you shouldn't be here - you should be at literacy classes - it was a typo that, for the literate, in no way obscured the meaning.
If I am wrong - show how "good leadership" was anything more than sending wave after wave of young men to go out and kill other young men who they didn't know or have a particular gripe with?
It wasn't warfare, even as we know it to day, it was war by force of numbers.
Enough of arguing with a pair of semi-literate eejits who appear not to have read anything on the subject (certainly one of them -the other doesn't disclose what he might have read but just makes bullying pronouncements)
What it boils down to is this - If the war was well led, show us how - show us that the picture most people have of how the war was conducted is wrong - that it was not a matter of a military acting on behalf of politicians defending an Imperial system that was long overdue for demolition and which was to disappear within a few decades, largely due to the excessive carnage that took place during that war.
It was an Imperial War - Imperialism was based on the exploitation of poorer nations and was one of the great evils - that was what we were defending.
The ordinary British person - the cannon fodder of the war and their families got S.F.A. from the massive sacrifice they made - they were no freer, no better off, no more secure than they were before the war began - that was the case in Britain, Germany, Belgium, France...... anywhere.
The German people tried and failed to change things for the better and Russia at least grasped at a straw of a chance to actually make things better for the working people, but that was whipped away from the people eventually by corruption and callous incompetence)
A decade later the world was plunged into a recession; thanks to right-wing policies fascism (largely appeased by our leaders) got a grip and we were plunged into yet another world conflict - what was it all about Alfie?
What do you pair think - was that not what happened?
I'm not interested in out-of context fragmentary quotes (largely of opinions) from historians none of us have read - neither am I interested in the usual three Bs - (bullying, bluster and bullshit) from the usual suspect.
If the war was "well led" - how was it well led?
If it was a "just war" - why was it just?
If we, the ordinary British, German, French, Belgian.... people, actually gained anything from the massive sacrifice that was made what did we get?
If the world became a better place after the slaughter of so many young man - how did it?
All these points have been raised over and over again and you pair have remained silent on them - (no - fair's fair - Captain Pugwash did say colonising the poorer nations was a good thing)
Your starter for ten.....!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 05:38 AM

"Imperialism was based on the exploitation of poorer nations"
.,,.,.

Hohum Jim. Earwig-o again. Haven't we had this converasation before, just! Don't know how much experience of post-imperialism you have actually had. But I state as an absolute fact that when I spent a couple of months working as British Council Lecturer in English Folksong at Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, 1990-91, not a single one of my SL-ian colleagues failed to express constant regret at the withdrawal of the British and the granting of Independence in 1961. They had been gone 30 years; and there wasn't a single metalled road really fit to drive on left in the whole country by then, and the railway system had ceased to exist -- a previous prime minister having pulled up all the rails and sold them as scrap metal and kept the money for himself. It was a few months after I left that the civil war, with those notorious hundreds of wanton and sadistic amputations, broke out; my late wife Valerie, having stayed on behind me, only just contrived to get out in time.

I repeat: not a single one of my SL-ian colleagues did not regret the withdrawal of the British and the granting of Independence in 1961.

Count them -- NONE!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 05:57 AM

Been here before as you say Mike
Colonialism was based on the exploitation of poor and weaker nations.
What replaced colonialism, better or worse, is immaterial and doesn't alter the definition in one way or another.
Every nation is entitled to self determination in order to realise its own capabilities and make its own way in the world - including its own mistakes, and the idea that they are incapable of doing so without the guiding hand of Britain (or anywhere) is right-wing patronising in the extreme.
If they choose to remain with the system that was foisted on them by the Empire they are hardly likely to make a go of it right away, and should they be unwise enough to choose one that didn't suit their old masters, the lads were always ready to make sure they didn't step too far out of line, as was shown by the murder of Patrice Lumumba and the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah.
Nice to be reliving my schooldays again with you and Terrytoon telling us what a good thing the Empire was though - thanks for the blast from the (never to return) past though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

Ah Jom - so good at asking questions - so poor at providing answers.

Now we have three armies A, B & C. They are engaged in a massive conflict involving millions of men for a period of over four years. It is a desperate struggle that quickly establishes itself as a static war in which the normal tactic of manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre are rendered impossible, leaving frontal assault as the only means of engaging and attacking your enemy. At the end of this war taking into account all the men mobilised, all the men who fought the percentage of casualties (killed & wounded) for each Army is as follows:

Army A 35%'
Army B 75%
Army C 70%

Taking into account that all three armies fought in the same theatre of operations and all fought under similar conditions which Army would appear to have been the best led?

"If I am wrong - show how "good leadership" was anything more than sending wave after wave of young men to go out and kill other young men who they didn't know or have a particular gripe with?"

Ehmmm Jom every conflict since the beginning of time has involved "sending wave after wave of young men to go out and kill other young men who they didn't know or have a particular gripe with"

Liked this though as it reveals the greatest weakness in your argument and your total lack of reality:

"It wasn't warfare, even as we know it to day, it was war by force of numbers."

Sorry Jom but that is exactly what warfare was all about, it is war by force of numbers, and in terms of conventional war fought between two armies today, or the conventional conflicts of recent times, those have been fought by and large exactly in accordance with the tactics thought out and developed by the British Army during the First World War - the concept of a closely co-ordinated all arms integrated attack. Neither the French or the Germans developed that, Haig and his Divisional Commanders did.

"If the war was well led, show us how"

(a) We ended up on the side that won?
(b) Our casualties were roughly half those of the other combatant nations
(c) Our first ever citizen army built from scratch in time of war took on and defeated what was considered to be the most powerful army on the planet at the time
(d) Throughout the course of the war the armed forces fighting in the various theatres of war and the populations at home and throughout the Empire and the Dominions backed the Government and the war effort to the hilt.

"show us that the picture most people have of how the war was conducted is wrong"

I have no idea what "most people" think - and neither have you Jom.

"that it was not a matter of a military acting on behalf of politicians defending an Imperial system that was long overdue for demolition and which was to disappear within a few decades, largely due to the excessive carnage that took place during that war.
It was an Imperial War - Imperialism was based on the exploitation of poorer nations and was one of the great evils - that was what we were defending."

Ah Jom, you're ranting now, I can almost see you frothing at the mouth in frustration and indignation. Yes the military were ordered by their duly elected Government to defend the country which in 1914 did happen to be an Imperial power. That you think sat on your arse out there in the west of Ireland in 2015 that that Imperial system was long overdue for demolition in 1914 is merely your opinion - please do not try to present it as a fact. Yes it was an Imperial War started by the rulers of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Emperor, it was fought in an attempt to hold the Austro-Hungarian Empire together and was seized on by the Kaiser as a way of extending German power in Europe and overseas through aggression and conquest. What the British were doing can be summed up as follows:
1: Meeting our solemnly given Treaty Obligations to Belgium
2: Looking after our own best national interest
3: Preserving our way of life

"The ordinary British person - the cannon fodder of the war and their families got S.F.A. from the massive sacrifice they made - they were no freer, no better off, no more secure than they were before the war began"

Really? Not the picture painted by studying the political, social and economic history of the period 1914 to the present day. And if as you say it was the same for everybody how then is that the fault of the British Government or the British Generals of the First World War?

"A decade later the world was plunged into a recession; thanks to right-wing policies fascism (largely appeased by our leaders) got a grip and we were plunged into yet another world conflict"

Frothing again Jom, but I suppose by the time you got to writing this idiotic left-wing drivel you were well into your stride. What right-wing policies, how on earth did fascism create or spark off the Great Depression of 1929 - I thought that it was the other way about. And we were plunged into yet another world conflict due a German desire for domination through force of arms.

"If the war was "well led" - how was it well led?" - Answered above.

"If it was a "just war" - why was it just?" - Answered above:

"If we, the ordinary British, German, French, Belgian.... people, actually gained anything from the massive sacrifice that was made what did we get?" - For the people of Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine and Northern France - they got their freedom and liberty Jom. As far as the British go the entire nature of the country, politically, socially and economically was pointed in a new direction, the pre-war days were never going to return, the rate of change might have been described as evolutionary rather than revolutionary but the desire for change was there and people in general were better off in 1939 than they had been in 1914.

"All these points have been raised over and over again and you pair have remained silent on them"

Nope, the bullying and mobbing of Keith A on threads relating to the Great War started when Keith A put up three conclusions reached by modern day historians who specialised in the study of the First World War:

1: That it was through necessity that Great Britain got involved, it was not simply a matter of choice.
2: That in general the population of Great Britain knew and understood why Great Britain had to get involved and that in general they supported and backed the Governments decision.
3: That in General the British Army was well led in comparison to the armies of other combatant nations.

It must be almost two years now that we have argued back and forth. In the main where Keith A, myself and others have put forward factual arguments that can be checked and verified, you and others have put forward rumour, myth, fiction and fairytales which when pressed to provide any substantive evidence to support your claims has resulted in personal insult, bluster and a silence that is deafening - but at no time have any of you ever managed to produce anything of any substance to support your wildly inaccurate and ill-informed claims or beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 07:36 AM

Casualties WW1
So overall the allies suffered more casualties, but that's OK because most of them weren't British.

OK Teribus, just how many Germans did the British manage to kill or maim when they suffered a lessor loss than their allies. Lies, damned lies and statistics spring to mind.

The English, the English, the English are best so up with the English and down with the rest!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 07:55 AM

If the war was "well led" - how was it well led?
If it was a "just war" - why was it just?
If we, the ordinary British, German, French, Belgian.... people, actually gained anything from the massive sacrifice that was made what did we get?
If the world became a better place after the slaughter of so many young man - how did it?
All these points have been raised over and over again and you pair have remained silent on them

We have not remained silent.
As you know I have expressed my views on those things, just as you have.

The difference is that we formed our views from reading history.
They are the views of the people who research and write the history books.

You have either not read, or you have rejected, everything written in the last twenty or thirty years.

Why do you reject the findings of the historians Jim?
Do you think you somehow know more about it than them?

You are entitled to think that, but it makes you a fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 09:23 AM

"We have not remained silent."
Yes you have - you have explained none of them
You denied the war was an Imperial one and since you inadvertently put up a cut-'n-paste declaring it was you have refused to respond
Where have you ever mentioned what the British or anybody got out of the massive sacrifice they made - nowhere!!
Where have you ever shown where the defence of an Empire which massacred ten million of its colonials was just - nowhere!!
Where have you shown that a war based on throwing one group of young men against the other until one side out-slaughtered the other was "well led" and not simple butchery - nowhere!!
You have centered your arguments totally on opinions of historians you have not read and, if truth be known, have no interest in.
Your only interest has been a jingoist "we won the war", just as your involvement here has always been "I won the argument".
"Why do you reject the findings of the historians Jim?"
I do not - I reject your persistent dishonest misuse of them and your total ignorance of what they are actually saying.
I also reject your dishonesty in claiming that nobody has piut up a counter argument to your cut-'n-pastes when you have been bombarded with responses you have ignored - your own historians, when you read what they actually say, prove you wrong.
Why do you pair call the soldiers who fought the war gullible or liars?
Captain Pugwash
I have no idea how your mass of unqualified verbiage is supposed to address the points I made - more bullying bullshit as one would expect from a self-confessed Empire Loyalist who has so much respect for the men who fought the war (not the Generals of course) as "gullible" or "liars" if their experiences didn't fit in with your own jingoism.
You have not addressed one point I have made and you have yet to answer a single question raised by anyone here other than to swamp these this thread with belligerent bullshit.
You are right about one thing - the war was not a matter of choice - it was the result of actions taken by politicians to preserve an Empire - the people who actually fought and died to preserve that Empire had no choice in the matter.
There - I'm sure there are enough typos in that lot to keep you happy for weeks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

By the way - the fact that, in the long run we were more successful butchers than those we fought doesn't make it any less butchery
Comparing like with like still makes it like
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 09:54 AM

I think Jim a more telling statement would be comparing death of a generation with death of a generation is still death of a generation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 10:26 AM

GUEST - 28 Nov 15 - 07:36 AM, Hello Raggy any reason you no longer want to post to this thread under your usual Mudcat ID?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 10:36 AM

What I find sad in the extreme is that amidst all this sabre rattling there still seems to be no concept of the human tragedy behind the statistics. As I said before, I have no reason to doubt anyone's statistics, backed up by historians or god himself if you like. But it still does not detract one iota from the war being a bloody catastrophe. OK, going to war may have been the lesser of the two evils. But that still makes it an evil. Nothing will ever change an evil to something good, no matter how many statistics you throw at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 10:38 AM

Thought I covered the points you raised rather comprehensively - at least both Keith and myself are a damned sight better at answering questions than you and your pals, who have all gone very quiet.

If you still hold to your ancient and long discredited myths then I challenge you to put a bit of meat on the bones of those preposterous stories you cling to so dearly. All part and parcel of your bigotry and your hatred and loathing of having been born in England.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 10:43 AM

What sabre rattling Gnome? Otherwise I'd agree with everything that you state about the war being a tragedy it undoubtedly was, but that does not detract one iota from the fact that it did have to be fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 10:58 AM

"Thought I covered the points you raised rather comprehensively - at least both Keith and myself are a damned sight better at answering questions than you and your pals"
No you didn't - not one.
You bully, bluster and bullshit with pronouncements you don't qualify with proof, and Keith scurries behind historians he has neither read nor understands.
I couldn't count the number of times you've stonewalled questions with silence - both of you - rather like the Billy Connolly suggestion - "If you wan't to confuse a policeman, ask him a question" .
You appear to regard your own utterances as some soet of divine gospel.
"I think Jim a more telling statement would be comparing death of a generation with death of a generation is still death of a generation."
Right on!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:10 AM

Back to this year's Royal British Legion's Festival of Remembrance and a couple of things I found out about it.

Megan L (10 Nov 15 - 08:29 AM) posted her disappointment and mentioned "what a fiasco some Italian warbling away" Presumably that was Andrea Bocelli who throughout the rehearsals and both matinee and evening performances was extremely ill, if he wasn't at the Royal Albert Hall rehearsing or performing he was in hospital - when asked if he wished to cancel he said that performing at this festival of remembrance was too great an honour to pass up.

The programme is not broadcast live and the BBC records both matinee and evening performances then cobbles together the programme that is broadcast at 9 o'clock on the Saturday evening. The one bit they have to take from the evening performance is the drumhead service as for the matinee performance the floor of the Royal Albert Hall where the drumhead service is held is given over to seating for the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:11 AM

What sabre rattling Gnome?

There's one. Rattle, rattle. Mind you don't cut yourself. Luckily I have a thick skin and petty little jibes don't worry me. Glad you agree that the war was a tragedy though. Maybe if more people remembered that there would be fewer volunteers to be cannon fodder in politicians disagreements. We can but live in hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM

"You bully, bluster and bullshit with pronouncements you don't qualify with proof,"

Really? What pronouncements?
That Great Britain was on the side that won the war? That is bluster and bullshit? What planet do you live on Jom?

That the British Army suffered roughly half the casualties suffered by either the French or the Germans? Simple matter of record Jom - Do us all a favour and look that up for yourself.

As to qualifying statements with proof:

1: Provide proof that Kitchener was forced to resign - that was one of your myths wasn't it Jom - Floors yours Jom now what was the date of his resignation and who succeeded him and when?

2: Provide proof that the Thomas Kenny you interviewed ever served in the British Army.

3: Provide proof backed by substantive evidence that British Troops were summarily executed by the Military Police, Special Groups of Military Policemen or by their own officers. I ask Jom because I have searched long and hard to find any mention of any such incident and have come up with nothing - you on the otherhand wanted to believe it and did no checking whatsoever.

If there is anyone blustering its you Jom - who was that stretcher-bearer historian who served during the Great War again?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:31 AM

What's the matter Gnome can't you answer a direct question?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Pendant
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:40 AM

Following your logic Teribus the American Generals must have been the best they lost far fewer troops. I am sure that you and Keith are delighted to know this. World War 1 Troop Stats (Allied Powers)


Statistics

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:47 AM

Yes, I can thankyou, teribums. Can you not understand my answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:58 AM

Teribus says Harry Forest = Musket. Even his maths is wonky.

Of course, being eager to believe something you want to believe runs through anything Tetibus or Keith A of Hertford types. Says it all really.

Sorry, Woodcock old lad, I'm not a Musket. If he'll have me, I can send him my cv, but there you go.

Or actually you go, along the lines of;

Ahh {insert name of anyone about to be taken out of context} waffle waffle bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 12:21 PM

Sorry Guest Pendant I wasn't aware that during the First World War that the United States of America numbered among those considered to be the major combatant powers in 1914.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Pedant
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 12:26 PM

Oh I get the picture. The Amercans don't count.

Lies, damned lies, statistics rule KO ?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 12:41 PM

"What pronouncements?"
All your statements are pronouncements - no proof as backing
"That Great Britain was on the side that won the war?
What has that to do with anything other than the "Good Leaders" that sent the men over the top were ruthlessly prepared to do so - doesn't ake for good leadership, doesn't change the fact that it was an Imperialist war..... has nothing to do with the questions I raised, which you are still not answering
we know who won.
"Provide proof that Kitchener was forced to resign"Been there - done that".
"Provide proof that the Thomas Kenny you interviewed ever served in the British Army."
Prove he didn't - we have his statements saying he did - all archived.
Prove I am lying or Tommy Kenny was - have given you the names of those who were with us so we all must be lying.
"Provide proof backed by substantive evidence that British Troops were summarily executed by the Military Police"
I have given links to people who either there or had relatives who were there.
More lying veterans -eh what - why do we bother paying tribute to these lying bastards each year? (or maybe you only do so to those who agree with you)
What a nasty piece of work you are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 12:58 PM

Jim and Dave,
But it still does not detract one iota from the war being a bloody catastrophe.

I agree.
I am sure Teribus agrees.
I have never read of any historian who does not agree.
Hastings actually called his book "Catastrophe."

Jim, you say you do not reject the findings of the historians, but you do.
All but one conclude that Britain was right to resist the invading aggressor.
All agree that the British people accepted that.
All agree that the British Army was generally well led.
You still reject all that, but it has been the consensus for years.
You think you know better, but how could you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:01 PM

Jim you have read no history for twenty years.
If you deny that, tell us who you have read, because I am aware of none that support your views.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST, Pendant
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

Hey Greg, How does that feel, all the Yanks who died or were maimed don't count a tinkers cuss* to the likes of Teribus and Keith. (* British expression that means f**k all
Must be wonderful to know much their sacrifice meant to the Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM

Pendant, you must be reading something else.
Nothing like that has been said on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Pedant
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:19 PM

Perhaps it may have passed by you Keith but going by the numbers American Generals were better than the British.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:41 PM

Hey Greg, How does that feel

No worries; I wouldn't expect any less from the Professor & Terribyte Show. More than enything else, the SOS is profoundly boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:42 PM

"Jim you have read no history for twenty years."
Piss off Keith - you have no idea what I have read
This is typical of the stupidity of some of your statements.
How can you possibly know what I have read - did one of your historians tell you?
Must be true then
I have o intention of joining your "My historian is bigger than yours" game - you've had the information of what your own historians actually said - how about responding to that?
Do not call me a liar - not with your record of persistent lying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:52 PM

"I have never read of any historian who does not agree."
That sentence if four words too long
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM

Ah Guest Pendant I see that you have now managed to get your name right, finally got it at the third attempt. Now which one of the usual suspects are you, adopting a new Guest identity, my guess is either Shaw or Raggy.

As you brought it up when was it that the United States of America enter the war? Was it August 1914 or April 1917.

Perhaps you could tell us all who it was that provided the men of the US Army with weapons, machine guns, artillery, transport, aircraft and ammunition? Tell us when it was that they arrived in sufficient numbers to be deployed, how they were deployed, and where they were deployed.

Perhaps you could tell us the first time they operated under Pershing as a US Army?

And of course you could explain that an army that fought for four years and three months would have higher casualty figures that an Army that fought for less that ten months. Perhaps this might be of interest:

" After the Allies turned back the powerful final German offensive (Spring Offensive of March to July, 1918), the Americans played a role in the Allied final offensive (Hundred Days Offensive of August to November). Many American commanders used the same flawed tactics which the British and French had abandoned early in the war, and so not all American offensives were particularly effective. Pershing continued to commit troops to full- frontal attacks, resulting in high casualties against veteran German units."

I suppose that you will now come back and suggest that the Japanese had better Generals - they didn't suffer any losses, but there again they didn't fight in France for four years and three months as did the British, the French, the Belgians and the Germans - Now "Pendant" if you compare the casualties suffered by the major combatant powers of 1914 that would be a case of comparing apples to apples. Now Raggy likes moving goalposts and this "Pendant" is just yet another instance of it. A bit difficult when you run into someone with a special interest in the period and a greater knowledge of it than most on this forum isn't it Raggy?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Pendant
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 02:45 PM

I do not think you would recognise the truth if it came and bit you on the bum. Your dismissal of all the troops is appalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 03:32 PM

Oh by the way "Pendant" the US statistics for KIA are wrong in the link you supplied - that gave them as being ~120,000+. US KIA was only ~60,000 the others died of diseases primarily Spanish Influenza.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Pedant
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 03:42 PM

Then the American Generals were even better than first thought

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 03:47 PM

OK then Pendant as you seem unable or unwilling to do any spade work for yourself (Very much like Raggy IIRC) I will provide you with some answers:

April 1917 the USA declared War on Germany, it then took Congress until December 1917 to declare war on the Austro-Hungarians and they never ever got round to declaring war on either Bulgaria or the Ottoman Empire. Which backs up the next bit that between April 1917 and April 1918 the USA although in the war was in total chaos, they had done nothing whatsoever to prepare for taking part in the war.

By the start of the German Spring Offensive of 1918 Pershing considered that it would be at least one more year until the US Army would be in any sort of state to be deployed in the line. The German offensive speeded things up a bit and US Army Units were given "quiet" sections of line in the French Sectors - Some units of the USMC fought alongside the British.

Britain and France provided the US Army with ALL the arms, equipment and ammunition that they required, the Americans themselves came over with nothing, because they simply did not have it.

By the way petulant Pendant what dismissal of all troops? Personally I have the greatest respect for them all, more than can be said for you and your pals.

OK Raggy what GUEST persona are you going to adopt next?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 04:01 PM

Black Jack Pershing had the distinction of ordering 3500of his own troops to their deaths after the armistice was signed. He was at least as incompetent as Haig, and I understand that the two very much admired each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:01 PM

"Ah Guest Pendant I see that you have now managed to get your name right, finally got it at the third attempt. Now which one of the usual suspects are you, adopting a new Guest identity, my guess is either Shaw or Raggy."

Well Billy Woodcock, which identity are you going to adopt next? Benito friggin' Musso, or Genghis bleedin' Khan, perhaps? Do you know summat, old bean, I've spent the last couple of weeks repeating myself with some obsessive Christian ex-moderator who thinks I'm out to get him and his sacred tenets to persuade him and his acolytes that I'm doing no such thing, and, frankly, it gets right on my tits, it does (though I'm not bitter). So here I go again, repeating myself. Numero uno, I am not in on the substantive of this thread, so stop dragging me in. Numero duo, I swear to almighty God, to almighty Clapton and to uber-almighty Ludwig Van Beethoven that any post that you ever see here that is not under the name "Steve Shaw" is not by me. If I spot an interloper misusing my name I pounce straight away. If my cookie has crumbled and I show up as Guest I correct it immediately. I absolutely can't stand dishonesty. I'd rather die. So why don't you just just bugger off with your daft insinuations, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:21 PM

As incompetent as Haig Dave?
Incompetent enough to win.
Incompetent enough to command the most successful offensive campaign ever fought by the British Army in its entire history.
Incompetent enough to learn and adapt his tactics along every step of the way from command of his first attack at Neuve-Chapelle until the end of the war.

I can think of a whole host of German Generals who would have given their eye-teeth to have been as incompetent as Sir Douglas Haig.

Pershing? Too bloody keen to prove a point, too ignorant to listen to those who'd been facing and overcoming the actual problems over a period of three years, simply a commander with no real command or combat experience. Latter day examples Lucas who was in command of the landings at Anzio, Omar Bradley's refusal of specialist armour for Omaha Beach, Westmoreland in Vietnam who instead of translating and using the intelligence files the French had left had them burned.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:32 PM

Ooh Stevie - watch that blood pressure now.

Mind you some of it gave me a really good chuckle - especially the bit about you swearing to Almighty God - I could just imagine the spittle spraying the computer screen as you hammered the keys typing that little rant - hope the damn thing's insured, your better when you're babbling on about beer.

Oh and wouldn't take your word on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 06:44 PM

Well don't then. But the fact that you can spout such rubbish about me is perfect testimony, to me at least, that we can't really trust anything you say. Which is a bloody pity, considering you clearly know what you're talking about a lot of the time. Talk about baby and bathwater. By the way, even though you're mercifully silent on those dastardly God threads, it's good to know that you've noticed my occasional atheistic chagrin. Long may we entertain each other. Tit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 12:59 AM

"But the fact that you can spout such rubbish about me is perfect testimony, to me at least, that we can't really trust anything you say."

Cuts both ways then doesn't it. By the way who's the "we"? Is it a "royal" we - or the "gang" I normally refer to as "the usual suspects" whose sole apparent mission on this forum is to "mob" and bully Keith A? If you look back to the beginning you will find that that was the drift of my very first contribution to any thread about WWI - Nice to know that you consider that I "clearly know what I am talking about a lot of the time" - Careful now you might lose your street cred making comments like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 04:02 AM

Jim,
Piss off Keith - you have no idea what I have read

I know you have read nothing from the last twenty years Jim, because none of that supports your views.
Prove me wrong.
Quote someone.

Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up.
We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you.
We have never suggested that any life is worth more or less than another.
We have just compared armies using indicators like casualties, mutinies and successes. On such indicators, ours emerges as the best led army in the field.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 04:57 AM

Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up.

What stuff have I made up then, Keith? Or did you just make that up?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 05:38 AM

Keith
The repetitious and somewhat disturbing nati#ure of your postings has taken on the nature of the feeble minded (very politically incorrect I am sure, but summing up your behaviour here)
You ask for examples - you have been given them over and over again - try reading your own unread historians - Max Hastings will do for a start (Nope that won't do - doesn't suit so it's all lies)
You have dismissed historians you haven;''t read because they doesn't fit - you have called the men who fought liars because what they say doesn't fit.
The people of Britain have always known how badly the war was led and what a useless bloodbath it was - so last year, a century after the war started, the establishment mounted a campaign to repatriate its reputation - pretending that we had got our knowledge from Blackadder and Oh What a Lovely War - how ****** insulting can you get.
All our families were affected by that ****** adventure - we lost a grandfather and another spent his life with his head bowed because he didn't want people to see the horrific gas burns.
Tommy Kenny - the man we recorded for three days (me, John Faulkner, Sandra Kerr and his grandson Colin, a leading virologist in Queen Mary's Hospital, Paddington at the time) told us exactly how it was - being conned into joining in workless Liverpool having not long left school, the brutality of the officers, the mud, the executions..... and eventually having the outer parts of hes ears blown off by when a piece of artillery misfired.
Your response - all lies - all made up - Tommy never served in the forces.
You were once given and account by Irish author Patrick Magill who, having been wounded at Loos, describing the disillusionment that was present as early as 1915 - totally ignored.
The Paxman programmes showed the pressure of the recruiting methods - the profiteering that went on to send young men to their deaths, the unpreparedness of the defences of Britain, the cock up at Loos, the wrong ammunition, soldiers returning on t
leave to find that the better off were living as if nothing was happening and their total disillusionment in the war - you still insist that it was a glorious fight, well supported
You have been given evidence by people who were there of summary executions - those who gave it were dismissed by you as gullible or liars.
Your evidence to the contrary - carefully selected partial quotes from less than half a dozen 'historians' (Hastings isn't a historian by your own insisted criterion) who are writing a century after the events AND WHO YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ - JUST SELECTED THE OUT OF CONTEXT JUICY BITS      
What are you people on - who do you think you are calling veterans liars because they don't serve your jingoistic cause?
You claim I haven';t read a book - I have, but that's beside the point - you certainly haven't though you have consistently lied, claiming you have made a life-long study of the wat - you described one of the major pre-war vents in Germany as "made up rubbish" - that's how muchg of a study you have made of World War One.
You are a joke and a total waste of space
If you have an honest , sensible argument - feel free to put it - I've listed the aspects you hae totally ignored (you even lied about that)
What kind of sadistic morrons are you pair, to dare defend the decimation of an entire generation and to describe those who made the sacrifice as "liars" and "believers of urban legends"
You are a disgrace
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 09:02 AM

Never mind Keith Jom what about the repetitious and somewhat disturbing nature of your postings.

You have failed to comprehend what Paxman narrated in his programmes. You have failed to comprehend what was actually said by Sir Max Hastings FrHistS as you desperately cling to those dearly held myths of yours. There is no point in providing you with any information you simply choose to ignore it irrespective of source and veracity - you mentally stick your fingers in your ears and go Laa Laa Laa.

We have dismissed the works of commenting historians who are not experts and specialists on the study of the First World War as they have not done the research. We have dismissed the earlier works of some historians whose works and conclusions have been discredited in the light of new information that was not available to them at the time they published their work.

"you have called the men who fought liars because what they say doesn't fit."

No we believe the mass of evidence provided by the those who most certainly and verifiably fought that makes no mention of the monstrous allegations that you have made.

"The people of Britain have always known how badly the war was led and what a useless bloodbath it was"

On whose authority do you speak for the people of Britain you ignorant arrogant scrambler? You have no right at all to make such a claim.

Tommy Kenny - the man we recorded for three days (me, John Faulkner, Sandra Kerr and his grandson Colin, a leading virologist in Queen Mary's Hospital, Paddington at the time) told us exactly how it was - being conned into joining in workless Liverpool having not long left school, the brutality of the officers, the mud, the executions..... and eventually having the outer parts of hes ears blown off by when a piece of artillery misfired.

So now we add a bit more meat to the bones:

1: Under the Balfour Education Act of 1902 Tommy would have left school at 15. Would you call a period of three years not long left school? To enlist in the British Army of the day as a Regular you had to be 18 - you could not be sent overseas until you were 19. As a Territorial part-timer you could join at 17, but the 19 year restriction on overseas service still applied. Now if he was "conned into joining" the Army it means he was not conscripted and according to Jom nobody volunteered after March 1916. The war started in August 1914 Jom so it looks as though your Tommy Kenny if he served in France between August 1914 and March 1916 must have joined the Army in peacetime.

2: "Workless Liverpool"? Here is a description of Liverpool covering the period 1900 to 1916:

"During the first part of the 20th century Liverpool continued to expand, pulling in immigrants from Europe. In 1903 an International Exhibition took place in Edge Lane. In 1904, the building of the Anglican Cathedral began, and by 1916 the three Pier Head buildings, including the Liver Building, were complete. This period marked the pinnacle of Liverpool's economic success, when it regarded itself as the "second city" of the British Empire"

3: Your response - all lies - all made up - Tommy never served in the forces.

Sorry Jom but it was not me who interviewed and recorded Tommy Kenny's story in such a way that it could not be verified that was down to you, John Faulkner, Sandra Kerr and his grandson Colin all of whom failed to ask Tommy Kenny the right questions. Your approach to research and attention to detail is appallingly slapdash - it was YOU and your "team" that rendered the disservice to Tommy Kenny by ensuring that his story could not be checked or verified, not myself or Keith A.

4: the brutality of the officers, the mud, the executions..... and eventually having the outer parts of hes ears blown off by when a piece of artillery misfired."

So Tommy Kenny must have been an Artilleryman or serving in a Corps attached to the Artillery. He would therefore have never been in a front line trench as the artillery was not positioned there.

As for Patrick Magill wounded at Loos in 1915 he returned to England, recovered from his wounds and spent the remainder of the war in England assigned to MI7b writing propaganda. I dare say he was disillusioned after Loos in 1915 - nowhere near as disillusioned, or as pissed-off as Lieutenant-General Sir Douglas Haig after Loos in 1915.

That date is important to you isn't it Jom, because that is when your script seems to stop. For some weird reason you seem to believe that at 1915 everything pertaining to the First World War somehow gets frozen - you are wrong it didn't. Haig took over and from that point onward we started learning. But 1915 is the date and period covered by Alan Clark's book "The Donkeys" in which Clark himself admitted years after publication that he had made stuff up, it was this book that was used as the basis for Greenwood's "Oh What A Lovely War", so you ended up with shit based upon shit - but you believed it didn't you Jom - was that because MacColl/Miller told you to?

"You have been given evidence by people who were there of summary executions"

No we haven't, we've been given vague references to rumours of summary executions that are entirely lacking any corroboration, all down to your slapdash work. You cannot tell where, when or who, just what the f**k were you thinking about when you all interviewed Tommy Kenny? Truly verifiable accounts of life at the front and in the trenches abound in the form of soldiers memoirs and autobiographies and not one of them contains any reference at all to summary executions, or of Military Police forcing men to go over the top.

The gold standard indication that the British people supported the war effort throughout the war - no civil unrest in the country through the entire course of the war.

The gold standard indication of the moral of the British Army in France throughout the war - There was no mutiny in any unit of the British Army deployed to the front throughout the entire course of the war.

The evidence we submit to counter your fairytale version of events massively outweighs your "stories" (And they are just stories because of your handling of them).

"you have consistently lied, claiming you have made a life-long study of the war" - I do not think I have ever claimed making a life long study, life long interest I think is the way it was put and that came about because at the College I attended the study of both the First and Second World Wars was compulsory reading.

As for the Made Up Shit it has become your trade mark Jom and it is you that I have accused as being the "believer of urban myths" - You've been caught out too many times.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 09:14 AM

Terrytoon - if you're still there
You claim you can find the record of all servicemen with ease, and on that basis, you have denied the service record of Tommy Kenny
My family includes several with service records - would be grateful for your assistance in confirming them
My Uncle Gerry (Carroll) served in Europe during WW2, and was decorated for exceptional bravery under fire.
He was later tried and convicted by the army for refusing to go to Greece to train fascists during the Civil War there.
Who was he, where did he serve, what was he awarded his medal for and what regiment was he in?
There - you have three times the amount of information than you had on Tommy - should be a piece of cake for someone with your super-human skills.
More to come, when you reel off that one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 09:27 AM

Underage Soldiers

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 09:41 AM

The youngest British soldier on record was 12 years old when he enlisted and Thirteen when he fought on The Somme
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 09:53 AM

"You claim you can find the record of all servicemen with ease, and on that basis, you have denied the service record of Tommy Kenny"

Where have I claimed that I can find the record of all servicemen with ease?

Where have I denied the service record of Tommy Kenny? I did some research and found the existence of the service records of the only six Tommy Kenny's on record as having served in the British Army during the First World War so what are you prattling about?

By the way Jom did your Uncle Gerry tell you what regiment he served in? Did he ever mention where he served? Ever asked yourself the question why "your" Tommy Kenny didn't. One thing is for sure Jom if ever I had seen an officer or a military policeman carry-out a summary execution of anyone serving with me then the following information would be seared in my memory:

1: Who was executed
2: Who executed them
3: Where it happened
4: When it happened

In short every damn detail of the murder

Yet Tommy Kenny could tell you absolutely nothing about the detail - and you swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker.

"would be grateful for your assistance in confirming them" No you wouldn't - use your own money to do your own research it is after all your family in which I have no interest whatsoever.

But I see you are now trying to deflect things away from WWI

Good article GHOST don't know why you posted it - I have never denied that boys lied about their age to get into the Forces in time of war.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM

" So now we add a bit more meat to the bones:

1: Under the Balfour Education Act of 1902 Tommy would have left school at 15. Would you call a period of three years not long left school? To enlist in the British Army of the day as a Regular you had to be 18 - you could not be sent overseas until you were 19. As a Territorial part-timer you could join at 17, but the 19 year restriction on overseas service still applied. Now if he was "conned into joining" the Army it means he was not conscripted and according to Jom nobody volunteered after March 1916. The war started in August 1914 Jom so it looks as though your Tommy Kenny if he served in France between August 1914 and March 1916 must have joined the Army in peacetime"

No, not exactly denying it could happen. But if you look at Section 4 you will find that most underage volunteers managed to get in during 1914/15 something that you seem to overlook.

One more thing, regarding Tommy Kenny, some people know that about 70% of Army records were destroyed during WW2. Thus your argument about not finding pertinent records could be a little misleading to others.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM

"Where have I claimed that I can find the record of all servicemen with ease?"
Yes you have - you dismissed Tommy's service record on the basis that you couldn't find it - what other reason could you possibly have given
You actually gave (four, I think) soldiers of that name - made up, apparently.
You have blown it at the first fence - you are a bluffing load of bollocks
Z - minus on all accounts, I;'m afraid
"Yet Tommy Kenny could tell you absolutely nothing about the detail "
I didn't say he couldn't
His family has his war record - we recorded him at the request of them - we didn't bother covering what they already knew - it was an interview on his experiences.
And you still haven't responded to the questions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 11:25 AM

"Would you call a period of three years not long left school?"
"Under the Balfour Education Act of 1902 Tommy would have left school at 15"
"The year 1918 saw the introduction of the Education Act 1918, commonly also known as the Fisher Act as it was devised by Herbert Fisher. The act enforced compulsory education from 5–14"
Up to the passing of the Fisher act the school leaving age was twelve.
He lied about his age - I have no idea what age he was when he left school
Lads were being shipped out to fight on The Somme as early as 13 years old.
What convoluted machinations are you working on now to prove a veteran a liar?
There's no depths you won't sink to to denigrate these men, is there?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM

Hang on, I'll just pop over to Northern France.

Right, back now.

I've checked the fields upon fields of white slabs and as far as I can tell, they are still dead.

Presumably someone is responsible?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 12:43 PM

GUEST - 29 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM - hello Raggy I wondered when you would pop up again, given up and got confused as to whether it was Pendant or Pedant?

"I've checked the fields upon fields of white slabs and as far as I can tell, they are still dead.

Presumably someone is responsible?"

Yes Raggy - the enemy and as things turn out there are fields of Black Crosses far more of those than the white slabs you looked at and they too are all still dead and our forefathers, British, Commonwealth & Empire, Frenchmen and Belgians were responsible for their deaths - you see Raggy there was a war going on a war that neither our forefathers, British, Commonwealth & Empire, Frenchmen and Belgians were responsible for, and in war Raggy men die.

The Balfour Education Act that came into force in 1902

Fisher Act of 1918 is irrelevant to the point being discussed.

As for ship loads of 12 and 13 year olds being bundled off to war - that is total bunk the example you gave was one of two so please just for once in your rantings try and inject just a hint of perspective. The boy who was present at the Battle of the Somme was physically truly remarkable for the time - how many 12 year olds even today do you know that are 6' 2"tall requirement for the Army of the day was 5' 3" with no birth certificates no wonder he passed the physical requirements.

The other thing that neither yourself Jom or you Raggy seem to be able to grasp is the fact that when in 1914 all those volunteers came flooding forwards the Army couldn't do anything with them so they were told to go home and await their call up so someone who volunteered in 1914 didn't just walk through a door to be marched off issued with a uniform put through basic training to be then given a gun and packed off to the front. In 1914 and early 1915 the priority was to get the reserves and the territorials back into uniform and up to speed.

If Tommy Kenny's family have his service records then Jom I would advise you to get back in touch with them and then you could really take a swipe at the British Government, Army and establishment and press for a full investigation of these murders witnessed by Tommy Kenny - Now I suggest that course of action knowing full well that you will not lift your arse out of your comfy chair in Milton Malby - because you know it will lead to nothing as there were no summary executions - your Tommy Kenny story seems to change all the time - in fact every time you are drip fed information by me with regard to its inconsistencies. Not very credible at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM

So Jim, the only historian who supports your views is Hastings.
You have failed to produce any quote he has made that supports you.
Here is an actual quote.
Are these your view Jim?

"The fact that Britain sacrificed so many lives to prevent the triumph of Germany's militarists should be a matter of pride to those men's modern descendants, not grounds for ministers to take refuge in empty platitudes
That view (believing implicitly in the rightness of our cause) was far more widely held by Mellersh's contemporaries than the 'futility' vision of Owen, Sassoon and their kin."

"It seems hugely important that in preparing for this centenary commemoration, our Government and national institutions should seek to explain to a new generation that World War I was critical to the freedom of Western Europe.
Far from dying in vain, those who perished in the King's uniform between 1914 and 1918 made as important a contribution to our privileged, peaceful lives today as did their sons in World War II."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2339189/MAX-HASTINGS-Sucking-Germans-way-remember-Great-War-heroes-Mr-Cameron.html#ixzz3su6dK6Je

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 01:02 PM

"Fisher Act of 1918 is irrelevant to the point being discussed."
Nioo it isn't you eejit - you suggested Tommy had to be 15 when he left school - he could have been twelve
Any luck with Uncle Gerry's details yet
Any chance you are going to respond to my points - you said you and Keith were good at it.
I'll take that as a no to all
Snide comments about what Tommy saw have become par of the course for you
Shall I include Harry Patch's or those who also reported it happening that I have to contact?
You get slimier and slimier in your jingoism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM

Jim, here is another veteran.

Most veterans rejected the 'poets' view'. One old soldier, named Henry Mellersh, declared in 1978 that he wholeheartedly rejected the notion that the war was 'one vast, useless, futile tragedy, worthy to be remembered only as a pitiable mistake'.
Instead, wrote Mellersh: 'I and my like entered the war expecting an heroic adventure and believing implicitly in the rightness of our cause; we ended greatly disillusioned as to the nature of the adventure, but still believing that our cause was right and we had not fought in vain.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2339189/MAX-HASTINGS-Sucking-Germans-way-remember-Great-War-heroes-Mr-Cameron.html#ixzz3suChnmXm

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up.

What stuff have I made up then, Keith? Or did you just make that up?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 02:01 PM

As I said Dave,
"Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up.
We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 02:04 PM

Jim, you shouted this in red capitals.
The crap review was written by historian David Crane - ONE OF THE "REAL" HISTORIANS YOU PUT UP IN DEFENCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT WAY BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS

It is made up.
Untrue.
A lie.

A decent person would retract and apologise, in red capitals.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 02:15 PM

I do wish you would equate me with Dave the Gnome. I have said previously we have met, shared a pint, I've enjoyed his company and his singing and hopefully will do so again.

However we are NOT joined at the hip, he is more than capable of forming his own views. An intelligent, articulate man who does not require me to back him up.

Unlike some on here who couldn't wipe their own arse without directions.

Just in case you don't understand that Professor that is you.

Mod, I don't care if you delete this, KAOH is a wanker of the first degree, and yes I have had a pint or three,

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

Remember the whole post Rag.
I only quoted the first two lines.
I did not equate you both.
I left your bit out because I was replying to Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 03:08 PM

We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you.

Did I ever say that you had rattled sabres, Keith. or did you just make that up?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 03:14 PM

BTW, you say

As I said Dave,
"Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up.
We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you."

I cannot find that quote. Did you make it up or were you mistaken?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM

1. "Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up"


2. "I did not equate you both"


3. Is it me who cannot understand the written language ?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM

Sorry - Repeated question due to poor internet response. Still valid though. I don't think I ever said that you have rattled any sabres, Keith. Did I?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 03:26 PM

1. Don't worry Dave, he will deny he's ever said that you and I are as one, as in:

"Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up"

2. The mere fact it has been copied here twice will not count.

He will deny he's ever accused you of saying he said you accused him of "sabre rattling".

3. The mere fact that it is here for all to see will not register in his febrile mind.

4. Why do we bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM

Thanks, Raggy. It doesn't really matter though, does it. Keith suggests that I have done something and I am instantly on the back foot, denying it. Whether I did something or not does not matter. People who are on Keith's 'side' will instantly believe it. It is the way things work, sadly.

If I was to say, for instance, that Keith dresses in Bishop's robes and ladies knickers while riding a unicycle, some people would believe it. The damage is done. Sorry Keith.

Well, not really...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:17 AM

Now it would appear that the Gnome and Raggytash are reduced, like the anonymous GUEST posts, to merely contributing "white noise" – So many posts so little said, but par for the course as that comic duo are concerned, It is all that that they are capable of.

As to "sabre" rattling? Well someone who is "obviously interested in the subject [i.e. The First World War] and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum. Wouldn't have to rattle any sabres when discussing "the subject" would they Raggytash?

It must really get to you that Keith A is so immune to your constant mobbing and bullying – how long is it now that you have been trying to drive him from this forum without the slightest indication of success?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:35 AM

Whats the matter Musktwat? On threads/subjects where your second team are being routed right, left and centre, can't they get them closed down quick enough for you? Your last post sums you up perfectly, and serves to make you look the biggest and thickest cnut {Anag} ever to post on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:40 AM

Dave your post 28 Nov 15 - 10:36 AM

"What I find sad in the extreme is that amidst all this sabre rattling there still seems to be no concept of the human tragedy behind the statistics. As I said before, I have no reason to doubt anyone's statistics, backed up by historians or god himself if you like.

I did assume you were referring to Teribus and me.
If you say you were not, I will have to apologise.
Please tell us who it WAS aimed at Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM

Guest 29 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM , I did not equate them.
I addressed my post to them both, then referred separately to what they had each said.

Has anyone yet found a single historian of recent decades who contradicts T or me?
No.

Has anyone yet found an historian who rubbishes the old myths Jim still clings to?
Yes! We have quoted lots!

Jim rejects current historical knowledge.
Jim's views are not based on evidence, just political dogma.

Unless and until any of you can find any historian who still believes that shit, this discussion is stalled.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:50 AM

"Jim, you shouted this in red capitals."
I don't "shout" Keith I emphasise for the idiotic.
Nor do I lie - I have no need to the idiots usually make it unecessary for me to do so even if I wanted to.
I certainly make mistakes, and unlike some, try to acknowledge them and apoloogise for them - you have yet to reach that stage of discussion.
Want me to provide a list of all the times you have denied saying something and have bee shown that you have, and on occasion, go on to repeat what you have just denied?
One veteran doesn't make a summer Keith - what is being denied and ignored here is not what veterans said, but the process in making some people believe what they believed.You claim "all historins support what you say, having read none and having cut-'n-pasted out of context quotes from less than half a dozen.
When someone has said something that goes against your jingoism, you leap on the chair and squeal "liar", and when it is shown clearly that one of your historians obviously doesn't back your case it becomes necessary to drag out the defibrillator.
You still haven't responded to my points, though you have both (lyingly) claimed you have.
Nor have you explained why respectable journals like The Spectator should publish all those nasty lies about Max Hastings
Hastings responded to the review, by the way - and did not deny what crane had written; just that he had misunderstood one point.
(From the Spectator)
"David Crane wrote generously in last week's books pages about my 1914 history, Catastrophe. I was dismayed that he should think I 'hate' the British army. On the contrary, I have loved it all my life, but want its reputation to rest on its achievements, not on jingo legends."
A lesson to be learned by you pair in that last sentence.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:59 AM

Jim,
The crap review was written by historian David Crane - ONE OF THE "REAL" HISTORIANS YOU PUT UP IN DEFENCE OF YOUR ARGUMENT WAY BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS

That WAS a lie and a blatant one.
Google searching Mudcat proves that I never used him to defend my views.
He has never written anything on WW1.
You did lie Jim, and you should retract in the same font.

You now know that Crane had got it wrong about Hastings.
He "loves" the army because of its "achievements."

You reject current historical knowledge Jim.
Your views are not based on evidence, just political dogma.

Unless and until any of you can find any historian who still believes that shit, this discussion is stalled.
Can you Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM

From that same Spectator piece by Hastings himself.
He rubbishes all of you views, and agrees mine.
So does every other historian of recent decades.
I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.


"The looming centenary of the outbreak of the first world war offers an opportunity to break away from the Blackadder/Oh! What a Lovely War vision (incompetence), which dominates popular perceptions. Nobody sane suggests a celebration. But, in place of the government's professed 'non-judgmental' approach to commemoration, ministers could assert that although the war was assuredly ghastly, it was not futile. Whatever the shortcomings of the Treaty of Versailles, a peace imposed by a victorious Germany would have been much worse. David Cameron often mentions with pride Britain's role in resisting Hitler. In 2014, it would be good to hear him acknowledge that Britain, and those who died in her name, were also right to resist the Kaiser's generals."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:27 AM

"He rubbishes all of you views, and agrees mine"
Yet he accepts that Crane's review was a fair one - which is proof that what you are putting as proof is only a small part of his ideas.
I have no brief for Hastings - he is an extremist right winger with a right-wing political agenda - but he is also critical of how the war was led and conduced and as is indicated by his acceptance of the review.
He is not the historian you claim is necessary for the ones we have produced an you have rejected and - as I said - you have either been very selective or very stupid in your use of him.
He didn't think it was "a crap review" as you claimed (not having read the ***** book)
How stupidly arrogant can you get?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:37 AM

it's one thing to be called something. it's another to then type out a few posts removing all possible doubt.

Teams being routed? Perhaps someone should get out more. Is anybody who doesn't share your personality disorder a team member then? Talk about paranoid narcissism.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:44 AM

Yet he accepts that Crane's review was a fair one

Yes, except for the bit you seized on which he says Crane misread or misunderstood.
You can find no hjistorian who still believes that old shit you cling to. Hastings certainly does not.

I get my history from history books.
That is what normal, intelligent people do.
You imagine yourself qualified to reject everything written for at least tweny years!

You base your views on political dogma not historical evidence.
Unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1, there is nothing else to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:48 AM

KAOH 29 Nov 04.02AM "Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up. We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you. We have never suggested that any life is worth more or less than another We have just compared armies using indicators like casualties, mutinies and successes. On such indicators, ours emerges as the best led army in the field"

KAOH 30 Nov 03.47AM "Guest 29 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM , I did not equate them. I addressed my post to them both, then referred separately to what they had each said"

Perhaps you could demonstrate using the actual post(above)where you do not equate us as one and where you referred separately to us both.

Will an acknowledgement that you were wrong be forthcoming. Snowballs in hells chance because you NEVER admit you have made a mistake do you Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:54 AM

Guest,

" We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you. "

That was Dave's bit.

"We have never suggested that any life is worth more or less than another We have just compared armies using indicators like casualties, mutinies and successes. On such indicators, ours emerges as the best led army in the field"

That was Rag's bit.
I assumed they would both remember what they said.
Silly me. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 06:22 AM

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 06:44 AM

"You can find no hjistorian who still believes that old shit you cling to."
You've been given them - even from your own unread historians - you ignore them - you are lying.
A historian is ot a god he/she provides to things - researched facts and opinions.
If the facts are well researched - they are unchangeable - without having read any historian, you have challenged enough of them (stupidly arrogant)
I have no problem with researched facts - I have a great problem with opinions - they are not the domain of historians - not their specialty.
The war was fought as one of attrition - throwing young men at each other until one or the other gave up.
Historians who say it was a well led war accept that this is a good, acceptable thing to do to use men as numerical cannon fodder are, in my mind wrong and by today's standard - wrong - it is both inhuman and immoral to treat young men that way, especially as they were given no choice in the matter.
No war is fought like that today - and claiming it was well led is applying a morality dating to the beginning of the twentieth century to today.
By today's standards it was wrong and utterly evil to sacrifice lives in that way.
Even by yesterday's standards, there were horrific undeniable cock ups which indicate it was poorly led - men being told the war was a forgone conclusion and being defeated in battles like Loos - the Gallipoli fiasco, the murderous miscalculation at the opening of the Somme offensive, wrong ammunition - and many others which led to the unnecessary slaughter of many young men.
That is not good leadership by any standards.
The same applies to the justification of the war.
The war was about controlling and retaining colonies - it was an Imperial war in name and nature - and it was WRONG - then and now and it is not the job of any historian to claim otherwise.
You have largely either lied or misquoted your historians - how could you do otherwise - you haven't read any of them - just selected the juicy bits.
That is an extremely stupid thing to do - both Hastings and Kineally blew up in your face, and the extent you were prepared to use two writers (one a historian proper - on a right wing tabloid journalist) has shown you to be stupid, dishonest and entirely lacking in humanity or morality.
You are a mess.
You will not respond to any of this in any depth - not your style, and you will continue to use historians whom you haven't read - to back views that have nothing whatever to do with history - most certainly your style.
Yours is an extremist, right-wing jingoist campaign - if you were interested in history, you would read it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 07:53 AM

You've been given them - even from your own unread historians - you ignore them

Not true.
Name one!
Quote one!
You can't. I have.

You can find no historian who still believes that old shit you cling to.You imagine yourself qualified to reject everything written for at least tweny years!

You base your views on political dogma not historical evidence.
Unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1, you are exposed as a fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

1. I did assume you were referring to Teribus and me.
If you say you were not, I will have to apologise.
Please tell us who it WAS aimed at Dave.

I was not. One apology expected. I am happy to tell you that it refers to ALL the sabre rattling (as in making threatening noises) that goes on both in Mudcat and the real world at the moment.

2. " We have never rattled sabres, we have just put current knowledge before you. "

That was Dave's bit.

But I never said anything remotely similar to that. Second apology in order?

Teribums. Now it would appear that the Gnome and Raggytash are reduced, like the anonymous GUEST posts, to merely contributing "white noise" – So many posts so little said, but par for the course as that comic duo are concerned, It is all that that they are capable of.

I have consistently said I have nothing to contribute to any discussion about WW1. I do not know enough about it. I do know more about human nature and my comments have consistently been about the attitude of some posters on here. If you believe it to be white noise, fine, tune it out. Nothing simpler. You just look like an idiot responding to what you believe is white noise anyway. As to being all I am capable of? No, I am capable of lots of things. But I keep those for discussions with real people, in real life. Not an inconsequential forum with pointless threads and completely insignificant contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM

The latest example of Jom-inese:

"A historian is ot a god he/she provides to things - researched facts and opinions.
If the facts are well researched - they are unchangeable - without having read any historian, you have challenged enough of them (stupidly arrogant)
I have no problem with researched facts - I have a great problem with opinions - they are not the domain of historians - not their specialty.
The war was fought as one of attrition - throwing young men at each other until one or the other gave up.
Historians who say it was a well led war accept that this is a good, acceptable thing to do to use men as numerical cannon fodder are, in my mind wrong and by today's standard - wrong - it is both inhuman and immoral to treat young men that way, especially as they were given no choice in the matter.
No war is fought like that today - and claiming it was well led is applying a morality dating to the beginning of the twentieth century to today.
By today's standards it was wrong and utterly evil to sacrifice lives in that way. "

1: "A historian is not a god he/she provides two things - researched facts and opinions."

Well not exactly Jom, they put in the time study the available evidence, they research and examine it to verify it and then present their work and draw their conclusions based upon the verified facts. The better the information, the wider the research the more pertinent the conclusions - so it is not just opinion. As for opinions there are some of your pals on this forum who proudly boast that their opinions are held on the basis of information that they themselves know to be wrong.

2: "If the facts are well researched - they are unchangeable - without having read any historian, you have challenged enough of them."

Now what facts have either Keith A or myself challenged Jom? You on the other hand have challenged plenty, not surprising really as for you WWI seems to have gone into a perpetual state of hibernation in 1915.

3: "I have no problem with researched facts - I have a great problem with opinions - they are not the domain of historians - not their specialty."

Great pity then that you do no research - up above you incorrectly stated that one of the two things provided by historians are opinions, you now seem to state that they don't or shouldn't - which one is it - as stated above historians in their own works tend to give their conclusions along with justification for drawing those conclusions - very different to a mere opinion.

4: "The war was fought as one of attrition - throwing young men at each other until one or the other gave up.
Historians who say it was a well led war accept that this is a good, acceptable thing to do to use men as numerical cannon fodder are, in my mind wrong and by today's standard - wrong - it is both inhuman and immoral to treat young men that way, especially as they were given no choice in the matter."

Yes it was a war of attrition, it became such a war because there was no other alternative available - As far as the "entente" powers were concerned this was not a matter of choice it was forced upon them as a reality by the Germans under Falkenhayn in 1916.

With an unbroken line of trenches stretching from the Swiss Alps to the North Sea coast of Belgium any attack was restricted to a frontal assault. A frontal assault Jom can only be made by throwing young men at one another until one side or the other prevails, it has been that way since the dawn of time. The Commander who can do that and devise means of doing that while keeping his casualties to a minimum is leading his men well. By this metric alone on the western front of the combatant powers of 1914, the British were undoubtedly the best led.

The period we are discussing Jom is 1914 to 1918 and those who were directing the war effort and those who were commanding armies were faced with dealing with the realities of war in 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. That being the case whatever standards you think exist in 2015 are totally irrelevant in this discussion. To introduce modern day thinking and behaviour and apply it to events in history is idiotic.

5: "No war is fought like that today - and claiming it was well led is applying a morality dating to the beginning of the twentieth century to today."

Are you sure about that Jom?? If things really go pear-shaped in Eastern Ukraine you will find the occasions when frontal assaults will have to be made by one side or the other. Rather mystified about the next bit - claiming WHAT is well led? If you are looking at something that happened at the beginning of the twentieth century then apply the morals and the accepted mores of the beginning of the twentieth century (Sometime you seem incapable of doing Jom)

6: "By today's standards it was wrong and utterly evil to sacrifice lives in that way."

Irrelevant today's standards did not apply in the period 1914 to 1918 - get your head round that and live with it- utterly ludicrous of you to suggest that they could or should.

7: "Even by yesterday's standards, there were horrific undeniable cock ups which indicate it was poorly led"

Completely agree, there were horrific undeniable cock-ups, fortunately for us the Germans on the western front made most of them.

8: "The same applies to the justification of the war.
The war was about controlling and retaining colonies - it was an Imperial war in name and nature - and it was WRONG - then and now and it is not the job of any historian to claim otherwise."

What complete and utter tosh. Yes it was a war of empires:

- The Germans wanted to acquire one both in Europe and overseas by aggression and force of arms
- The Austro-Hungarians wanted to hold onto theirs and destroy Serbia
- The Russians wanted to save Serbia and destabilise and further weaken the Austro-Hungarian Empire
- The British wanted to safeguard their empire
- The French wanted to safeguard theirs

All perfectly good examples of those nations looking after their own interests as they saw them back in 1914 - the fact that YOU think imperial interests are wrong does not make that the case back in 1914. And it is precisely the job of a historian to lay out and explain where each of the combatants were coming from and what their motivations were.

Jom - if you were interested in history, you would read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 09:35 AM

"Well not exactly"
Yes exactly - he or she will take the facts available and apply their own moral judgements to them - extremist right wingers
such as you and Keith will see nothing wrong with sacrificing millions of young lives for territory, wealth and political power whereas a humanitarian or left wing historian will make different moral judgements.
You know this because both of you have dismissed arguments as being "leftie" as if holding left wing views was illegal or immoral enough not to be considered.
" Yes it was a war of empires"
Simple as that - defence of one of those imperial powers that massacred 10 million of its colonials and making that power a poly to persuade young men to join up cannot be regarded as "just" by any standards - today's or yesterdays.
What was happening in the Belgian Congo was well known through Mark Twain's book and was ignored by the "civilised" world - massacres on that scale are indefensible.
The "no alternative" bit came the action of politicians and who made the war a fait accompli
Actually there was an alternative - that which the Russian people took and the 1916 revolutionaries in Ireland aimed for and partially achieved - for the people who were forced to do the fighting to refuse to do so - that's what the Communist International called for when they declared the war an Imperial one.
The fact that all this was based on the situation of the time is exactly the point - we are discussing the rights and wrongs of the war today - not in the second decade of the twentieth century.
You are saying TODAY that the war was well led and justified - I am saying that it was not.
If you7 are going to defend the atrocities of the past on the basis that it was in the past , you may as well justify the horrors of the Inquisition or the persecution that took place during The Reformation.   
We judge these things by today's standards - at least us non-jingoists do.
"fortunately for us the Germans on the western front made most of them."
Oh - that's all right then - after all, they were only young British lives that were being sacrificed!!!
Fist day of the Somme
"By the end of the day, the British had suffered 60,000 casualties, of whom 20,000 were dead: their largest single loss. Sixty per cent of all officers involved on the first day were killed".
I can't be arsed to look up how many died at Loos, or Gallipoli, or through wrong ammo being sent, or all the other cock-ups that took place.
As long as the Germans sacrificed more young men out cock-ups don't count - is that what you're saying?
"Not true. Name one! Quote one!"
Have done so and am tired of doing so.
Your last outburst was when I quoted a summary of Hastings' actual attitude - you threw a wobbler and still haven't had the grace to acknowledge it.
I really am not interested in discussing history with someone who appears to have no knowledge of the subject nor the interest to acquire some.
You want to discuss thew war in the terms I set out, feel free - you want to discuss historians you haven't read - go and find smeone who wants to talk to a disinterested no-nothing.
At last your belligerent mate has made some roads into discussing his somewhat quaintly outdated views - now all he has to do is stop strutting around like a peacock with piles and we might have a reasonable discussion on our hands - otherwise he can join you and sling his hook - I left bullies behind at Birchfield Road infant school way- way back.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 09:36 AM

BTW Keith. You have still not pointed to anything I have made up. As in...

Dave and Rag, You have nothing to criticise so you make stuff up.

Did you make that up?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 09:43 AM

Dave, you said, ""What I find sad in the extreme is that amidst all this sabre rattling there still seems to be no concept of the human tragedy behind the statistics."

Whatever you say now, that clearly refers to this thread, and equally clearly to T and me.
Denying it makes you look deceitful and stupid Dave.

Jim,
You can find no historian who still believes that old shit you cling to.You imagine yourself qualified to reject every history book written for at least tweny years!

You base your views on political dogma not historical evidence.
Unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1, you are exposed as a fraud.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 09:55 AM

What is deceitful and stupid, Keith is saying that you would apologise if I was to say I was not referring to you and when I confirm I was not, you try to wriggle out of it. Par for the course though and I did not really expect much else.

And you still have not come up with anything that I have made up. Why is that I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM

For the benefit of those who missed it

Keith: If you say you were not, I will have to apologise.

Me: I was not. One apology expected. I am happy to tell you that it refers to ALL the sabre rattling (as in making threatening noises) that goes on both in Mudcat and the real world at the moment.

Keith: Whatever you say now, that clearly refers to this thread, and equally clearly to T and me.
Denying it makes you look deceitful and stupid Dave.

Quite clear and unequivocal evidence of Mr A's twisting of the English language don't you think? And he wonders why people take the piss...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 11:00 AM

Dave the Gnome - 30 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM - on the "sabre" rattling thing says that when he originally brought it up said the following and denies the remark was aimed at anybody:
"I am happy to tell you that it refers to ALL the sabre rattling (as in making threatening noises) that goes on both in Mudcat and the real world at the moment."

Well judge for yourself

Dave the Gnome - 28 Nov 15 - 10:36 AM

What I find sad in the extreme is that amidst all this sabre rattling there still seems to be no concept of the human tragedy behind the statistics. As I said before, I have no reason to doubt anyone's statistics, backed up by historians or god himself if you like. But it still does not detract one iota from the war being a bloody catastrophe. OK, going to war may have been the lesser of the two evils. But that still makes it an evil. Nothing will ever change an evil to something good, no matter how many statistics you throw at it.

Now does that actually sound like the Gnome is talking about the world today in general or is he talking specifically about the First World War – I would say the mention of "statistics"; "Historians"; the "war" and that war being regarded by some as representing the lesser of two evils – all relate to events in the past.

Then we got this:
"Dave the Gnome - 28 Nov 15 - 11:11 AM

"What sabre rattling Gnome?" – [Question asked by Teribus]

There's one. Rattle, rattle. Mind you don't cut yourself."

Still claim that your sabre rattling comment wasn't directed at anyone Gnome? Devious, weasel tongued, little shit aren't you Gnome.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 11:38 AM

It certainly wasn't directed any anyone specific, Teribums. It was directed at all sabre-rattlers in general. If it touches a nerve amongst some of the brethren, that is not my problem.

You are still talking to white noise I see. Is it like tinnitus? I believe that can come across as auditory hallucinations. You certainly seem dafter than I thought if you can get so worked up about someone who does not add anything to the discussion. Now, go and have a lie down in a darkened room before you burst a blood vessel :-)

BTW

Devious, weasel tongued, little shit aren't you Gnome.

Is that your best shot? Hehehe. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. You had better watch it, my Dad's bigger than yours...

Child.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 11:51 AM

It did not touch a nerve at all.
Our posts could not be described as sabre rattling. That was made up. That is what we object to.

Your meaning could not be clearer.
If you meant something else you should apologise for expressing yourself so badly.

It did not occur to me that you would actually deny your comment had anything to do with the thread!
Had you said who on the thread it was aimed at, I would of course apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 11:56 AM

If you meant something else you should apologise for expressing yourself so badly.

Fine, I apologise for expressing myself so badly.

Had you said who on the thread it was aimed at, I would of course apologise.

Ahhh, but that is not what you said. Will you apologise for expressing yourself so badly?

I will not hold my breath

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM

BTW - You are still saying I made something up and have not yet provided any evidence. Don't you sort of get your knickers in a twist if someone does that? You must be spinning at the moment...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

"You can find no historian who still believes that old shit you cling to"
Piss off Keith - neither can you - your made up agendas (by missing ommiting (now obviously deliberately) what historians really have to say doesn't even begin to scratch the surface making a case and your demented repetition of your dishonest claims make you wahat you are - a right wing jingoistic fanatic.
Have you learned nothing from your Hastings/Kineally balls ups - obviously not?
By the way - the attempted justification of over ten million young soldiers and eight million civilian deaths (1.92% of the total population of those involved) is as sabre rattling as it gets.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 12:33 PM

Name one!
You can't!

Not even a space between the two absurd childish pieces of arse gravy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 01:05 PM

"had better watch it, my Dad's bigger than yours..."

Runt of the litter were you Gnome?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM

It is no better than the last bit of abuse, I'm afraid, teribums. How about a bit of original thought? Too difficult I expect for someone who gets all his ideas from history books...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 01:54 PM

What a sorry lot you are. The history all of you combined know would not fill a thimble.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM

Having met Dave the Gnome I can honestly say he is vertically challenged.

HOWEVER he is a far BIGGER man than you could ever wish be Terribums.

Apologies to you Dave. I really shouldn't react like this but SOME people (i.e. a bully) actually deserve to be kicked when they're down.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 02:15 PM

No apology required, Raggy. Well, not from you anyway ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 02:49 PM

"he or she will take the facts available and apply their own moral judgements to them - extremist right wingers"
Don't think so Jom, but no doubt you will give us all examples of such moral judgements being applied – It must be a singular delight http://mudcat.org/blickifier.cfmto you Jom that the only historians guilty of this despicable practice happen to be extremist right wingers
Now where and when did either Keith A or myself say there was nothing wrong with sacrificing millions of young lives? And it is not the job of any historian to make moral judgements, if they do they are extremely poor historians.
I do believe that in 1839 when the Treaty of London was signed guaranteeing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Belgium they did not have an Empire. I take it that you object equally to British assistance given to the Soviet Union in 1941 after they had been invaded – as far an evil empire went they 'd knock Belgium's atrocities in the Congo into a cocked hat after all King Leopold killed 10 million, Stalin's tally amounted to five times that number.
In August 1914 young men did not have to be persuaded to join up – you like undisputed historical facts don't you Jom – Well here's one, between the outbreak of war and the end of the year over 1.2 million men volunteered to serve in the British Armed Forces – no persuasion required.
"What was happening in the Belgian Congo was well known through Mark Twain's book and was ignored by the "civilised" world - massacres on that scale are indefensible."
Ignored?? Ever heard of Roger Casement (Mark Twain was the only one to write reports about what was happening in the Congo) he was the British Consul in the Congo:
"The Casement Report was a document of 1904 written by the British diplomat Roger Casement (1864–1916), detailing abuses in the Congo Free State which was under the private ownership of King Leopold II of Belgium. This report was instrumental in Leopold finally relinquishing his private holdings in Africa.
Liked this bit of nonsense Jom:
"Actually there was an alternative - that which the Russian people took and the 1916 revolutionaries in Ireland aimed for and partially achieved - for the people who were forced to do the fighting to refuse to do so - that's what the Communist International called for when they declared the war an Imperial one."
Well that one worked out well for the Russians didn't it. How many were killed in the First World War? How many were murdered by Lenin and Stalin? Irish aims only partially achieved? The men called to take part in the Easter Rising were deliberately lied to and sacrificed like lambs to the slaughter – but oddly enough you find nothing wrong with any of that – makes you a bit of a hypocrite doesn't it?
You might be discussing the rights and wrongs of the First World War today – Don't think anyone else is – after to do that would be absolutely pointless and stupid, besides the thread happens to be about a concert.
"You are saying TODAY that the war was well led and justified - I am saying that it was not."
Not wishing to point out the obvious Jom but I can only state today that I think in general that during the First World War the British Army was well led as I could hardly have done it at the time as I hadn't been born.
By the way Jom who is justifying "atrocities"? In the past things happened, today I can do absolutely nothing about them and as I had no part in them I am not going to spend a lifetime in sack-cloth and ashes, as for:
< i>"We judge these things by today's standards - at least us non-jingoists do."
In which case you're a f**kin idiot.
"fortunately for us the Germans on the western front made most of them."
Yes and guess what Jom if Falkenhayn had been as incompetent as Haig in 1916 then the Germans might have won the war. Why do you keep banging on about the first day of the Battle of the Somme what about the other 1,560 days.
Ah "wrong ammo being sent" back to that myth Jom - by all means go into it and you will be made a complete and utter fool of again.
"As long as the Germans sacrificed more young men our cock-ups don't count - is that what you're saying?"
More complete and utter nonsense – we learned from our cock-ups – the Germans didn't learn from theirs.
As far as a grip on reality and knowledge related to the First World War I think that I am streets ahead of you. You honestly do not have a f**kin clue what you are yammering on about,and you prove it with every post to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:12 PM

Here's a quote from Brig. Gen. James Edmonds "Military Operations France And Belgium"

Despite improvisation and inexperience, in 1916 British war industry produced 33,507 machine-guns, 5,192 trench mortars with 6,500,000 rounds, 127,000 long tons (129,000,000 kg) of explosives and 84,000 long tons (85,000,000 kg) of propellants. Mills bomb production rose to 1,400,000 per week and the output of shells rose from 4,336,800 in the first quarter of 1916 to 20,888,400 in the final quarter, for an annual total of more than fifty million 148,000 long tons (150,000,000 kg) of ammunition were expended on the Somme from 24 June – 23 July and 101,771 long tons (103,404,000 kg) were landed in France.

SO FAR SO GOOD

Heavy guns and howitzers burst on firing, due to defective shells made from inferior steel, which had hairline cracks, through which the propellant discharge detonated the shell. 8-inch howitzer fuzes failed so often, that the battlefield was littered with duds and an attempted remedy made the fuzes fall out. Many shells failed to explode, due to deterioration of the explosive filling; defective fuzes in all heavy guns caused premature detonations, while many guns misfired due to poor quality barrels. 60-pounder guns averaged a premature every 500 shrapnel rounds and 4.5-inch howitzer shells exploded in the barrel or 4–5 yards (3.7–4.6 m) beyond the muzzle, the crews becoming known as "suicide clubs". Some propellants were not fully consumed on firing, requiring the barrel to be cleaned after each shot, which slowed the rate of fire. Some copper driving bands on 18-pounder field gun shells were too hard, which reduced the accuracy of the gun; when H.E. ammunition was introduced late in 1915, premature detonations and bulges occurred, with a burst barrel every thousand shots. There was a shortage of buffer springs, replacements were sometimes worse than worn ones and spare parts for every mechanical device in the army were lacking. Some shells exuded explosive in the summer heat, flare fillings decomposed, phosphorus bombs went off spontaneously, the firing mechanism of the heavy trench mortars failed on 1 July, Stokes mortar ammunition was chronically unreliable until replaced by improved designs, many Mills bombs went off early, rifle grenades were either premature detonations or duds and a make of rifle cartridge jammed after firing and had to be scrapped.

NO TO CLEVER BY THE SOUND OF IT

Sounds like Dud ammo to me. And this from someone who attained the rank of Brigadier General.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM

The history all of you combined know would not fill a thimble. I, for one, would accept that description, HiLO, and have always said I know nothing about it. I suspect some of our resident 'experts' may be upset at being tarred with the same brush though. Who do you mean when you say 'all of you combined'?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 04:52 PM

You are quite correct Hilo.

It's quite amazing really, the more I learn about a subject the more I find my knowledge is lacking.

If I learn a little bit more I find yet again there is more to learn and again the more I learn the greater degree of my lack of knowledge of the given subject.

I have found that knowledge is like a vector, the more you know the more you realise you don't know.

There's a lesson to be learned here.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:02 PM

Taking into account that the British Army hardly had any artillery at the start of the war and that the country was not on a war footing in August 1914, the design and production as stated was remarkable - not so the quality control as pointed out by Edmonds.

Yet despite all that Edmonds stated in his report at the end of the Battle of the Somme the "Entente Powers" had taken more ground than at any time since the First Battle of the Marne in 1914.

By the end of 1916 the Germans replaced Kalkenhayn their commander, they had been defeated at Verdun and on the Somme, their losses could not be replaced, ours and the French could - Falkenhayn's attempt to bleed the British and the French white had backfired spectacularly, in September the Germans started construction of the Hindenburg line and by January of 1917 the withdrawal of forces to occupy it was well under way. The Germans now knew that they had to defeat the Russians in the east to have any hope of gaining any victory in the west.

As I have stated previously the British did tend to learn from their mistakes. From the end of the Somme Battle onward the "Entente Powers" continued to "bite and hold" at the German lines. By 1917 all of the concerns detailed by Edmonds had been rectified. When the Russians signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and Germans transferred ~1.5 million men to the western front and launched them against the British in Northern France and Belgium - Their tactics were the same and their logistics had not improved one whit since 1914. Twenty-one days after the German attack reached as far as it was going to get, the British Army fully re-equipped launched the 100 days offensive that ended the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:41 PM

AND DON'T FORGET WE WON !!!!!!!

YIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

Millions dead ............................. keep your voice down son!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 08:39 PM

"but no doubt you will give us all examples of such moral judgements being applied "
You already have been given them but one more time for the less literate
ten million young soldiers and eight million civilian deaths (1.92% of the total population of those involved) all over a family squabble for land.
Anybody who can't draw a moral judgement from that is less than human - and I thought commemorating the war dead (liars) was a Christian thing!
Sorry - can't get your extremely badly link to work - but moral judgements on the war was far from "the only historians guilty of this despicable practice happen to be extremist right wingers"
The left, liberals, pacifists, Quakers, Christians, Communists Humanists, Fabians...... every shape and size of political thought have condemned the war on moral grounds - apart from the extreme right who justified it then and are still justifying it - the only ones refusing to do so are the extreme right - you pair being prime examples.
"Now where and when did either Keith A or myself say there was nothing wrong with sacrificing millions of young lives? "
Like now - you have always justified the war as being a fight for freedom against the tyry of those nasty Huns! - a crusade, in fact
" do believe that in 1839 when the Treaty of London was signed guaranteeing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Belgium they did not have an Empire."
So what - did a piece of paper signed by politicians suddenly negate the the deaths of ten million human beings and miraculously turn th killers into "poor little Belgium" worth sending our young man to die for?
The war was fought for Empire and Belgium typified the nature of Empire at its very worst.
"I take it that you object equally to British assistance given to the Soviet Union in 1941 "
THe Soviet Union and Britain were allies in the war - Britain did not come to its assistance - it fought on the same side - 25.3 million Soviet citizens died during WW2 - by far the largest losses in the whole of the war.
Russia was opposing the rise of Fascism three years before the outbreak of war while Britain was chumming up to Hitler and trying to do a deal with him.
What are you on?
"Well that one worked out well for the Russians didn't it."
Doesn't matter how it worked out in hindsight - the Russian people said NO to the war, it transpired from the aftermath, that the German people would have also said no - Germany was plunged into revolution immediately the war ended.
Russia was not ready for revolution - it was forced on it by the soldiers refusing to fight and the combination of them and the workers and peasants refusing to accept the conditions brought about by a colonial war.
You want to discuss the Russian revolution - and its consequences - always happy to oblige.
Easter week helped prevent compulsory conscription and saved countless lives.
At least they tried to stop the slaughter.   
"More complete and utter nonsense – we learned from our cock-ups" - like **** we did, Gallipoli 1916, the wrong shells fiasco, the Soome offensive... how many lives did it take before enough men were sacrificed to finally win?
They were treated like hamsters in a wheel - well led my arse.
You are still bullying and blustering and saying fuck all - somewhat insecure childishness eh what.
Are you that unsure of your ground -good job you weren't a general (or a soldier for that matter)
At ease corporal Oakhampton!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:09 AM

"25.3 million Soviet citizens died during WW2 "
Should of course read 27.3 million
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:20 AM

The forthcoming commons debate on Syria, not to mention the evergreen Trident debate are where a certain truth comes out.

All this glorifying military blunders and lack of welfare for those in their charge comes to nothing. Military techniques and equipment mean three fifths of fuck all in today's issues.

So really, there is no point in sanitising something that isn't fit for purpose in the first place. You can stand down now, Pte TC and Reduced to the Ranks Terribleblunders.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:34 AM

Its true that the Soviet Union sustained by far the largest losses, made by far the largest sacrifice, and by far the largest contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany, at least in the west. Without Operation Barbarossa the war in Europe would certainly have been lost. Probably without the involvement of the Soviet union, in December 1941 the USA would have declared war only on Japan, and, seeing the cause lost, not on Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:40 AM

Mind you, Germany declared war in the USA in 1941, not the other way round. Who knows whether that would still have happened, apparently it was Hitler's decision alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 04:49 AM

The lack of apology for poor phraseology and lack of explanation for what I am supposed to have made seems to be missing. Was it deleted I wonder?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM

Piss off Keith - neither can you -(find no historian who still believes that old shit you cling to)

You can not. I can.
Examples just from this thread,

"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."

" 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

American military historian Max Boot.

"World War I continues to be misunderstood by most ordinary people who have not yet caught up with the evolving consensus of historians. Three big myths, in particular, dominate the popular perception. First, that it was an accident, a war nobody wanted — a view immortalized in Barbara Tuchman's beautifully written if factually questionable 1962 book "The Guns of August." Second, that it didn't really matter who won — that there was scant difference between the Central and Entente Powers. And third, that soldiers were needlessly sent to slaughter by unfeeling and cloddish generals

Paxman/Open University
"Britain now had a tactically smarter, better organised army, capable of deploying men and machines to devastating effect"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 05:52 AM

"ten million young soldiers and eight million civilian deaths (1.92% of the total population of those involved) all over a family squabble for land."

Ehmmm Jom I asked for examples where as you claim "historians" made moral judgements? That above is a quote from Jom isn't it. Leaving me to draw the conclusion that "historians" do not make moral judgements but Jom does and then attempts to attribute them to "historians" - i.e more Made Up Shit.

"THe Soviet Union and Britain were allies in the war - Britain did not come to its assistance"

Belgium and Britain were allies in the both the First and Second World Wars - As for Britain not coming to the assistance of the Soviet Union? - Could you explain Jom old son how Soviet losses of thousands of tanks and aircraft during the summer and autumn of 1941 along with the loss of hundreds of thousands of men could be made good to such an extent that 75% of the Soviet armour that faced Hitlers forces as they stood outside Moscow was British? If that isn't assistance I do not know what is. Perhaps you could also explain what it was that all those Arctic Convoys carried to Murmansk and Archangel - each convoy carried enough in terms of arms, equipment, explosives and raw materials to equip an army of 50,000 men? If that is not assistance I do not know what is. The Soviets recognised the contribution but Jom doesn't.

Oh Jom there was never going to be conscription in Ireland - the rumour that it was going to be introduced was one of the many lies Pearse told the volunteers in order to trick them into taking up arms in 1916 and sending them off to certain defeat and possible death - what was it he said? The cause needed a blood sacrifice or something to that effect.

Ah Musktwat - The vote tomorrow on Syria will in all probability vote that action should be taken now that Corbyn has been forced by his own Shadow Cabinet to allow a free vote, the four replacement submarines to replace our existing SSBNs will be built and work to extend the operational life of the Trident II D-5 missiles until 2040 will go ahead.

Care to give any examples of people on this thread gloryfying anything - I honestly do not think we'll hear anything on that from Musktwat.

"Military techniques and equipment mean three fifths of fuck all in today's issues."

If you are looking at Ukraine and the situation in IS held parts of Syria and Iraq those issues very much count on military techniques and equipment - unless of course, you Musktwat are going to bore them into submission. Besides what we are discussing here and what you keep butting into albeit against your better judgement (Primarily as every time you do you make a complete and utter TC of yourself) is the First World War - nothing whatsoever to do with today's issues.

On one side we have people trying to defend a load of myths, half-truths and lies and on the other side people providing substantive fact and detail that destroys those myths, half-truths and lies.

The following statements relating to Great Britain's participation in the First World War are 100% correct:

1: For Great Britain the was was one of necessity not choice.
2: That the population of Great Britain understood why the nation had to go war and for the entire period of the war they supported the Governments decision.
3: That in general (i.e. overall) compared to the armies of the other combatant nations of 1914 the British Army was well led.

All the facts currently known based on what we do know about that conflict now support those conclusions and not one single thing that has been stated on this thread or in any of the other WWI threads can alter that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:08 AM

The discussion has moved on Jim.
Time to draw a line.
You have been arguing all these years that the WW1 was futile, the people somehow duped into support, and the army badly led.

On this thread I have quoted Catriona Pennel, Margaret Macmillan, Max Boot, Gary Sheffield, Dan Todman and, because you referred to them, Paxman and Hastings all quite unequivocally and unambiguously denying all your claims.
Many more on previous threads.
You have found nothing written for decades that supports you.

That is because you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:18 AM

Terri
If you continue to address your postings in the arrogant terms that you do you can go **** yourself.
You are a jumped up little know-nothing that wished he was a tin soldier but didn't make it.
Will deal with your latest inanities when you learn a few manners
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:48 AM

Terribulus. "This is about the First World War"

Correct. Although it is really about saluting war memorials and why we do it.

My point was addressed at those intelligent enough to understand it and reply. If I was addressing you, I'd use the easy read format with notes for your carer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM

Teribus knows the truth.













He read it in the Victor, the Eagle and the Hotspur circa 1960.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:01 AM

What's up Jom - no shots left in your locker?

Keith A gives you direct quotes from the historians that prove conclusively that you have completely misrepresented what they have said in order to bend the truth to fit your biased, bigoted, class-warrior, anti-English agenda.

By all means come back to me, it will be the same old crap and either Keith A, myself or someone else will show your myths, lies and misrepresentations to be exactly what they are, time and time and time again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM

Musktwat - you are a joke.

GUEST - 01 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM

Awww Raggy you really do need to change your posting style it is a dead give away.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:09 AM

Aw I was missing you Terrytunes, cos you said you were cross with me and weren't going to reply to ANYTHING I posted.












I could live in hope I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM

Don't confuse being a joke with the ability to spot one and laugh.

Rupert The Bear had a very similar outlook on life. It must be lovely in your little world Terribulus. Do try getting more or at least widen your range of comic subscriptions eh?

🙈🙉🙊

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:34 AM

Good idea Musket, I'll even pay for a copy of the Bunty or the Judy for him. Wonder if they still do those cut-out figures you could dress up. Maybe they do WREN and WAAF uniforms.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 07:37 AM

"This is about the First World War"

Correct. Although it is really about saluting war memorials and why we do it."

All ears Musktwat let's hear from you why we lay wreaths and salute war memorials. Won't be holding my breath though.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM

"What's up Jom - no shots left in your locker?"
Nothing changes
You pair are ignoramus no- nothings who bully bluster and wheedle your way through these topics and turn everything you turn to shit.
Your thuggish bullying has convinced nobody
Keith has been given this analysis of Hastings (his star witness for his case) who has acknowledged its accuracy - his first instinct was to hysterically dismiss it as being a crap review by an unknown writer, and since Hastings' own acknowledgement of its accuracy, has ignored it and insisted that we have prodiuced nothing:

"Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading."

That just about sums up the veracity fof both of your contributions.
He will no probably say he never agreed with Hastings anyway - that seems to be the level he works at.
These forums should be about exchanging ideas and opinions and maybe learning something new - you pair make them nasty, point-scoring competitions and displays of arrogance.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM

Oh come on Jim, they do make us giggle at their inanity and willingness to be led by the nose by their "betters"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 08:25 AM

And you do the same Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 09:32 AM

Jim, Hastings does not agree with any of those things you claim.
No historian does, because your beliefs are now just discredited and debunked myths.

What a lot of gratuitous personal abuse from all the comrades.
No actual arguments or history obviously.
You would need some knowledge for that.
Leave that to Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM

What a lot of gratuitous personal abuse from all the comrades.

Who are all the comrades?

I still cannot find that apology for some reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:23 AM

"he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories" - your reviewers opinion?

Corunna 1809 - Sir John Moore's fighting retreat over 250 miles in appalling weather from Sahagun to the port of Corunna saved the only army that Great Britain had. Hopelessly outnumbered it managed to escape mauling the French vanguard under Soult's command on a number of occasions. It diverted Napoleon's attention from Madrid which allowed three Spanish Armies to escape to fight another day. It also allowed the British Army to return to Portugal under the command of Sir Arthur Wellesley - the rest they say is history.

Mons 1914 - BEF 80,000 strong held off, delayed and inflicted damage on an enemy that outnumbered them by two, sometimes three, to one. Three things from the side of the "Entente Powers" contributed to the failure of the Germans plans for the conquest of Belgium and France:

1: Initial Belgian resistance delayed the German advance for days

2: When the Germans hit the British at Mons the fight that ensued was a fighting retreat of fire and manoeuvre and the British Army of 1914 was better at that than any other army in the world bar none, and although heavily outnumbered in terms of men and artillery the Germans were further delayed, and at the end of 1914 the BEF still existed as a fighting formation when all the odds would have predicted that it would have been wiped out completely.

3: The Germans pursuit of the British opened up their flank leaving it exposed to a massed French attack. With the resulting French and British victory on the Marne in 1914 the Schlieffen Plan died a death - the German plan for conquest in the west had been thwarted.

Dunkirk By the close of the German Blitzkrieg through the Netherlands, Belgium and France in 1940 the British Army should have been wiped out. What evacuation plans that were hastily cobbled together by Admiral Ramsay in the days he was given to make them put the largest number of men they thought could be rescued at 30,000 maximum - by the time it was over 338,226 soldiers had been rescued. Britain's Army lived to fight another day.

None of them were victories, yet all of them were significant and each had an immense bearing on what happened afterwards.

"the old saw of lions led by donkeys" - Ehmmm Jom there was no such old saw - Alan Clark, ex-Tory Cabinet Minister and flawed Historian admitted that he made that up. Oh and just to correct another of your great misunderstandings Clark's book "Donkeys" was about Sir John French NOT Sir Douglas Haig.

As for the "Dodgy" Battalions at Ypres three times the Germans made concerted attempts to take the place and on each and every occasion the British Army stood firm. That is yet another one of those well researched facts that you are so keen on Jom.

Keep flinging up your poorly researched myths, misrepresentations and unsubstantiated crap - I'll continue to knock them flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM

I don't think that some here know the difference between history and myth. Teribus is correct on the facts above.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:41 AM

"Jim, Hastings does not agree with any of those things you claim."
I don't claim anything Keith Crane did and Hastings praised his review saying it was "generous"- read what he ***** wrote - it made you shit a brick when I put it up.
Did he e-mail you saying he was only kidding?
Surely you're not going to contradict your favourite historian!!
Jay ****** sus - this gets curiouser and curiouser the longer you post your inanities
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:46 AM

With punctuation corrected:

I don't think that some here know the difference between history and myth: Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM

Teribus was correct in his statement above. Greg, I do wish you would contribute something..you don't have to know much.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 12:45 PM

Crane did and Hastings praised his review saying it was "generous"
Yes, except for the bit you seized on which Hastings says Crane misread or misunderstood.
He said it was wrong. Untrue. He said he "loves the British Army."

No historian has found your beliefs to be true.
Nothing written for decades supports them, so why do you still believe them Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 12:50 PM

From that same Spectator piece, by Hastings himself, that you found and quoted Jim.
He rubbishes all of you views, and agrees mine.
So does every other historian of recent decades.
I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.


"The looming centenary of the outbreak of the first world war offers an opportunity to break away from the Blackadder/Oh! What a Lovely War vision (incompetence), which dominates popular perceptions. Nobody sane suggests a celebration. But, in place of the government's professed 'non-judgmental' approach to commemoration, ministers could assert that although the war was assuredly ghastly, it was not futile. Whatever the shortcomings of the Treaty of Versailles, a peace imposed by a victorious Germany would have been much worse. David Cameron often mentions with pride Britain's role in resisting Hitler. In 2014, it would be good to hear him acknowledge that Britain, and those who died in her name, were also right to resist the Kaiser's generals."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 01:21 PM

"From that same Spectator piece, by Hastings himself, that you found and quoted Jim."
You have been given exactly what Hastings said - he acknowledges that the review was fair ("generous" even) yet sill you persist.
This is an indication of two things:
1. You cannot get the full picture of what a historian is saying from selected 'cut-'n-pastes - you need to read everything he wrote on the subject.
2. Your manic obsession with being "right" is an indication something serious.
The statement again:
""Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading."

Is he being hypocritical when he says it was a "generous review" - he only takes the writer up on his hatred of the military?
Is he such a poor historian that we writes contradictory statements on the same subject?

Yu couldn't explain the review other than to call it crap - how do you explain Hastings' response to it - is that "crap too"?
Replies on a plain postcard please.
This is exactly what you have done throughout all this - ignored things that have been put in front of you as if they don't exist because ithey don't suit your jingoism
You will probably ignore this and press on with your claims - which will make my point perfectly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 01:26 PM

It would be nice but we oiks are generally better read and sceptical than our grandparents. I mean, they were religious so of course they believed what they were told without thinking for themselves.

In 2014, as now in 2015 you cannot put old values on present thinking. All this talk of Kaiser is totally irrelevant. If Caeser didn't kick the fuck out of Boudicca, we would never have invented Yorkshire pudding.

If that's the best you can up with..

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 01:41 PM

He liked the review except for that bit.
He put it on his own site, but not that bit because it was wrong.
HE DOES NOT AGREE YOUR VIEWS JIM.
NO HISTORIAN DOES.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 02:01 PM

Guest,
. I mean, they were religious so of course they believed what they were told

They were told that German armies were sweeping into Belgium and France.
It was the truth.
Historians are not a religious bunch, but they think it was the right thing to do as well.
You imagine that you know more about history than the historians.
That makes you a fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 02:11 PM

"Historians are not a religious bunch, but they think it was the right thing to do as well."

Amazing, the professor can even tell us whether historians are religious or not. Is there no START to this man's talents.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 02:39 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 11:56 AM

If you meant something else you should apologise for expressing yourself so badly.

Fine, I apologise for expressing myself so badly.

Had you said who on the thread it was aimed at, I would of course apologise.

Ahhh, but that is not what you said. Will you apologise for expressing yourself so badly?

I will not hold my breath

Glad I didn't...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 03:16 PM

That's two of us who know more than "the historians" then

We might start a club for rational non revisionist thinking. We'd invite you Keith but what would the neighbours say?

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 05:38 PM

OK I've got to ask the question.

Now then professor tell us all you know about the religious proclivites of historians.

I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting with baited breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:09 PM

GUEST - 01 Dec 15 - 02:11 PM

Raggy if you haven't got the guts to put your own name to your own posts then please STFU. You should actually reselect your cookie to "Kipper" - Yellow, two faced and gutless. BECAUSE THAT IS INDEED WHAT YOIU ARE.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:19 PM

Isn't it time for your cocoa and biscuit teribums. Night night, sleep tight, mind the bugs don't bite.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:38 PM

G'nite KIPPER

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 01 Dec 15 - 06:42 PM

Raggytash has raised the level of missing the point to new and in imagined heights. Astounding really. Makes despair for any hope of "reasoned" discussion! How DOES he manage it ?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 03:24 AM

I have found none that refer to any faith on their websites, but I will retract and restate my last post.

Guest,
I mean, they were religious so of course they believed what they were told

They were just told that German armies were sweeping into Belgium and France.
It was the truth.
No-one tells historians what to do, but they think it was the right to resist as well.
You imagine that you know more about history than the historians.
That makes you a fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 03:56 AM

"He liked the review except for that bit. He put it on his own site, but not that bit because it was wrong."
He said that, did he - must have missed it?
So far everyone who disagrees with you pair is wrong, a liar or a fool -Even Hastings the Historian Hero is lying when praises a review of his book,
Gets betterer and betterer!!!
Pity the scriptwriters of Blackadder didn't know about you two - you merit w whole series to yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 04:04 AM

Guest, lots of religious people do not believe what they are told. Quakers for example are avowed pacifists, they would never fight though they might serve of stretcher bearers. People believed what they were told not because they were religious but because they were stuck in a mindset of subservience to the upper classes. One good thing about WWI was that it ended this, at least for half a century though it is returning.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 04:22 AM

Thank you Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 06:03 AM

Jim, He said that, did he - must have missed it?

You quoted it Jim!
" I was dismayed that he should think I 'hate' the British army. On the contrary,"

So far everyone who disagrees with you pair is wrong, a liar or a fool

No historian does disagree on those issues Jim.
Anyone who believes he knows more than them is a liar or a fool or both.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM

"Haig's thinking was powerfully influenced by his experience at Ypres in October 1914"
"Only with the exhaustion of Germany, American entry into the war and a remarkable improvement in the operational methods of the British Army - for which Haig can claim significant credit- did victory become attainable."

p552, Catastrophe by Hastings.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM

Typical misreading and misrepresentation. I never made any link whatsoever to religion.

I said many were religious which indicates believing what they are told and not questioning the system.

The anti war lobby and protests right now are testament to seeing through jingoism in a way our grandparents would never have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 07:55 AM

I wouldn't worry too much about the misreading and misrepresentation, Guest. It is pretty endemic here on the Mudcat. Particularly in the BS section.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 04:34 PM

I have now officially given up waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 06:58 PM

Guest , you underestimate your grandparents and display a profound ignorance of social history!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 15 - 07:25 PM

The language, the style, the spacing - GUEST - 02 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM - Hello Raggy.

What was this "system" our forefathers back in 1914 wouldn't question? Whatever you do Raggy don't make the mistake of transposing the political system we have today and our greedy, self-serving, professional politicians and tar their predecessors of 1914 with the same brush. The big differences:

1: No professional politicians for a start

2: The party in power that formed the Government acted in what they saw as being in the best interest of the Country, Country came first, putting Party first and clinging on to power at all cost did not enter the equation. Those in Parliament had principles, integrity and a sense of duty that went beyond themselves and their party.

3: They realised and recognised that Great Britain's place and position on the international stage imposed duties, obligations and responsibilities - honouring Treaties being one of those obligations

4: Newspapers were the only means of disseminating news and editorials examined and discussed the important issues of the day - those newspapers were widely read - The population as a whole was far more engaged than our "dumbed down" citizenry of today.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 02:35 AM

Guest Dave, I would challenge this,
. People believed what they were told not because they were religious but because they were stuck in a mindset of subservience to the upper classes.

Firstly, the "upper classes" too went willingly to war and suffered such disproportionate losses that it finished them.

Secondly, there was no sign of that subservience just before the war.
Britain was riven with strikes and industrial disputes, and there were mass demonstrations against involvement in a European war.
All that stopped when Belgium was invaded.

The people were told that by their independent press, and by the streams of refugees.
They believed what they were told because they knew it to be the truth.
Modern historians say they were right.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 02:45 AM

They this they that.

Been to a fucking seance have we Terribleviews?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 03:06 AM

No seance required Raggy - as their actions speak for themselves - no guessing required on my part at all - information you could look up if you could arsed (But of course we all now know that can't be) include:

1: Hansard - Parliamentary record
2: Newspaper archives -give the detail relating to how the news was reported and the dissection of that news in editorials
3: What the people themselves did.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 03:14 AM

Not guilty Terribums

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM

"" I was dismayed that he should think I 'hate' the British army. On the contrary,""
That is not dismissing the review - it was disagreeing with his conclusions of what he wrote which was
"Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading."
All fully accepted as "generous"
Your manic attempts to dismiss this from your own historian are jingoism in the extreme.
Sorry 'bout that Keith - that's what the man said and you damn well know it.
"Secondly, there was no sign of that subservience just before the war."
WHAT
Two years before the war broke out the Titanic sank and the steerage passengers were locked below-decks until the wealthier passengers were able to escape.
Britain was a sharply divided society with subservience to "your btters" was taught in schools and preached in churches.
For an overview of the class divisions and subservience expected see - 'The Deferential Worker', by Howard Newby
It is equally insane to suggest that our politicians then were any less corrupt then than they are now - the only difference was that corruption and privilege was a built in feature of society, where now, they have to work a little harder to milk us dry.
'The good of the country' was the protection of a class divided society - nothing to do with the good of the people as a whole, who were there when they were needed to make money and fight wars.
Politics was a calling for the privileged pretty much as the Church was - if they failed to make the church, they went into politics.
To put down the atrocious nature of WW1 to "that's the way it was in those days" - and attitude that would let the horrors of the inquisition and the horrors of the Reformation - it was like that because all of these things were barbaric displays of privilege - whether in protection of the Church or protection of the Empire - primitive power struggles that slaughtered many millions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM

Jim, there is nothing in Hastings' book that supports your view of incompetent leadership or any of your views.
No historian does, so why do you cling to them?

Sheffield said of British generals, "Some were incompetent. Most were not"
We can all agree that French was, and Hastings does.
He makes no general charge of incompetence against the army he loves.
No support for you Jim.

p551
"In clashes such as those of 1914-18, it was almost inevitable that a vast amount of dying had to be done before a decisive outcome became obtainable. The same was true in 1939-45: much-diminished Western allied losses reflected not better leadership.....but the fact that... the Russians bore the overwhelming burden"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 07:08 AM

"Jim, there is nothing in Hastings' book that supports your view of incompetent leadership or any of your views."
Sigh - you haven't read his book Keith - you haven't even read the bits you scanned down - of any of your less than six historians
His acceptance of the review as "generous" shows that without any doubt.
What he actually said about the review
David Crane wrote generously in last week's books pages about my 1914 history, Catastrophe. I was dismayed that he should think I 'hate' the British army. On the contrary, I have loved it all my life, but want its reputation to rest on its achievements, not on jingo legends."
Nothing in the out of context quotes you have put up contradicts what Hastings has acknowledged as "generous" in the book - he did not reject it, as claimed and he actually makes a point of referring to the "jingoism" surrounding this subject - directed at people like you.
Your attitude to this review is little short of insane.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 07:10 AM

"In clashes such as those of 1914-18, it was almost inevitable that a vast amount of dying had to be done before a decisive outcome became obtainable"
That is opinion - not history - and the opinion of a right-wing tabloid journalist at that
Jim Carroll

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

Hastings is not an historian I would choose to read, and nor would I usually bother with a book restricted to the build up to the war and the outbreak, but I have acquired a copy and have been reading it for three days now.
The quotes are transposed not "scanned down."

There is nothing in the book that supports your view of an army led by incompetents.
None of your views are supported by any historian, so why do you cling to them?

The opinion about how the war had to be fought is the opinion of all the military historians.
In what way are you qualified to imagine that you know better Jim?!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM

You don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 06:32 AM

you guys are still going on this -well done, i salute your indefatigability. is it a sort of last man standing debate? no matter the number of victims who have been irritated or bored to death by this argument, just lasting the pace is the important thing. doesn't look like it will be all over by christmas!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM

"is it a sort of last man standing debate? "
Not really Alme - no point in a last man standing debate with a dead man who won't lie down.
Just happy to let him strut his stuff in public - makes it so much easier next time - rewriting what his own historian says just about does it I think - don't thing even he could top that
Done here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 09:00 AM

This is a debate about history.
I got my views by reading the history books.
That is what normal, intelligent people do, and it means I can quote numerous historian supporting my views.
Nothing written in the last twenty plus years supports your views Jim, because they are just discredited myths.
You have not been able to name or quote a single one.

Your views are determined by your class war politics, and not based on any actual knowledge at all.
You have none.
You are arguing about history, against the historians!

Unless and until you can find anything to support your views, there is no point continuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 09:19 AM

...there is no point continuing

...as long as you let Keith have the last word of course :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 10:04 AM

Keith, you have been citing Hastings for almost a year, yet you have said only two days ago that you actually got the book and started reading it. Is it any wonder that people pull you up about things you've pulled off quickly sought out websites.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 10:50 AM

the history books.

WHICH history books, Professor? The ones available in real bookshops written by live historians who work for the tabloid press?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 11:46 AM

Guest, I quoted the many articles and essays he has written about WW1 that are available on line. His book has little relevance to this debate because it is mostly about other armies and theatres of war, and only covers the first four months of the war anyway.

Greg, all histories of WW1 written in recent decades.
I remind you that none of you, in three years of debate, have found one that supports Jim's debunked and discredited historical myths.

Unless and until you do, there is no point in continuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 11:51 AM

Hastings was his pin up boy till he actually got around to reading him. He assumed Hastings would be a tame establishment man and is back pedalling now he realises he isn't.

On other threads, Keith calls him a historian. On this one he doesn't.

No matter, the more he insists on showing us his arse the more we applaud.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 11:56 AM

Hastings is an historian, acclaimed by other historians, and heading the BBC list of "leading WW1 historians."
He was just one of the many historians I quoted rubbishing Jim's old myths.
His book does too, but is mostly about other things.
His many articles and essays did the job much more effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 15 - 06:01 PM

Hastings is just one of the historians you have never actually read until forced into it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 03:24 AM

How did I manage to quote him repeatedly then?

You people by contrast have read nothing written about WW1 in the last twenty years at least!
If you had, you would not be so stupid as to argue against the history books.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 03:43 AM

Posted by me over 2 years ago.
Many more subsequent quotes.

11 Nov 13

Historian Sir Max Hastings,
"I never stop being amazed by the number of people I meet - who are educated, thoughtful people – who say to me "I have never understood why the whole of Europe when to war just because some Austrian big wig was shot in Sarajevo"."
In Blackadder Goes Forth, Baldrick said the war began when "Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry", reflecting confusion the popular opinion that the issues we were fighting over were not worth the huge loss of life.
"We think we know the story of World War II because Hitler was evil, we can get our heads around that," Sir Max said.
"But the modern British view of the First World War is dominated by the Blackadder attitude which is believed even by school teachers.
"The Germany of 1914 might not have been as evil as Hitler's Germany, but it was still bent on dominating Europe, and the idea that it didn't matter who won is ridiculous.
"The politicians are frightened of saying that we fought a great evil and they are afraid of saying who started WWI."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10110657/Germany-and-Austria-started-WWI-seeking-European-domination-historian-says.html

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 03:47 AM

So on the basis of Hastings thinking in his condescending way that the great unwashed can't differentiate between satire and reality, Keith's confused rhetoric was born.

All becomes clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 04:09 AM

And it becomes ever more apparent that he hasn't actually read very much at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 05:29 AM

Oh I think he has studied the period in question and read a great deal more about it that you unnamed GHOST - after all as far as detail goes or counter argument you have produced absolutely nothing - nor will you - now too cowardly even to put your names to your posts the game still seems to be let's bully and mob in an attempt to silence - you guys must have been "union activists" that after all was their tactics if any "voice from the floor" ever chirped up and started exposing the bully boys for what they were. Really don't know why you try, it must the evident even to the most mentally challenged of you that you are not going to succeed, your target is made of far sterner stuff than any of you, and in damn near every case where you attack him he argues with real knowledge on his side.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 08:31 AM

"How did I manage to quote him repeatedly then?"
You have never at any time quoted anything that you haven't lifted directly from the internet - not ever!
You reject even what Hastings (your prize historian) says when it doesn't suit your case
His only response to a review of Hastings' book which said:
"Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading" was to describe it as "generous" and say about the suggestion that he hated the British military - "on the contrary, I have loved it all my life, but want its reputation to rest on its achievements, not on jingo legends."
This is a total acceptance of everything else the review said - nothing you have put up contradicts the review - which you described as "crap" and your tabloid historian describes as "generous".
You have never at any time shown eny evidence of ever having read a book on anything - your interest in all these subjects extends only to carefully extracted bits which you claim back up your pre-conceived jingoism.
You had to admit that you'd never read a book on Ireland and that the subject didn't interest you - 'bout time you did the same here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 09:55 AM

Jim, I have mostly quoted articles and essays available on line.
It saves me transcribing long passages, and anyone can verify the accuracy and see it in context.

I have transcribed from books in my possession too.
You Jim can not quote anything written by any historian for decades!!

You reject even what Hastings (your prize historian) says when it doesn't suit your case

Completely untrue! Show me an actual quote I have ever rejected.

Hastings himself rejected the quote from Crane's review. "On the contrary" he said. That means "the opposite is true."

Hasting's book is only about the start of the war.
The army was given no time to prepare for war, and was sent into the path of an army vastly superior in men and weapons.
Of course its "achievements" were limited, and made worse because it was commanded by French who was indeed incompetent and soon sacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM

"You people .. have read nothing about WW1 in the last 20 years.."

Proof?

Define "you people"

Name your books, including the ones you haven't coloured in yet

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 11:48 AM

"I have mostly quoted articles and essays available on line."
Every single argument is lifted off line - every one.
"You Jim can not quote anything written by any historian for decades!!"
I don't go in for "my historian is bigger than your historian" arguments - you have shown by your own behaviour that that is pointlessly dishonest.
I have carefully laid out my attitude to the war based on what I believe I have learned throughout my life - not from "Blackadder" as you and your historical quotes dishonestly claim, but the sum total of my life.
You have shown no understanding of the War whatever but come with the attitude that 'My country is never wrong'
You have not responded to one of the points I have made, of how the war was conducted, how a war for territory that took away many millions of lives, how the recruits were persuaded to join, what the British people got out of the war - HOW A WAR CONDUCTED BY SENDING YOUNG MEN TO THEIR DEATHS IN THE MANNER THEY WERE CAN BE DESCRIBED AS ANYTHING BUT SIMPLE BUTCHERY
You have been given a list of acttual cock ups that cost many thousands of young lives - you refuse to respond to them and cointinue with your mantra
You have not responded to one of these points other than to claim that historians you haven't read said it was a well led, just war so it must be true DO YOU NOT REALISE HOW MINDLESS THAT IS? you haven't even read the people you quote.
You even suggest one of your own historians is a liar because his honest response to a critical review doesn't suit your case HE WELCOMED THE REVIEW WAS FAIR AND GENEROUS - IF THAT IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGING ITS ACCURACY WHAT IS IT?
You go out of your way to take quotes from Hastings that contradicts his stated views making him a shoddy historian or a hypocritical liar in his response to the review - either way, not fit to be considered as the historian you have claimed him to be.
You will ignore all this and continue your grotesque version of The Lords Prayer - fine - all the more reason why you should never be taken seriously again.
I don't need less than half-a-dozen historians to make my argument, as you apparently do.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 01:17 PM

I don't go in for "my historian is bigger than your historian" arguments

Jim, you have not found one single historian who still believes that shit you cling to.
Quote one now!
Give us a name!

I have carefully laid out my attitude to the war based on what I believe I have learned throughout my life

I say what is in the history books.
Where does your shit come from?

You have been given a list of acttual cock ups that cost many thousands of young lives

No. Not from WW1.

other than to claim that historians you haven't read said it was a well led,

I have quoted historians making exactly that point!
You can not quote a single one who believes different.

HE WELCOMED THE REVIEW WAS FAIR AND GENEROUS -

Yes, except the bit that he got totally wrong! "ON THE CONTRARY...."

I don't need less than half-a-dozen historians to make my argument, as you apparently do.

Let everyone read that statement from Jim.
He can not find one single historian to make his argument.
He acknowledges that I have found six quoted just on this thread endorsing my views.
On previous threads, many more.
I am just saying what the history books say.
Jim truly believes that his silly politics give him better knowledge.
Only a fool with a vastly inflated ego would imagine such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 02:06 PM

Ferguson

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 02:44 PM

Hastings, like most historians, tailors his presentation and interpretation of facts to suit his prejudices. I cannot name an historian who carries out his research in a scientific manner, thats probably a consequence of C.P. Snow's "two cultures". A scientist, at least a good one, assembles and presents their evidence, and although they may then go on to interpret it, leaves the evidence in the open for someone else to analyse and maybe reach different conclusions. Unfortunately the culture of the humanities is beginning to impinge on science. Many large collaborations (thinking things like PLANCK here) won't even give you access to their data unless they are absolutely sure that what you publish will be in agreement with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 03:10 PM

"Jim, you have not found one single historian who still believes that shit you cling to."
You've
been given them Keith - even from your ow miniscule selection
You've rejected them or ignored them - Hasting is a classic example he writes something you don't agree with he acknowledge it as fair and doesn't dispute it, you produce quotes that do not relate in any way top the review and claim he can't have said it.
"I say what is in the history books."
You haven't read the history books- you have selected about two pages worth from less than six authors and you have refused to respond to what they have really said when it has been put up to you.
"Give us a name!"
No historian claims that it was not a war of attrition - every single one of them do - Sheffield, McMillan, Hastings.... every one you have mentioned and more - it was a war where men were sent to kill each other and die in mud - it was simple butchery
Hastings aid
A summary of what Hastings said runs thus.
""Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading" was to describe it as "generous" and say about the suggestion that he hated the British military - "on the contrary, I have loved it all my life, but want its reputation to rest on its achievements, not on jingo legends."
I have no problem with that.
The only sign of disgreemant was the conclusion that he hated the Miltary NOTHING MORE - HE AGREED WITH THE REST
You are not intending to address my points - I didn't think you would, despite your "lifelong study" claims
I realise it is pointless asking you to provide answers to them from any historian - you haven't and they wouldn't - all common knowledge.
You are basing your argument on selected cuttings from historians you haven't read and even then, you haven't read what the ones you have selected say properly - you have been told what they say but you refuse to respond.
If am a fool then so is every other contributor to this thread exept the bullying deckhand.
We're all "Muppets" again Keith and you pair of eejits are the only ones right - nothing changes
You really have shit in your own nest this time with your idiocy - your fame spreads!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 05:54 PM

I like how the creature called Woodcock accuses people of being anonymous whilst hiding under the unfortunate sobriquet "Teribus."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 06:23 PM

Perhaps he wasn't able to spell "terrible"?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 15 - 09:44 PM

"Ferguson"

Klopp.

Shankly.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:33 AM

Ferguson does not endorse Jim's view that people did not really support the war, or that the army was badly led.
He does believe that Britain's imperial legacy might have been preserved if we had not made a stand agaisnt German aggression, assuming that a Germany controlling the whole of Europe would have allowed us to do that.
He is on his own with his far right views of Empire, and I doubt Jim would align himself there. Do you Jim?
If so you can count one historian who supports one of Jim's views.
Otherwise there is a consensus against.
(Klopp and Shankley are not WW1 historians and included for comic affect.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:48 AM

Jim,
You've
been given them Keith -

No I have not.
Not one from recent time who still believes what you do.

You've rejected them or ignored them

You reject and ignore the historians. I do not. Certainly not Hastings.
Hastings' book is only about the outbreak, and he rejects the interpretation made by your reviewer.
I have given you numerous Hastings quotes refuting every single one of your beliefs. He does not endorse anything you believe.
Your reviewer even states, "but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head,"
Even in that review nothing supports your views. On the contrary.

You haven't read the history books
I have. That is where my views are from. You have read nothing written for at least twenty years!

No historian claims that it was not a war of attrition
That is because it largely was.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:58 AM

Jim,
I don't need less than half-a-dozen historians to make my argument, as you apparently do.

I have carefully laid out my attitude to the war based on what I believe I have learned throughout my life

Dave,
I cannot name an historian who carries out his research in a scientific manner,

The comrades reject all the history books, and the objective research of the historians who write them, preferring political dogma instead.

Fine, but normal intelligent people do learn history from the history books.

That is why we can never agree.
Unless and until you can produce someone with actual knowledge who still believes your old hard left myths there is no point in continuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 05:51 AM

Who are 'the comrades' then, Keith?

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

Comic affect?

???

In any case, Keith and Teribus are providing the comedy around here.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 11:24 AM

Comic affect?

Yes. Klopp was a German historian who died in 1903, and there are no historians called Shankly at all.

Keith and Teribus are providing the comedy around here.
We refer to actual historical knowledge instead of political myths. Where is the comedy in that?

Who are 'the comrades' then, Keith?
Jim and Dave, who both reject the findings of all the historians, choosing to believe myths based on their hard left politics instead.
That is why we can never agree.
Unless and until you can produce someone with actual knowledge who still believes your old hard left myths there is no point in continuing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 12:16 PM

The EFFECT being that Keith appears to be AFFECTed..

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:01 PM

Politics aside. Who in their right mind can believe militarily leaders suddenly became competent for four years? Is it a coincidence that fucking millions were slaughtered by their "competence" during that period?

No.

Sanisting bloody fools is a rather repugnant hobby. Try painting toy soldiers instead. You'd do less harm and embarrass yourself less.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 01:50 PM

Are you claiming that no military commander has ever been competent?

Politics aside
Good idea. Consult the historians instead of political activists.
You will find they all agree that the British Army was generally well and competently led in WW1.
Sheffield says of the British Generals, "Some were incompetent. Most were not."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 03:10 PM

Who are 'the comrades' then, Keith?
Jim and Dave, who both reject the findings of all the historians, choosing to believe myths based on their hard left politics instead.

So, there is one regular member who disagrees with your views and one guest, presuming you mean 'Guest: Dave' and not me. So this bunch of 'comrades' is actualy 2 people? Is that right?

I still cannot believe that anyone wants to 'win' points in a stupid argument about the deaths of almost 40 million people. But we are talking about Keith so anything is possible I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 15 - 03:36 PM

Keith doesn't care about how many were killed. Keith cares that WE won.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 03:29 AM

Military anything is a sign of political and diplomatic failure.

Hence we gloss over how traditional military thinking, as taught at Sandhurst is as useless as it is increasingly irrelevant. It begins with admission of failure and has done ever since we were told Jesus wants us to exploit natives of far and distant lands.

That said, when you are called up as opposed to living the dream, your real life perspective can help. Hence so many Gung Ho officers in WW1 killed in action going over the top had bullet entries in their back.

Many WW2 memoirs mention that one reason that war was better planned and executed overall was that the top brass had been junior officers in the previous war and wished to ensure they didn't make the mistakes their leaders did. Mainly by ignoring what they were taught.

Apparently the historians said so. Can't you hear them? There you go, they just said it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 05:42 AM

Winning points Dave? Why do you so accuse?
I merely state my views based on reading history, and point out that Jim's views are not based on history.

Keith doesn't care about how many were killed.
Keith does. Keith has made respectful pilgrimages to the cemeteries in Belgium and France. Keith joins acts of Remembrance and observes the silences every November. keith defends the dead by refuting the Comrades claims that they were all dupes not knowing or understanding their cause.

Many WW2 memoirs mention that one reason that war was better planned and executed overall was that the top brass had been junior officers in the previous war and wished to ensure they didn't make the mistakes their leaders did. Mainly by ignoring what they were taught.

Can you give us an example, or are you just making shit up again?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 06:36 AM

Winning points Dave? Why do you so accuse?

Errrr, does the phrase 'you lose' ring any bells?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM

"I like how the creature called Woodcock accuses people of being anonymous whilst hiding under the unfortunate "
He also pretended he was a servicemen when he was in fact a bad cooker up of fry-ups - (possibly on a ferryboat, judging be the reliability of his other claims)
Little point of continuing with Keith, who is now resorting to openly lying about what people say and even what his own historians have said - all good ammunition for the future though (along with his cultural implants theory) - make sure of no more free lunches.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM

GUEST - 07 Dec 15 - 03:29 AM

Military anything is a sign of political and diplomatic failure.

Hence we gloss over how traditional military thinking, as taught at Sandhurst is as useless as it is increasingly irrelevant. It begins with admission of failure and has done ever since we were told Jesus wants us to exploit natives of far and distant lands.

That said, when you are called up as opposed to living the dream, your real life perspective can help. Hence so many Gung Ho officers in WW1 killed in action going over the top had bullet entries in their back.

Many WW2 memoirs mention that one reason that war was better planned and executed overall was that the top brass had been junior officers in the previous war and wished to ensure they didn't make the mistakes their leaders did. Mainly by ignoring what they were taught."

Hello Musktwat all of the above you have mentioned before in exactly the same words, more or less. You were wrong then you are equally wrong now.

Some facts for you to digest:

1: Percentage casualties in the British armed forces for the First and Second World Wars were almost identical

2: WWII was kept as a war of manoeuvre WWI was static - on the occasions during WWII where the fighting was static (El Alamein; Stalingrad; Normandy Landings) where no outflanking movement could be made the casualties were similar, or worse than those encountered during WWI.

3: It took the British in WWI two years to build an army and train it to fight the Germans on equal terms. The same thing took the British three years in WWII

So it looks as though your junior WWI commanders didn't really learn that much did they.

On the subject of military competence - down through the last couple of centuries very very few enemies have ever got the better of our allegedly "incompetent" military leaders - wish the same could not be said about their political masters.

Musktwat and the "usual suspects" are great believers in stereotypes which is natural I suppose they after all seem to be judging by what they write knuckle dragging union thugs who can only repeat ad nauseam what is written on the Party Sheet on any given day - their lack of originality and complete and utter inability when it comes to independent and original thought beggars belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM

their lack of originality and complete and utter inability when it comes to independent and original thought beggars belief.

Ah, OK. I presume that is in reference to anyone who quotes what 'the historians' say and parrots their texts ad nauseam as well does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM

Ah Jom prattling on about something he has no knowledge about yet again.

What exactly is it that you have against Cooks Christmas, that causes you to sneer at them and hold them in so much contempt? Not very egalitarian of you and it certainly does not embrace "working class" solidarity.

Was I ever a soldier? No I was not sailor yes, soldier no. Was I a cook - no I was not, my job involved things that go whoosh and bang.

Don't really know why I bothered to expound on any of that as HiLo has pointed out Jom simply does not listen to anything Jom doesn't want to hear on account of Jom being a racist, biased, bigoted pillock whose greatest burden in life seems to be the fact that we was born in England. This hatred and self-loathing of the land of his birth has gained him a Masters degree with honours in tooth-sucking that defies the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:43 AM

"What exactly is it that you have against Cook"
Nothing whatever Cookie - where would we be without the good ones?
It's just those who pretend to be something else in order to bluff us into believing unacceptable and obsolete arguments that get up my nose (now there's shame in one's calling, if you like) .
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 07:54 AM

Sounds like he played with fireworks.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM

Probably made Bangers and Mash Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 08:42 AM

Now the Comrades all resort to personal attacks, having nothing else to offer.

Dave Gnome,
what 'the historians' say and parrots their texts ad nauseam

What the historians say is actually relevant to a discussion about history!
If you people could find an historian who agreed with you, you would do the same!

Jim,
Keith, who is now resorting to openly lying about what people

No, I give actual quotes!!
It is you who must resort to lies because you have nothing else.

The Comrades reject the findings of all the historians, choosing to believe myths based on their hard left politics instead.
That is why we can never agree.
Unless and until you can produce someone with actual knowledge who still believes your old hard left myths there is no point in continuing.
Can you Comrades?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 09:11 AM

Just for the record I have never knowingly been a comrade.


Vy mozhete tovarishch.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 09:14 AM

Dave, Jim has quoted the same bit of his Spectator review SEVEN TIMES IN THE LAST FEW DAYS.
Ad Nauseum? I would say so.

He claimed it showed Hastings disagreeing in some way with anything I have ever said.
It did not.
It said, " in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 09:45 AM

Yes, Keith. Absolutely. That was the whole point. Teribums was rabbiting about people not making their own minds up and quoting other people instead. Which is why I made the comparison. To show that not only Jim does it.

You are still referring to me as one of 'you people' when you know damn well that I have never disputed any of your points. Why is that?

You have not commented on the 'you lose' comment. Why is that?

You never apologised for being unclear in what you asked me for. Why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 10:11 AM

There we have Gnome, Musktwat, Steve Shaw, Raggytash, Jom - all singing from the same hymn sheet that went out of date and was shown quite comprehensively to be wrong way back in the 1970s when material from the German side became available and was translated - all of you unable to formulate any idea or opinion of your own so you stick to the myths, lies and misrepresentations that suited the "socialist" cause.

At least the likes of Keith A; myself; HiLo; Lighter; Guest # have read and are knowledgeable with regard to the history of the period we are discussing - it becomes clearer with every post exactly how little you lot know about it. There was an anonymous GUEST (Musktwat") wittering on about "Howlers" unfortunately they've all come from your side of the argument and I would more than willing to parade them all for you any time you like.

Example: Hey Jom what was that First World War stretcher-bearer's name again?

Example: Musktwat tell us all about the REDTOPS

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 10:17 AM

There we have Gnome, Musktwat, Steve Shaw, Raggytash, Jom - all singing from the same hymn sheet

So, which hymn sheet is that Teribums? The only thing I have said about WW1 history is that I do not know enough about it. Steve has only been on the thread briefly and said specifically to keep him out of it. Musket takes the piss and you fall for it every time and Jim is perfectly entitled to his own opinion. So, how is that any sort of concerted effort? Did you just make that up?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 10:24 AM

Sorry Raggytash - Missed you out but I am sure you are quite capable of kicking teribums without my help anyway :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 10:25 AM

Leave him be DtG, he'll go and boil some sauages in a short while. His "knowledge" is firmly based in his adherence to toeing the miltary line. Don't contradict or argue with officers if you know what's good for you. He may not be in the forces now but his attitude reflects his training. Rather pathetic really that a grown man cannot reason for himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM

Dave,
You are still referring to me as one of 'you people' when you know damn well that I have never disputed any of your points. Why is that?
No. I gave the description. If it does not apply to you, you were not included.

You have not commented on the 'you lose' comment. Why is that?

I have not used that expression anywhere in this thread, so why accuse of point scoring on that basis?

You never apologised for being unclear in what you asked me for. Why is that?

I am not clear what you are asking me for.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 10:50 AM

"Dave, Jim has quoted the same bit of his Spectator review SEVEN TIMES IN THE LAST FEW DAYS."
And seven time you have called your historian a liar by claiming the review of his book does not represent his views, after his having welcomed it as fair, generous and accurate, with the exception of one conclusion - (that he hated the military) - Hastings has denied nothing else
Well worth repeating the review seven times more, as far as I'm concerned - and will do in the future should the opportunity arise.
"Just for the record I have never knowingly been a comrade."
Not sure what Keith means exactly by this - my dictionary gives three definitions
As far as I am concerned, if he means I am a member of a communist or socialist party - he is, as usual wrong - I have no political affiliation.
If he means I hold left wing views - he is, of course, correct to a degree - but as I have described myself over and over again a humanist (small L) and a pacifist, he once more ignores what people say when it suits him and makes it up as he goes along.
If he is claiming that it is left to think this war was a total waste of human life - fine by me - maybe I should consider joining something!
As he and some of historians have claimed, that the 'Blackadder' view of this shitty war needs changing - there must be a great number of Socialists/Communists in Britain today otherwise neither he nor his historians would bother their arses mentioning Blackadder - he is the only one to have brought it up here.
This war was caused by different groups of predatory Imperialist capitalists sending millions of mainly young men to their deaths in pursuit of territory and wealth:

The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I, was around 40 million.
There were 20 million deaths and 21 million wounded. The total number of deaths includes
9.7 million military personnel and about 10 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also
known as the Allies) lost about 5.7 million soldiers while the Central Powers lost about 4 million."

It was an Imperialist war brought about by right wing politics.
World War two was brought about by extremist right wing politics driven by a desire for world domination, added to which was a crusade to wipe out an entire people because of their religious beliefs and cultural background.
IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT BOTH OF THESE WARS WERE POLITICALLY RIGHT-WING INSTIGATED I HAVE NO PROBLEM WHEN PEOPLE DESCRIBE ME AS "LEFT WING" - AS MISLEADING AS THAT MIGHT BE
Keith's obsessive defence of this horrific war certainly puts paid to his claim that he isn't a right-wing extremist
Out of the closet or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 11:01 AM

Jim,
Hastings has denied nothing else

Nothing else contradicts anything I have ever said about WW1.

Show me the bit that does.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 11:02 AM

Keith -

1. Dave Gnome,
what 'the historians' say and parrots their texts ad nauseam

What the historians say is actually relevant to a discussion about history!
If you people could find an historian who agreed with you, you would do the same!

All the same point. You addressed me and then said 'you people'. How can that be anything other than referring to me?

2. Yes, OK. You have not used the 'you lose' comment on this thread. I am not one to hark back so I withdraw that.

3. The last point is pretty straight forward. You asked me to apologise for being unclear on what I meant. I did so. You have been equally unclear on a number of points but will not admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 11:06 AM

Keith's obsessive defence of this horrific war certainly puts paid to his claim that he isn't a right-wing extremist

I have only ever defended the British and Empire soldiers who fought and died in it, and only by quoting historians, many left wing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 11:09 AM

Dave, let's stop playing these games and just discuss the issues.
Do you have a point to make about the issue under discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 11:14 AM

Ahhh - So, when you have no answer it is let us stop playing games, but when it suits you, you are more than happy to twist the words of others? Sorry Keith, doesn't work that way.

Yes, I do have a point to make about the issue under discussion. I made it very early on. It was to do with whether the armistice day events were Jingoism or Commemoration. It is easy to see what the issue under discussion should be. It is in the thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 12:15 PM

Ooooh an officer cook eh, Christ that'll really throw Jom out.

Patently a fact that you lot delight in warbling on about things you know S.F.A. about, then object when your glaring mistakes and omissions are pointed out.

Someone down the thread asked about the collective referred to as "you people"? They know full well who they are and referring to them as "you people" is a tad better than collectively referring to them as "you twats" which is undoubtedly what they are as can be determined by their behaviour on this forum.

Loved this one from one of our unknown and nameless contributors:

"Keith doesn't care about how many were killed. Keith cares that WE won." - GUEST - 06 Dec 15 - 03:36 PM

Hate to burst your bubble you complete and utter pillock but if you happen to be fighting in an all out global conflict THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING IS THAT YOU WIN IT If you have any problem grasping that concept then you really should never, ever be allowed to be unsupervised under any circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 12:15 PM

Ooooh an officer cook eh, Christ that'll really throw Jom out.

Patently a fact that you lot delight in warbling on about things you know S.F.A. about, then object when your glaring mistakes and omissions are pointed out.

Someone down the thread asked about the collective referred to as "you people"? They know full well who they are and referring to them as "you people" is a tad better than collectively referring to them as "you twats" which is undoubtedly what they are as can be determined by their behaviour on this forum.

Loved this one from one of our unknown and nameless contributors:

"Keith doesn't care about how many were killed. Keith cares that WE won." - GUEST - 06 Dec 15 - 03:36 PM

Hate to burst your bubble you complete and utter pillock but if you happen to be fighting in an all out global conflict THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING IS THAT YOU WIN IT If you have any problem grasping that concept then you really should never, ever be allowed to be unsupervised under any circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 12:39 PM

"!I have only ever defended the British and Empire soldiers who fought and died in it
What a load of utter bollocks - the best yet
You have defended it as a just war
You have claimed it wasn't Imperialist
You have denied or ignored the ruthless moral blackmail the trickery used to get men to enlist
You have ignored or denied the cockups which caused thousands upon thousands of deaths.
Far from "defending the soldiers, whenever anything a soldier has said which contradicts your insane jingoism you have either directly called or implied that they are either "gullible " or "liars" - you have supported them in the way "a rope supports a hanging man".
You do this whenever you are confronted with the enormity of your behaviour - either deny you have said it, say you meant something else or blamed somebody for your opinions.
You have neither self respect, honesty or the courage of your convictions.
Ypor accusing Dave of "playing these games" is laughable - that is all you pair of clowns have done from day one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 12:48 PM

"as I have described myself over and over again a humanist (small L) and a pacifist"

Thanks Jom – best laugh I've had today – a humanist with a small L eh – hilarious absolutely hilarious.
From the mouth of our tooth-sucking Anglophobe we also get this (Same post):

"It [The First World War] was an Imperialist war brought about by right wing politics.
World War two was brought about by extremist right wing politics driven by a desire for world domination, added to which was a crusade to wipe out an entire people because of their religious beliefs and cultural background."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 12:59 PM

They know full well who they are and referring to them as "you people" is a tad better than collectively referring to them as "you twats"

I have no idea, termibums. Enlighten us. Do bear in mind that Keith was talking about people who say they know something about the history of WW1. Who do you mean by 'you twats'? Remembering of course that either you or Keith have already determined that abuse is only used in the absence of reasoning...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 01:11 PM

I too seem to be "you people" as well as "you twats" and even "Musktwat". Mind you, he called a post not by me a "Musktwat" the other day so presumably a knowledge of his dialect of Klingon might be useful. If he means Musket, I thought he or they post under their name? I don't for the very reason the trolls on here love to address the person rather than what they post.

There again, if I knew what he was on about I doubt I could understand him without professional commentary by a psychiatrist.

That post naming those who know better than others. Any chance of you doing it again Woodcock? It was truly bellyachingly funny 😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 01:48 PM

Teribus,

The most important thing is the welfare of your citizens. This is far more important than whether you win or not. You can argue in some cases, such as the war with Nazi Germany, or a possible war with ISIS (I am still far convinced that there is such a war) that your citizens welfare would suffer so much in the event of defeat that victory would be imperative. In other cases, not so, I would argue that WWI was a case where it was not so.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 02:35 PM

The basis of MAD.

Winning can only be based on which became a glowing puddle first, Moscow or Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 02:39 PM

Dave, I am just going to discuss the issues.
If you have nothing more to add, why do you come here. A few days ago you just wanted it to stop!

Jim, I just defend the soldiers.
They did not invade and occupy foreign lands.
Theirs was a just war. That is also the considered opinion of the historians.

All the nations had empires, but Britain's fight was not imperial.
We would have kept out had Belgium not been invaded. No imperial motive.

You have denied or ignored the ruthless moral blackmail the trickery used to get men to enlist

So have Pennell, Macmillan, Paxman/OU just quoted on this thread.
You will find no historian who thinks there was any sigfnificant amount of what you imagine.

You have ignored or denied the cockups which caused thousands upon thousands of deaths.

Of course I have never denied mistakes were made.
A few commanders were incompetent. Most were not but they all had to learn an entirely new kind of warfare.

your insane jingoism
I am no jingo. You will find no jingoism in any post of mine.

I only ever defended three opinions.
Britain had little choice but to fight, the people accepted that, and the army was generally well and competently led.

I have supported each with unambiguous quotes from numerous historians.
YOU HAVE FOUND NONE THAT DISAGREE!

Unless and until you can, we have nothing to discuss.
Can you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 02:44 PM

Dave,
I would argue that WWI was a case where it was not so.

You are entitled to do so, but you would be arguing against the historians about history.
I would argue that makes you a fool.

You say you know of no historian capable of objective research.
You did not justify that strange claim. Do you know of any at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 02:54 PM

Dave, I am just going to discuss the issues.
If you have nothing more to add, why do you come here. A few days ago you just wanted it to stop!

I did indeed, Keith, and still do, but while you continue to misrepresent me and anyone else who dares to question you I am happy to put the other side of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 03:58 PM

Keith, I think you are confusing Daves, I am not DtG.

Historians may indeed argue that victory in WWI was worth the losses in the trenches. However seeing as they were not the ones who died in the trenches, I rate their opinions as moot. I am not arguing about history. I am arguing about deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 04:18 PM

Keith, I think you are confusing Daves, I am not DtG.

That statement would have been better stopped just prior to "Daves".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 04:29 PM

I am not arguing about history. I am arguing about deaths.

Very well put.

We are indeed different people, Guest Dave, but that is what I have been saying all along. To argue whether one man led people to their deaths is better than another man who led more people to their deaths is futile at best and heartless at worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 15 - 05:42 PM

Sacrifice is easy when sat in a comfy armchair in Hertford.

Tales of competence and understanding are hard to take in from a grave in a foreign land I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM

In our free and safe world it may seem crazy to have to fight for anything.
They did not believe it safe to allow a cruel invader to prevail.
They still held to that belief through the times of maximum suffering and death, and to the end of the war and after.
You think they were wrong, but what is your opinion worth?
Apart from Ferguson, every historian has come to the conclusion based on informed hindsight that they were right.

Like all normal, intelligent people, I get my knowledge of history from the history books.
Yours comes from somewhere else, and you really believe you have a better understanding than those professionals!

That is why we can not agree.
Unless and until you can find anyone with actual knowledge who still believes your myths, I leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

Be assured, I have not confused the Daves.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 04:50 AM

I leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

If only that were true...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 12:38 PM

Dave, re your statement that historians tailors the facts to suit their prejudices and that you cannot name a historian who carries out his research in a scientific manner. You are wrong , very wrong about this. I have been both a teacher and a student of history for many years. I spent a lot of my time teaching students how to do meticulous historical research.
As I have said on other threads, historians may not be neutral, but they can be objective and for the most part, they are. It requires patience and discipline to achieve this and no historian that I have met has altered or twisted facts to suit a political or personal agenda. That is a sin often committed by "hobby" historians" who have not taken the time to do intensive research.
   
You cannot name an historian who carries out his research in a scientific manner ! I would be very interested to know what historians you have read and how you came to that sweeping and erroneous conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 12:49 PM

As with politics , History may be better served as a discipline taught as Historical Science?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 12:53 PM

WHAT advice would you, (HiLo}, have for a young historian regarding scientific history advocates and their methodology?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM

That is a very good question Donuel. I would not advocate for History as a social science, or any other kind of science. But I would strongly recommend that anyone seriously contemplating the study of history enroll in a school that has a rigorous department of studies in historical research methods. I have taught a course of this nature and many students find it difficult at first, but once they become adept at recognizing their own biases and illiminating them, they find the research and writing of history much more satisfying.
I have a great respect for the study and research methods of Science, but I think that the study of science is quite different from the study of history, although there are some basic rules to be applied in the study any discipline.
What I often see in these threads are comments by people who really don't seem to read much history and perhaps do not understand that it is a discipline and how hard one must work at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 01:39 PM

Apologies for bad spelling, finger faster that brain these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 02:34 PM

Dave said,
I rate their(historians') opinions as moot (because they were not there).

The people who were there agreed .

I am not arguing about history. I am arguing about deaths.

You are arguing about history. The issues are historical, and intensely researched.

You reject the findings of the history books and the professionals who research and write them, believing you somehow know more about it.
That is an enormous conceit, and a delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 02:46 PM

With regard to the most important thing if engaged in an all out war, a global conflict, I suggested that the most important thing is that you win it but from Guest Dave we get this muddled nonsense that contradicts itself:

"The most important thing is the welfare of your citizens. This is far more important than whether you win or not."

Here comes the qualification and the contradiction

"You can argue in some cases, such as the war with Nazi Germany, or a possible war with ISIS (I am still far convinced that there is such a war) that your citizens welfare would suffer so much in the event of defeat that victory would be imperative."

Followed by this piece of idiocy born from complete and utter ignorance and astonishing arrogance:

"In other cases, not so, I would argue that WWI was a case where it was not so."

Let me see care to tell us all how you can tell in advance of a war which case applies? You'd need to be psychic wouldn't you?

Listen to this from Jom and tell me if you can see how idiotic it is:

"It [The First World War] was an Imperialist war brought about by right wing politics.

World War two was brought about by extremist right wing politics driven by a desire for world domination, added to which was a crusade to wipe out an entire people because of their religious beliefs and cultural background."

OK so the First World War was a war of Empires practically all the 1914 combatants were imperial in one form or another some fought to increase their Imperial power by conquest, others fought to preserve their empires. Jom seems to believe it was brought about by right wing politics - he's wrong of course but no-one will ever convince him of that so I see no point in trying.

Now onto the Second World War again caused by right wing politics according to Jom, but if it was driven by a desire for world domination doesn't that by it's very nature (i.e. world wide domination) make it an imperial war? Can you dominate the world without imperial pretensions? This bid for domination by Germany in WWII was like the bid for imperial expansion by Germany in WWI to be achieved by aggression and conquest.

So tell me Dave how come WWII is GOOD whereas WWI was BAD? The wealth, security and safety of the way of life enjoyed by everyone in Europe and everyone in the British Isles was as much under threat in 1914 as it was in 1939 and oddly enough the respective governments in power at the time read it clearly and correctly and thankfully acted accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 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 disasterous for a number of minorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 03:32 PM

Perhaps we can get her out of Silent Witness to find out how so many of our officers managed to be shot in the back?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 03:58 PM

Guest, what is your source for this information. I have found no source that supports it, Dave, can you comment on my response to your comments about the bias of historians. I would be curious to know what Historians you have read and are speaking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 05:15 PM

So this is why wars last so long eh?

Nothing to see here. Perhaps the inter web is only good for porn after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 05:34 PM

the findings of the history books and the professionals

Which history books and which professionals, Professor?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 07:19 PM

Which ones would you suggest Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 08:12 PM

I'm not a renowned educator and expert like you, the Professor and Terrabyte, Hi. I'll leave it all up to you three to set the world right.

By the way, which real bookstores are YOUR works available in? You've only fulfilled one of the Professor's many criteria so far by being alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 08:39 PM

I knew you were not are renowned educator Greg. I just thought you might have something constructive to say since you were asking about history books!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 15 - 09:11 PM

As usual, Hi, you missed the whole point. Rock on.

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

I was not expecting a political Greg.

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: 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
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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 09:31 AM

the history books.

WHICH history books, Professor?

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: 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: 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 - 10:15 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:59 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,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: GUEST,Dave
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 11:27 AM

So it was made up.

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: 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 - 12:49 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 - 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 - 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: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 15 - 02:28 PM

Mashed banana for tea Teribums?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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
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: 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 - 03:57 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: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:18 AM

Now, come on chaps, be nice. I may disagree with Keith's statement that all historians agree, for the reasons I have given, but Keith does have a point in that all the historians that meet his criteria, that he has read, do agree. The sticking point is that Keith genuinely believes that all 'Keith's historians' does mean all historians. I do not believe him and feel that it is up to him to prove it. I say that until he has read the works of all living, eminent, etc. historians he cannot prove it. He says that until I disprove it, it must be the truth. Bit like a belief in God really, apart from Keith is not likely to kill disbelievers. I hope...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:26 AM

Certainly not all historians, and maybe not even most historians, and we certainly do have examples above of historians who don't say this.

We know about Ferguson.
Who else Dave?
Names and quotes please.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:38 AM

See what I mean? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM

Dave Gnome,
I say that until he has read the works of all living, eminent, etc. historians he cannot prove it.

I say that I have, or enough of their work to know their opinion on my issues.
In their books and articles the historians refer to each others' work.
No name has cropped up that I have missed. No book has been reviewed in the media of an unknown name.
In three years of arguing, Jim has scoured the net looking for anyone, and I am sure his supporters have too.

If they are worthy of attention their work should be accessible. No such has been missed.
Perhaps Guest Dave will now produce some.
Good luck with that Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM

"Certainly not all historians, and maybe not even most historians, and we certainly do have examples above of historians who don't say this."

OK I take it that Dave is talking about historians who have made the study of the First World War their speciality - YES or NO?

As you do have examples of historians who don't say this Dave would you care to name them. I can only think of one Niall Ferguson who said it was a mistake for Great Britain on economic grounds - only thing is that this hypothesis of his is based on the erroneous assumption that after a German victory in the west in Belgium and France that everything would go back to the way it was before hostilities.

Now then GUEST DAVE as you'll take the word of Harry Patch above anything else here is what Harry said about killing the enemy - note the change at the end:

Shooting to kill

I never knew Bob [Harry's friend and gunner] to use that [Lewis] gun to kill. If he used that gun at all, it was about two feet off the ground and he would wound them in the legs. He wouldn't kill them if he could help it.

[A German soldier] came to me with a rifle and a fixed bayonet. He had no ammunition, otherwise he could have shot us. He came towards us. I had to bring him down. First of all, I shot him in the right shoulder. He dropped the rifle and the bayonet. He came on. His idea, I suppose, was to kick the gun if he could into the mud, so making it useless. But anyway, he came on and for our own safety, I had to bring him down. I couldn't kill him. He was a man I didn't know. I didn't know his language. I couldn't talk to him. I shot him above the ankle, above the knee. He said something to me in German. God knows what it was. But for him the war was over.

He would be picked up by a stretcher bearer. He would have his wounds treated. He would be put into a prisoner-of-war camp. At the end of the war, he would go back to his family. Now, six weeks after that, a fellow countryman of his pulled the lever of the gun that fired the rocket that killed my three mates, and wounded me. If I had met that German soldier after my three mates had been killed, I'D HAVE NO TROUBLE AT ALL IN KILLING HIM."

You take the word of Harry Patch, yet you discount the words of others who were there and fought for a far, far longer time than Harry Patch - some saw service in France in the infantry for the entire duration of the war - perhaps that is because what they say does not matched your blinkered and biased view of the conflict, borne I would suspect from the 1960s anti-war portrayal and presentation of it that was made to order for an agenda all of its own.

Gnome if the British Government of the day saw that to act the way they did was in our nations best interest and on examining the facts and the appraisal of what they saw as being the likely outcomes I have no problem in stating them - no speculation on my part. So who is it that has changed the subject? What bluster?

Sorry Guest Dave - nobody had to invent the 45 minute claim the Iraqis were armed by the Soviets and went on to make domestic copies of Soviet weapons. Fact: To arm a GRAD Rocket, Artillery Shell, Bomb or a SCUD missile with any Chemical/Biological Agent from the time the order is given to the time that weapon is ready to be used IS 45 minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM

GUEST - 10 Dec 15 - 03:38 AM

They have to be still alive too

Unlike every single fucking first hand account.

The "first hand accounts" are extremely valuable in studying the period - but only as snap-shots.

Most were written 1918 - 1929, some probably later from diaries kept at the time. The authors of these works are writing about THEIR experiences and those books were not written with any access to;

1: Restricted and Classified British Government papers relating to the subject, the last of those are only now being released.

2: Restricted, classified and untranslated papers from Belgian, French, German and Russian sources

The accounts you refer to apply to the small picture and are one sided so although they do give important information they do not give the whole picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM

the appraisal of what they saw as being the likely outcomes

what they saw as being the likely outcomes indeed. Not certainties then. Not certainties now. That is the fact of the matter. These thing MAY have happened. Not WOULD have happened. Let me know what part of it are you having problems with and I will try to make it clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:00 AM

Millions fought in WW1.
The testimony of one is meaningless. Every view possible to hold will have been held by one of them.

The historians look at the views of tens of thousands to establish a representative view, and they use statements taken at the time or shortly afterwards.

(An example of Ferguson's understanding and judgement, he said that John Maynard Keynes had no stake in the future because he was gay and childless."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:06 AM

Yeah, they called up dustmen but apparently not historians or other academics?

So a historian who was there has only "snapshot" to add to their account?

Setting aside the obvious point that any and every account and commentary is built up from first hand accounts...

You are off your bloody rocker. No wonder Keith feels an affinity towards you.




DtG. Yes, let's be fair but either Keith has an odious agenda or he is of extremely low intellect. Neither suggests the need for earnest debate with his preposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:18 AM

So, really simple questions then Keith.

1. How many historians, worldwide, fit your criteria?
2. How many books and articles have been written by them?
3. Have you read them all?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM

BTW. For anyone new to this discussion, what are your criteria? Did I get it right before?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

Keith has an odious agenda or he is of extremely low intellect.

No argument. Just personal abuse from a non-person.

I learn history from the history books.
That is what normal, intelligent people do.
If you think you know more about history that the people who research and write the history books, your are a deluded fool.

Guest Dave, no need to spend time on research.
You must have had some names in mind when you said, "we certainly do have examples above of historians who don't say this."

So name one.
Unless and until one of you does, you are arguing against all the historians any of us are aware of.
Why would an intelligent person do that?
(Answer, politics.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM

Perhaps you may add;

What gives you the authority to take their work at face value?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:32 AM

So, really simple questions then Dave.

1. How many historians, worldwide, fit your criteria? You have named none.
2. How many books and articles have been written by them? You have named none.
3. Have you read them all? Or any single one? NO!

Unless and until one of you finds one, you are arguing against all the historians any of us are aware of.
Why would an intelligent person do that?
(Answer, politics.)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:44 AM

1. I do not have any criteria as I am not claiming anything.
2. See 1.
3. See 2.

I have not made any claims that I need to prove, Keith. You have. You say that all historians agree with you.

Now, I have answered your questions, will you answer mine? Do I need to repeat them? Shall I hold my breath while waiting? The simple fact of the matter is, you do not even know how many there are, let alone claim that you have read them all. Nothing to do with history. Simple logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:51 AM

I have tried this before and thought it was a good idea. Can't remember what happened.

Keith, how about you use the phrase 'all histories I have read recently confirm my three points.' Nothing contentious in there. It is a proven fact that no one can dispute. Remember though that 'all histories I have read recently' is not the same as 'all historians'.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:00 AM

By his own admission Keith has only recently started reading Max Hastings book "Catastrophe" despite this he has been citing a book he has not actually read for over a year. Now we'll have to wait for the excuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:10 AM

How about 'All histories any of us has read or is aware of, in the last twenty years, confirm my three points.'

Why do some of you reject all the histories any of us has read or is aware of in the last twenty years?
Is that rational?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:11 AM

You seem to confuse reading with prejudging.

Not to mention understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:15 AM

Fred,
By his own admission Keith has only recently started reading Max Hastings book "Catastrophe" despite this he has been citing a book he has not actually read for over a year.

I did not cite that book once before I read it last week.
I have cited articles and essays written by Hastings, but never his book. I only read it because Jim made such an issue of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:23 AM

You first mentioned Hastings on the 7th December. LAST YEAR.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:37 AM

GUEST - 10 Dec 15 - 05:33 AM

Most intelligent thing that you have contributed to date - please keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:42 AM

How about 'All histories any of us has read or is aware of, in the last twenty years, confirm my three points.'

That would not be factual. I have no idea what anyone else has read, have you? You can say that anything YOU have read does but you cannot speak for anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 06:53 AM

Chaps you seem to think that I am trying to convince you all of something - I am not, I know that that would be an impossible task as even in your own self-confessed ignorance of the subject you all feel as though you know much more about it than people who have made it their life's work and received academic acclaim for that work.

The WWI threads and those hardy annuals where people have a pop at the Festival of Remembrance always bring out the same old myths, lies and misrepresentations and as long as you keep trotting those out the likes of Keith A and myself will introduce you to the facts rather than your fantasies - and to date none of you have ever challenged or countered any of the facts stated, your normal resort has been to personal abuse.

Throughout these threads Keith A has challenged you to come up with the name of just one historian who disagrees with the three points originally raised - and to date after two years you have not been able to supply one whose specialty IS the First World War.

Keep dancing on the head of that pin Gnome it really does provide endless amusement.

By the way whatever happened to GUEST and his/her example of how historical theories are cyclical? GUEST never did get back to us on that did he/she - wonder why not? Could it be that he/she was talking a complete and utter load of bollocks?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 07:13 AM

Therein lies the difficulty these people face. Every time they present a historian the work is discounted for various specious criteria set by yourself or predominantly Keith. The latest being your reference to someone who's speciality is the First World War. Now Hastings, for example, has written on many subjects and has not specialised in WW1 history. Do we therefore discount him?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 07:13 AM

DtG,
That would not be factual. I have no idea what anyone else has read, have you?

Yes, because we have discussed it openly.
If they had found something that contradicted me, it would have been posted.

Fred,
You first mentioned Hastings on the 7th December. LAST YEAR.

Much earlier actually Fred.
I have cited articles and essays written by Hastings, but never his book. I only read it because Jim made such an issue of it.
I did not cite that book once before I read it last week.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 07:19 AM

How about this DtG?
'All histories of the last twenty years any of us has been able to quote confirm my three points.'

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:00 AM

That looks fine to me, Keith. Try to remember it next time you are tempted to say all historians agree with you :-)

Teribums

Keep dancing on the head of that pin Gnome it really does provide endless amusement.

If you can find endless amusement on a BS section of a web forum, well done but you really need to get out more. Glad to be of service to the disadvantaged :-) While enjoying yourself so much, can you tell us whether you still believe that you can say with certainty what would have happened if any historic event had not occurred? If so, surely you could amuse yourself far better by writing alternative reality fiction?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM

Just some observations.. Keith reads a lot of history, Teribus know a lot of history. Some here appear to read very little history and are what are known as "google" scholars. Some just come to argue. no matter what evidence is produced they insist on sawing sawdust.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM

Keith in fact has read little to judge by his posts, and understood less. Now if you said he was a google scholar few here would disagree with you. If you want verification of the same look back through his posts over the past year.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM

I have read many of Keiths posts, I believe he reads history and understands what he reads. I do not always agree with his interpretation, but he does read, it shows in what he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:19 AM

GUEST - 10 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM

"Keith in fact has read little to judge by his posts, and understood less. Now if you said he was a google scholar few here would disagree with you. If you want verification of the same look back through his posts over the past year."

If judging by posts is the metric you wish to measure by then GUEST you would appear to know and understand S.F.A., about anything to the degree that you could not even be viewed by anybody as being any sort of scholar at all. As to verification well at least a person could check back to see what Keith A or indeed even myself have previously said about something (Jom has done that on a number of occasions and it has blown up in his face every time") bit more difficult to that for though isn't it - but there again as you never actually say anything and your posts tend to say nothing germane and are mostly mere ad hominem attacks there is no real point in checking back on them

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:20 AM

Not sure what your point is HiLo. Those are pretty obvious observations. How will they help to progress the discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:27 AM

"Jim Hastings supports my case" 26th Nov 2014

"Max Hastings own words" 26th Nov 2014

"Max Hastings does not support your view" 26th Nov 2014

Bold assertions from someone who NOW acknowledges he has only just read the book.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:28 AM

My point is that there are those who present a fairly reasonable set of facts and those who come merely to argue. The discussion will probably not progress as long as attacks are made against people and not against ideas or history.
As for not getting my point, I can hardly believe that it was that obscure.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:41 AM

Sorry, HiLo. As I am sure you know it can be difficult to get things across on an on-line forum. I still don't know what your point is. If that makes me stupid, so be it but it would be better if you spelt it out rather than risk a misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:48 AM

HiLo's contributions add more to the discussion than your pin head dancing Gnome. It would appear that in terms of this discussion one side would appear to need to up the factual content of their game and provide substantiation for their views and that in his/her opinion that side is not the side Keith A or myself are arguing.

Getting back to speculation and informed assessment If A stands on the bank of a river, should he fall in he might drown, he might not, but as he doesn't fall in, whether he may have drowned or not is pure speculation for someone who knows nothing about A. If on the other hand someone did know that A was an extremely good swimmer and supremely confident in the water then it would be an educated and informed assessment that had A fallen in the river then A would have survived. Further factors could be added to this for someone who knows the river and the location along its banks where A was standing. In exactly the same way you in your own self-confessed ignorance might speculate about the situation, circumstances and factors pertaining to Europe in the summer of 1914 and state that nobody could know with any certainty what would have happened, others fully up to speed with the information available could with regard to how various courses of action would affect them. That is after all how any decision is made Gnome - carry on dancing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 08:54 AM

I think I have been very clear..some people here know about history..some don't know about history but insist on arguing about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:02 AM

Some people have said that a historian agrees with them even when they finally admit they haven't even READ that historian until a year AFTER they claimed his agreement. Now I don' know what you call that were you live Hilo but on this side of the pond we call it lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:04 AM

That is after all how any decision is made

It is indeed how any decision is made. As I said at the outset, there is a distinct possibility or even a probability that things will go that way. But that is not a certainty. Your assertion that Had Great Britain remained neutral and had stayed out of the war in 1914 the following would have been the case is therefore invalid. You could have said 'may have been the case', 'possibly would have been the case' or even 'probably have been the case'. But you didn't. You said it would have been the case. Neither you nor anyone else can be certain of that. You know that, which is why, I suspect, you are now relying in poorly aimed abuse rather than reason.

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

Whatever side of the pond you are on guest, your statement is called gross misinterpretation. You ought to read more and post less.
Dave, you are doing it again..sawing sawdust.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:12 AM

Ah, OK. Thanks HiLo. How come you are happy to name those you believe do know about history but shy away from naming those you believe do not?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:16 AM

Well, if you insist that I name names..Dave The Gnome knows very little history. Evidence, read his post..argument for its own sake. nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:19 AM

...and I have no idea what sawing sawdust means in this context :-( I thought it was akin to crying over spilt milk?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:20 AM

Guest,
Some people have said that a historian agrees with them even when they finally admit they haven't even READ that historian until a year AFTER they claimed his agreement.

I had read that historian, and all the others I have used.
I had read numerous essays and article which I quoted agreeing my views.
I gave the quotes with links to their source so they could be seen in their original intended context.

I have never even referred to what is in Hastings' book until Jim started quoting his review.


All histories of the last twenty years any of us have been able to quote confirm my three points.
On what basis do you reject them all Guest?
If you believe you know more than all of them, your conceit and stupidity are truly epic!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:28 AM

Dave, sawing sawdust means saying the same bloody thing over and over..What "context" are you talking about ?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:47 AM

Ah - OK. Never heard it in that form. Looked it up since and found it being defined as something pointless as well as what I thought it was. IE -

In connection with our life, the sawdust is like our past. Many people tend to get back on their past. They used to think back of their sad moments, regretting and worrying those moments that are over and done with. When you are doing this, you are merely trying to saw sawdust.And if you are doing it in some portions of your life, I tell you,you will never find happiness but instead you will live in a life full of worries and regrets!Don't be a prisoner of your past!

This quote is actually similar to the saying, "Don't cry over spilt milk."..Yes, this saying is a commonplace, a platitude.

In the context of this thread and my understanding of it, it did not make sense. In the sense of saying things over and over again, then surely everyone on this thread, apart from newcomers such as Guest, Dave, are equally guilty of that offence. Aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 09:57 AM

You don't embarrass easily, do you ?

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

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

1: If Belgian forces opposed the Germans (Which they did) it would result in the annexation of Belgium by Germany - this was clearly stated to the Belgian Government by the Germans BEFORE the invasion - no speculation about that it was a clearly worded statement regarding what the consequences would be should the Belgians elect to fight. Any doubt in your mind there Gnome? If so one wonders what sort of a warning you would have to receive before you realised you were being warned of something.

2: By way of reparations should your armies resist ours we will strip you of your colonies and overseas possessions - No speculation there - a direct consequence of us defeating you means that we take over your colonies and overseas possessions.

3: As a result of a German victory in Belgium, Belgium then becomes part of Germany in much the same as Alsace-Lorraine did after the Franco-Prussian War. The formerly Belgian Ports of Antwerp; Zeebrugge and Ostend would therefore become German ports capable of being used as bases for the German High Seas Fleet. The ports of Zeebrugge and Ostend are within four hours steaming of the Thames Estuary and London - No speculation Gnome just FACT

The likely threat of the above prompted Great Britain to join the "entente powers" in their fight against Germany.

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

Why, what should be embarrassing? People have tried all sorts from abusing my stature, questioning my intelligence and morals, and casting aspersions on my roots and parentage. None of it matters from people I know little about and care even less for. They do not know me and whatever they say is usually well wide of the mark anyway. It does surprise how that people on here get so heated about inconsequential matters though.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 10:17 AM

"It does surprise how that people on here get so heated about inconsequential matters though."

You more than most pin dancer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 10:21 AM

I did none of the above..I said you don't know much history and you argue for the sake of arguing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 10:26 AM

Another possible result had Britain remained neutral in WW1 is that WW2 may not have happened. My Dad would not have left Poland. You would have no one to provide your endless amusement and you would be stuck with playing soldiers. But WW2 did happen. I stated this morning that I would fart the Marseillaise in E flat. I haven't yet. Trouble is with your 'facts', teribums, is that none of them did actually happen did they? You are filling in the gaps with what you believe would happen and missing the vital point that if anything can go wrong, it will.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 10:31 AM

I said you don't know much history and you argue for the sake of arguing.

I beat you too it. I said years ago that I know little about the subject in hand. I do not believe I argue for the sake of arguing but, even if it was so, I do not believe there is anything wrong with that. However, my arguments have consistently been ones that challenge the rigid assertions made by some people and, so far, I have managed to get at least one to dilute their statements. I consider that a win/win situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM

So you know little history, you argue for the sake of arguing and that is a win win situation. Why would you spend time arguing over things about which you clearly know nothing. Very odd reasoning..but...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 10:51 AM

You more than most pin dancer.

Not in recent times, teribums. Not got riled on here since I realised that there was no one worth getting riled over :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 11:01 AM

Why would you spend time arguing over things about which you clearly know nothing.

But I am not arguing about history, HiLo. That is what I have said I know very little about. I have never disputed any of Keith's historical points, just his assertion that all historians agree with him. That just does not make sense to me when it is obvious the no one is familiar with the work of all historians. How much of this thread or the past ones have you read?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 11:07 AM

"Another possible result had Britain remained neutral in WW1 is that WW2 may not have happened. My Dad would not have left Poland."

See anything monstrously wrong with that Gnome? Ah sod it I'd hate to see you struggle, but it is blindingly obvious -

Had Britain stayed out of WWI then there would never have been a Poland for your Dad to leave - By God are you bone thick or what???

What facts of mine are wrong Gnome?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 11:12 AM

But I am not arguing about history, HiLo.

But history is the discussion Dave!
All you do is try to provoke off-issue arguments.
If you have no actual contribution to make, what are you doing here?
You are just a trouble maker.

You have not caused any significant "dilution" of anything. Just endless hair splitting and nit picking and distractions from the actual issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 01:26 PM

Well, teribums, I may not know WW1 history but I do know quite a bit about Poland and a lot about my family. They were from Byalistok, near the borders of Belarus, Lithuania, the Ukraine and Kalingrad. In its history both Poland and Bialystok have been invaded and ruled by various other countries but in all that time, they both still existed. My family still may or may not have left Poland. or whatever it may or may not have been called at the time.

You are making the same assumption as you have in the other posts, that something that did not happen would have, None of this is fact as it did not happen. You will note that I said WW2 may not have happened. Had WW1 not panned out the way it did so many things may or may not have happened that my Gradfather may or may not not have left Russia, my Grandmother may or may not have married someone else and my Dad may or may not not have been born. It is all fantasy. It never happened. And if that is your best shot at abuse you are still firing blanks :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 01:27 PM

Keith. Tell me again, do all historians agree with you? No cigar to you for the pretty feeble abuse either. What am I doing here? Pointing out how silly these discussions can get and how daft some of the contributors are. Believe it or not, there are those who think I am a bone thick troublemaker, yet they still take the time to argue with me. How silly is that ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 02:28 PM

That assessment of mine was correct - you really are that bone thick - but of course you were a union activist weren't you - capable of being fed any line, pointed in the right direction and then sent out to lie your back teeth off, make the bullets and get some other poor sod to fire them.

You have absolutely nothing to say, you are a complete and utter joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 02:42 PM

Thhhh...... Tthhhhh........ Ttthhhhhiiiiiiiii...

No. No use. Too many targets for one observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:21 PM

Dave,
What am I doing here? Pointing out how silly these discussions can get

No. You never find fault with Jim or Rag or the Guest Muskets.
I posted to the Churchill thread and you turned up there today making the same sort of hair splitting criticisms, just of me.

'All histories of the last twenty years any of us has been able to quote confirm my three points.'
That is because,
'All histories any of us has read or is aware of, in the last twenty years, confirm my three points.'
That is because,
'All histories in the last twenty years, confirm my three points.'

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:22 PM

Missed by a mile, teribums. Hope you were not in charge of any guns when you were were playing with boats. Still, it's nice to see you resorting to abuse, poor as it is, like your mate says no one should do. What is it he says? Shows lack of reasoned arguments? I think you need to go and have a lie down again :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 03:37 PM

You never find fault with Jim or Rag or the Guest Muskets.

Of course I have. I have had words with both Jim and Musket on a few occasions. I will do again if you like.

Jim - You are too fixed in your ways.

Musket - You use too much abuse.

Raggy - You purposely wind Keith up too much.

Now, let us see if they actualy take that as a personal sleight and drone on and on at every opportunity for years on end or whether they behave like adults, take it on board and act on it or just ignore it shall we?

All histories in the last twenty years, confirm my three points.

But you have not read all histories written in the last 20 years, dear Keithy, dear Keithy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:04 PM

Keith says:

"But history is the discussion Dave!"

Except that it isn't. Unless I am very much mistaken the threat title is:

"BS: Jingoism or Commemoration"

Started by Raggytash and referring to the Remembrance day events in the present day. So history is at best tangential.

You would have had a stronger case had you made this statement on the Churchill thread, although even there history is only relevant in so far as there is any evidence as to whether Churchill was a thieving cheapskate or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:06 PM

Dave, Yes you're probably correct.

In my defence have you ever had a scab you can't help picking at. That's how I feel about Keith, he's a nasty deceitful, lying scab and I can't help but pick at it.

Oh ............ I've done it again haven't I!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 04:09 PM

By the way, what does BS stand for? Is it the obvious?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:11 PM

See how grown ups act in the face of criticism. I think Jim is away but I am sure he will be pretty much the same. Accepted, Musket.

Yes, Dave, it does stand for the obvious. Amazing how many treat it so seriously isn't it :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 15 - 05:52 PM

Nicely done boys you've just shown yourselves to be the Trolls that you undoubtedly are. Now toddle off and talk about beer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 02:55 AM

What, teribums, and deprive you of your source of endless fun? Not likely! No matter what you think of us we would not treat the disadvantaged so badly :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 04:48 AM

Guest Dave, whatever the thread title, we have all been discussing history for weeks now, except DtG obviously.

DtG, absolute proof is a requirement in Science. That is why evolution is referred to as a theory and not a law.
You are Pete's natural ally. You should be out there arguing his case that it is not and can not be proven.

In human affairs absolute proof is rarely possible.
You can be hanged if the case against you is just proven beyond reasonable doubt.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that if a group of historians existed, or even just one, churning out work that contradicted all those prominent historians quoted here, then we would have come across it or at least some reference to it.
The fact that none of us have proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no such group.

Jump and gyrate on your pin Dave, but it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the historians agree on those three points.
Go hang yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 05:20 AM

Nah, that last line just doesn't work. Go hang yourself is both dated and sounds distinctly American. The historical aspect I can understand but why omit the standard English 'and'? May I suggest 'Go and fuck yourself' as an alternative? Still wouldn't work but it would sound better.

I don't understand the bit about Pete, sorry. I know and have always said that evolution is a theory and have never referred to it as a law. For the life of me I can't understand what you are on about.

On the 'the historians' bit, I am not sure if you are qualified to say something is beyond reasonable doubt. Shouldn't that be the prerogative of '12 good men and true' or some such? Anyway, funny thing is I agree that 'the historians' agree with you. I have always said as much. What is in doubt is what is meant by 'the historians'. You have been singularly reticent on the question of how many historians, world wide, meet your criteria. Do you not know? It would be interesting to all concerned to see what percentage of them you have studied. At a guess, what do you think it is? Half of them? A quarter? 10%? 1%? If you do not even know that how can it be that you are so sure that they all agree with you? Still, if nothing else, it keeps you off the streets I suppose.

Very interesting to note that you are floundering all over the place with your points and introducing a fair bit of poorly thought out abuse. It was you that suggested that abuse is only used in the absence of reasoned argument wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM

Dance away Dave, but no-one can or will find an historian who contradicts all the others.
I formed my views by reading history.
My attackers reject the findings of the historians believing they somehow know better.
Their vast conceit and delusion is laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Colin
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 05:34 AM

Oh Historians have been found, however YOU have dismissed each and every one of them for a whole multitude of reasons, left wing, right wing, not sold in High Street bookshops, only published on subversive websites, not mainstream, not current, uses the wrong toothpaste perhaps. Where YOU get the AUTHORITY to dismiss the work of any historian is open to conjecture. Having said all that as you profess to know so much about the subject why don't you write a book about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 05:35 AM

My attackers reject the findings of the historians

I haven't rejected the findings of historians. I guess I must not be one of your attackers. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 05:36 AM

Keith,

I am surprised that someone who advertises themselves as a private tutor in Maths and Science should say that. Proof is a concept in mathematical logic. Science advances by the formulation of hypotheses which can be falsified. Newton's theory of gravity is such a hypothesis, it can be falsified in extreme conditions, such as high accelerations (relativity) and maybe low accelerations (MOND). But there is, and can never be, an absolute proof, and nor is one required.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 05:38 AM

Does he Dave? That's interesting! Wonder if he uses the Mudcat as a reference for potential clients? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 06:36 AM

Why did I think that this was relevant?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 06:42 AM

You are not the first and I don't think you will be the last to spot the similarity, Guest. I think they would have had a field day if years-long forum arguments had existed then :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 09:04 AM

Guest Dave, it is some time since my full name has been used.
Had you committed it to memory? Were you hoping to find some dirt on me?

Have you remembered the names of any of those historians yet?
You said, "we certainly do have examples above of historians who don't say this."
Who are they then Dave?
Perhaps when you said "above" you meant in heaven. I have acknowledged that there used to be some, but not any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM

Keith, what you didn't know is that I come from Hertford too, although I have not lived there for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 09:29 AM

Relevance?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM

the findings of the historians

What findings of which historians, Professor?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 11:08 AM

What is your AUTHORITY Keith for accepting some historians as valid and dismissing other historians as invalid.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 01:11 PM

Greg, just on this thread you could have read Max Boot, Catriona Pennel, Margaret Macmillan, Max Hastings, Gary Sheffield, Dan Todman, and the OU History Faculty who provided the script for Paxman.
Many more on previous threads.

Guest, you do not become an historian just by saying stuff about history.
I have rejected no historian.

Unless and until one of you can find an historian who still believes that old shit you cling to, you have nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM

GUEST - 11 Dec 15 - 11:08 AM

"What is your AUTHORITY Keith for accepting some historians as valid and dismissing other historians as invalid."

AUTHORITY or CRITERIA GHOST?

1954 - 1958 - Material released under the 50 year rule
1984 - 1989 - Material released under the 70 year rule
2014 - 2018 - Material released under the 100 year rule

Material translated and released from foreign sources - for stuff from the German side that didn't happen until 1972, from the Russians it didn't happen until the 1990s. Only in the last two/three years have we found out exactly how British soldiers on the first day of the battle of the Somme suddenly found themselves with German troops at their backs occupying ground that they thought they had just taken.

So anyone writing about the First World War before 1969 only had a partial view of it - and that includes the writings of David Lloyd George. The subject matter is vast so for information reading something by someone who has specialised in the period gives you far more than say someone who wants to make a quick few quid and who just makes up shit in order to provoke controversy as a publicity stunt (Talking about Alan Clark and his book "The Donkeys" here)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM

Lets start with Hastings. Hastings has no academic appointment in any institution submitted to REF2014.

More later

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 02:49 PM

The BBC puts Hastings in its list of leading ten WW1 historians.
He has presented historical documentaries for the BBC.
In 2012 he was awarded the US$100,000 Pritzker Military Library Literature Award, a lifetime achievement award for military writing, which includes an honorarium, citation and medallion, sponsored by the Chicago-based Tawani Foundation.
Hastings is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, and the Royal Historical Society.

Opinion of another historian Nigel Jones.
" Hastings's recent massive volumes on his specialist subject, the Second World War, have shown why his position as Britain's leading military historian is now unassailable. They demonstrate not only his always formidable grasp of the nuts and bolts of logistics and strategy and an authoritative narrative sweep, but a new humane note of empathy not always present in military history, or indeed in his early works.
In this enormously impressive new book, Hastings effortlessly masters the complex lead-up to and opening weeks of the First World War. As a historian,"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 03:15 PM

What gives YOU the right Keith to dictate which histories are valid or invalid. What do YOU bring to the party that no one else has. It is arrogance to the extreme to pontificate as you do. So just what is your AUTHORITY.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 04:07 PM

Nigel H. Jones (is this the Nigel Jones to whom you refer?) has no academic appointment in any institution submitted to REF2014.

Thought you would start with Pennel, Pennel is an academic at the University of Exeter, submitted to REF 2014. But I am still working on which publications are hers.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 04:25 PM

Nigel Jones,
His first book The War Walk: A Journey along the Western Front (1983) was inspired by his elderly father, Frank Jones (1890-1970), a Great War veteran. For it, he walked along the trench lines of the Western front, interviewing more than 30 veterans of the conflict. Among these was the German author and war hero Ernst Jünger.

His stay with Jünger inspired his second book Hitler's Heralds: the story of the Freikorps 1918-1923.(1987. Reissued in 2004 as A Brief History of the birth of the Nazis).

His third book was inspired by the discovery in 1988 of an archive of letters, papers and manuscripts of the English novelist and playwright Patrick Hamilton (1904-1962) which were bequeathed to him by Hamilton's sister-in-law Aileen Hamilton and used in his biography of Hamilton Through a Glass Darkly (1990 : reissued 2008).

In 1991 Jones moved to Vienna, Austria, where he joined the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) and broadcast worldwide on Radio Austria International. It was at this time that his only stage play, End of the Night based on the life of French novelist Louis-Ferdinand Celine, was produced at Brighton's Pavilion Theatre in November 1991.

Returning to England in 1995, he worked as a freelance journalist for The Guardian and Spectator while writing his biography of the poet Rupert Brooke, Life, Death and Myth (1999).

He was deputy editor of History Today magazine (1999-2000) and Reviews editor of BBC History Magazine (2000-2003).

His next book was a brief life of Britain's Fascist leader, Sir Oswald Mosley Mosley published by Haus in 2004.

His recent publications include a history of the plots to assassinate Hitler Countdown to Valkyrie published by Frontline Books in January 2009, and Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London published by Hutchinson in 2011 and to be released in the U.S. in 2012 by St. Martin's Press.

He is an historian and a prolific writer of histories.
The BBC, Telegraph, Guardian and other historians say he is an historian.

Some bloke called Dave says he is not on some register.
Should we ignore everything else Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 04:32 PM

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the new system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions.
As both are independent historians not higher education institutions, why would you expect them to be referenced Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 04:52 PM

You can't win, Dave. You do not know the rules and Keith will never tell you for fear of tying himself down to something he may regret later. Tying Keith down on what constitutes an historian is like trying to push butter up a porcupines arse with hot needle. On top of which, even if you did, he would never respond to what percentage of historians matching his secret criteria he has actualy read because he has no idea how many there are.

Best thing all round is either take Raggys's stance and wind him up or Musket's ploy of pointing out what Keith is, in no uncertain terms, at every opportunity. Alternatively you could just point out the errors in his logic which gets to him so much that he has no response but to ignore it, abuse you, or change the subject. Look, just watch what happens next.

Keith.
What is your criteria for an 'eminent historian'?
How many historians, worldwide, meet that criteria?
What percentage of their works have you read?

I have got 2 to 1 at Ladbrookes on the response...

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 05:21 PM

Perhaps I can facilitate:

Keith.
What is your criteria for an 'eminent historian'?

Left wing, right wing, sold in High Street bookshops, alive, published [sic] on popular websites, mainstream, current, uses the right toothpaste...

How many historians, worldwide, meet that criteria?

Only those that agree with the Professor's skewed view of reality.

What percentage of their works have you read?

None.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 05:34 PM

Now, come on Greg, that is unfair. Let the lad answer for himself. It will be far more informative.

See Keith - I criticise Greg as well :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM

It's not just on Mudcat. This is wonderful -

When you become a smart trolls personal enemy

Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 09:30 PM

"What do YOU bring to the party that no one else has."

Above question asked by an anonymous GUEST of Keith A. I will answer - a damn sight better knowledge of the subject under discussion than you - good enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 09:38 PM

Dave the Gnome - 11 Dec 15 - 04:52 PM

"You can't win, Dave."

Do you know why, on this particular subject you can't win Gnome, Dave, Raggy; Musktwat; Jom, Shaw? Because you are arguing from ignorance , self-confessed ignorance at that - that is why you can't win. Get over it - move on talk about beer, talk about making cheese, talk about whatever useless crap that fill your lives, but whatever you do leave this one alone because over the course of the last two years you have all proved conclusively that you know S.F.A. about it and the lot of you are embarrassing yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 09:48 PM

Dave the Gnome -11 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM

"Smart Troll" Eh? You lot are anything but - you have been coaxed into displaying your ignorance and your snap up the bait and revel in it.

"Smart Troll"? You have got to be joking - a sadder bunch I have never seen in my life.

On this as on all those previous WWI threads that you managed to get shut down and deleted we are running rings round you. Not one single fact that we have put up have you lot been able to challenge all you have is personal abuse and ad hominem attack. Keep it coming you only succeed in making yourselves out to be complete and utter prats - hence all the de-clutching of cookies and posts as anonymous GUESTS - pathetic absolutely pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 11 Dec 15 - 11:38 PM

Could not agree more Teribus. A truly ignorant lot , post after post on a subject they know nothing about! And they look more and more stupid with each post.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 03:56 AM

"it's a long time since my name has been used"

If I was advertising myself as a tutor, I'd not want to be associated with the Keith A of Hertford logic either.

It's alright Dave, even when one of the other Muskets bumped into him once at a folk club in Hertford, he was on here stating that he never did. Despite the Musket not yet being a Musket. Come to think of it, I did a gig once in Hertford with a band I occasionally played in and I can confidently state that blah blah

He does have a competitor though. Terribulus's offensive posts are wonderful and because moderators give up the will to live before the end of the first sentence they are never deleted. So we can all scroll up and have a good laugh from time to time.

In fact, hang on...

😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹
🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 04:35 AM

Dave, it is dancing on a pin again to talk about the exact number of historians in the world and percentages of them.

The relevant facts are that I have quoted numerous historians who agree my views because they are where I learned them, while those who attack those views can find none who agree with them.

Until they do there is nothing to discuss.

It is Jim, and Musket who make assertions about who is a historian.
Since he was first mentioned 3 years ago they have been denying that Hastings is one.
Guest should have said,
"What gives THEM the right to dictate which histories are valid or invalid. What do THEY bring to the party that no one else has. It is arrogance to the extreme to pontificate as you do. So just what is your AUTHORITY."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 04:38 AM

Same old Musket.
Just personal abuse and lies.
Nothing about any of the actual issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 04:49 AM

He doesn't know anything about the actual issues!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM

Teribus, Several points come to mind, firstly why are you answering a question put to Keith. Do you feel he is not capable of responding himself, do you feel he is inadequate and unable to elucidate intelligently on his own. Secondly I made no reference to Keith's knowledge on the subject of WW1, I merely asked on what authority he considered some historians to be valid but considered other historians to be invalid. Thirdly you have no insight into my knowledge of the subject, he do not know which books I have read or which books have passed me by. So perhaps you will do us all a favour and mind your own business and allow Keith (who you seem to believe is NOT knowledgeable and capable enough) to answer on his own. So Keith what is your authority to declare some historians valid and some historians invalid. PS Take no notice of your mate he seems to believe you are thick.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 05:34 AM

Non-person,
I can not always answer quickly am very happy for Teribus to answer for me.
I merely asked on what authority he considered some historians to be valid

I am not doing that.
Jim, Musket and now Dave are asserting that Sir Max Hastings is not an historian.

no insight into my knowledge of the subject, he do not know which books I have read or which books have passed me by.

None of the non-persons have posted anything revealing any historical knowledge.
If you have read any book of the last twenty years you will know it supports me.
If that is not a fact, name the book and author.

All the historians any of us can find support my views.
None have been found that do not.
Unless and until they are there is nothing to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 05:43 AM

Keith, that is not correct. Various historians have been mentioned in various threads, for instance Ferguson, who you have dismissed. I am asking what is your AUTHORITY to declare their work invalid and accepting as valid the work of other historians. Are you qualified in some way be denote which historians are valid and some historians invalid. By the way accepting that Teribus can answer on your behalf sounds like a cop-out and could come back to bite you at some point.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 05:44 AM

See what I mean, Dave? :-)

I am well on my way to winning that £200

Teribums - Making beer and cheese is useless crap while discussing history that no one can do anything about is? Whatever rocks your boat I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 05:47 AM

So making cheese and beer is a waste of time is it. Well I'll be wasting some more time of Monday when it will be a day of making a cheddar which I intend to mature for at least 6 months. I'll get on the phone now to my mate who owns a brewery and tell him to close down because he is wasting his time making some exceptional beers.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 05:54 AM

Sorry, above was I.guest, I believe that both Keith and teribus have shown that they have a good grasp of the subject,. They have clearly stated their views and backed their views with facts. We do have insight into your knowledge of the subject, guest...it is in all of your posts. You appear to know nothing of the subject, same league as Dave and Dave, yet you all continue to make arses of yourselves,
Why not gracefully admit to ignorance and call it a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 06:09 AM

No they don't. Only the one's you consider valid do. Which indicates to me that you don't want to learn about the subject. You merely want your preconceptions backed up by a list of historians who regurgitate each others work. Rather pathetic really.

PS Guest Hilo, I don't recall you actually mentioning anything about the history of WW1 at all, sniping from the sidelines seem to be your bag. I wonder if your Teribus in disguise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM

Well, Dave theGnome says the discussion isn't about history. Sniping from the sidelines......that is actually quite funny coming from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 06:21 AM

Max Hastings is a journalist, author and editor of right-wing newspapers. Keith you were asking for eminient historians to be respected by their peers, and Teribus stated that Hastings received good peer reviews in academic circles, but Hastings and also Nigel H. Jones sit outside the formal academic peer review system. They are not formally academic historians, they are amateurs in that they are paid to do something else. It is like describing the likes of Piers Corbyn and Benny Peiser as climate scientists, they each have an academic background but not in the subject that they make most of their statements about now. I have no background in history, and I have no real interest in what historians say about WWI unless there are revisionists who deny that millions died in the trenches. But I have heard nobody deny this, and therefore conclude that there was no justification for the sacrifice of all those lives, whatever historians might say about peripheral minutiae such as which bunch of inbreds occupies our throne.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 06:33 AM

Dave are you really saying that after dozens of posts on this thread that you know little history, have little interest in what historians have to say about ww1.no historian , revisionist or otherwise, has ever suggested or denied that millions died. Your really a very under informed person.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 06:45 AM

It is quite easy to do a Mudcat search.

After calling Musket a liar and Dave the Gnome wrong, you can search on what they said. To be fair, there is a hell of a lot but even just glossing through them, it is clear that Keith A of Hertford is being inconsistent and saying anything he likes in order to ridicule fellow posters.

I think he deserves all the flack he gets.

The person behind Hilo is certainly expressing the lo, we await the hi. He or she seems to be egging on their favourite football team against all odds rather than understanding the issues. Mind you, their team has a leaky defence, own goals but plenty of dribbling.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 07:04 AM

No Hilo, I am saying that millions did die and that historians instead of taking from that the fact the war was unjustifiable, focus instead on trivia.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 07:16 AM

GUEST - 12 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM

You have got to be joking haven't you - unless it has escaped your notice (And it probably has) this happens to be an open forum. You post something on it and anyone can answer and/or respond to points made. IF you wanted to have a discussion that was restricted to just yourself and Keith A you could PM him - but that wouldn't suit your purpose would it?

As to your knowledge well of course we don't have any idea do we - primarily because you never say anything on the subject - but I would say that I wouldn't be too far off the money in stating that along with the rest of the Let's mob, bully and ridicule Keith A crowd - on the subject of World War One - you haven't got a F**KIN' Clue.

You could of course confound us all and respond to this post with logical and reasoned arguments backed by substantive evidence countering the three points originally brought to our attention by Keith A, but I don't think that you will - that is why you hide behind the anonymous GUEST facility afforded on this forum - my guess is that you are Raggytash.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM

Dave, have you read any WW1 history at all?
Anything?

I am saying that millions did die and that historians instead of taking from that

The immense cost in human life is the most salient fact pertaining to that war.
Every historian deals with that fully in their work.
If you had read anything you would know that.

the fact the war was unjustifiable, focus instead on trivia.
Except that they do not.
If you had read anything you might know that too.

WW2 was comparable in cost.

All the mainstream media including BBC call Hastings a leading historian.
Go into any library or bookshop and you will find his works prominent in the history section.
The other historians acknowledge that he is an historian.
Some bloke called Dave who has read no history at all thinks he is not.
Who are you again Dave?
What is your credibility?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 07:23 AM

I'm Napoleon for that matter, Terribulus.

But what does it matter to you? Why does one anonymous contribution have to be attributed to Raggytash, another to me etc.

Why is that?

I couldn't stop laughing when you decided one poster was me despite at the time having not posted in months.

Bullies need to know who they are bullying I suppose. It's in the psyche.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 07:33 AM

GUEST,Dave - 12 Dec 15 - 06:21 AM

Max Hastings is a journalist, author and editor of right-wing newspapers. Keith you were asking for eminient historians to be respected by their peers, and Teribus stated that Hastings received good peer reviews in academic circles, but Hastings and also Nigel H. Jones sit outside the formal academic peer review system. They are not formally academic historians, they are amateurs in that they are paid to do something else.

Sir Max Hastings has been retired for some years now, if you want to be accurate, he writes occasional pieces for whoever he likes, he is also elected to become a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, here are some general facts about the Society - read 'em you might just learn something (Although in your case I rather doubt it - you seem to revel in illustrating that you are as "thick as shit" and proud of it)

"Fellowships are awarded to those who have made "an original contribution to historical scholarship", normally through the authorship of a monograph, a body of scholarly work similar in scale and impact to a monograph, or the organisation of exhibitions, conferences, the editing of journals and other works of diffusion and dissemination grounded in historical scholarship. Election is conducted by peer review and all applications must be supported by an existing Fellow. Applications are welcome from historians working within or outside the UK." - Source RHS Website

"Since it was founded in 1868 the RHS has become the foremost society in the UK working with professional historians and advancing the scholarly study of the past. We are a learned society with charitable status that is increasingly at the forefront of policy debates about the study of history. We work closely with the Historical Association, the body that leads on history in schools, the Institute of Historical Research, a central hub for the provision of research resources, and History UK (HE), a council of representatives of UK university history departments." - Source RHS Website

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 07:48 AM

" GUEST,Musket - 12 Dec 15 - 07:23 AM

I'm Napoleon for that matter

Figures Musktwat - IIRC he was a portly, egotistical, loser as well

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 08:09 AM

Me, I'm making cheese.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 08:36 AM

If The Royal Historical Society recognises Hastings as an historian, it is of little consequence what a few Mudcat Lefties think.

The joke is that even if you did discount Hastings it would not weaken my case in the least because he is just one of many I have been quoting.
You made fools of yourself to no purpose!

Intelligent people learn history from the history books.
The Comrades reject all that and make their own shit up.
They can find not one person of knowledge to back them.

Unless and until they do, there is no discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 10:22 AM

Dave theGnome says the discussion isn't about history.

Did I? When was that then?

I think our toy soldiers are getting all upset because the nasty people are spoiling their little game. There is a phrase that the sergeant major in "It ain't half hot Mum" used to use that I think is very apt.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 10:35 AM

Oh Dear, how sad, never mind? Sergeant Williams?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 10:39 AM

Just to address some of Terribulus's odd statements for a minute. (Against my better judgement.)

An interview with Hastings a few months ago in a flight magazine I was reading noted how prolific he has been in his history writing and noted his rather regimented "this much time writing then breakfast, two hours of reading followed by a walk followed by editing earlier notes etc etc." (Not exactly what it said but you get the gist.)

Not exactly in tune with your "retired" and "occasional" make believe is it?

Still, he is a retired hack writing history to make money for his publishers and try to make sure everybody remembers him when he is pushing up the weeds. He seems to have jumped on the idea of revision as a marketing tool. His defence of shooting deserters is about all I will remember him for. His published article saying posthumous pardons are just a stunt and the kangaroo courts were right is about as low as you can get.

Still, the title "historian" isn't protected. Never has been.

As I have had my writing on WW1 published, I'm a historian.

I have been published within the last twenty years, am eminent and Keith has read my work.

Sorted.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 10:43 AM

Has anyone else noticed the correlation between Sergeant Williams and Teribus ?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM

Dave the Gnome - 12 Dec 15 - 10:22 AM

Reading through the narrative Gnome I rather think that we are ruining yours.

Ah Musktwat, the "occasional" applies to his journalism and irrespective of what you think - he (Sir Max Hastings) deems himself to be retired and oddly enough that is good enough for me, as is the fact that he is regarded as being an historian by the Royal Historical Society which counts far higher than a bunch of idiotic tooth-suckers on this forum who have never had a truly independent thought in their heads and are stupid enough to enter into a discussion to argue their point of view from a position of self-confessed ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 10:57 AM

Ah GUEST,Raggytash - 12 Dec 15 - 10:43 AM

Would that be the same Teribus, who with regard to the subject of the First World War, you wrote the following?:


"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 11:04 AM

Still can't see anything wrong with that assessment. However it doesn't mean that you are God's gift to the study of it, it doesn't mean you every pronouncement has to be taken a gospel, AND it certainly doesn't mean Haig was a good general.

Is that alright Sergeant?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 11:09 AM

I've sussed it!

If Teribus writes long enough essays (as well as cut and paste from The Conservative Book for Boys 1949) some of it HAS to make sense.

In the same way as an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters doing the Hamlet bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 11:23 AM

Reading through the narrative Gnome I rather think that we are ruining yours.

Deary, deary me. Running out of original thoughts as well as poor quality insults. It was Williams!

Just for you, teribums

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 12:53 PM

These Royal Societies aren't quite as exclusive as that. I am a Fellow of one, in whose remit I have been a professional (i.e. paid to do it) but I know very well you don't have to be. If you cough up your sub, and you show a vague interest, you are in. Keith could join it, he knows which one.

DtG again I think he is confusing us, it was I who said that this discussion was not about history, but about whether Remembrance Day ceremonies were Jingoism or Commemoration, as evidenced by the thread title

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 01:55 PM

"it certainly doesn't mean Haig was a good general."

Good enough Raggy to command, plan and execute the most successful offensive campaign ever conducted in the history of the British Army which in only 100 days completely routed the German Army facing him and ending the First World War - That German Army, which in 1914 was considered to be the best in the world, Haig defeated it with Great Britain's first citizen army - good General? Certainly better than any he was up against and his record speaks for itself - something you would have known if you had bothered to read up and study it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 01:59 PM

Hells teeth GUEST Dave, you've a nerve talking about confusion! Half the time you don't know whether you are addressing Keith A or myself - who's point 3 were rabbiting on about further down the thread?

Oh Dear, how sad, never mind - diddums.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 02:10 PM

One crap General versus one not quite so crap General does not make the second one a good General. He's still a crap General however you wish to paint it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 02:19 PM

Teribus,

As to whether you have the knowledge to join the society of which I am a fellow (same as member) I have not a clue. Keith does have this knowledge I know because of a conversation on another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 02:21 PM

Glad you like the reference enough to copoy it teribums. Maybe, one of these days, you may have on original thought of your own. Not likely, I know, but I always like to hope for they best:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 15 - 07:48 PM

And your ability to actually make any reasonable, logical and objective judgement on what does and what does not make a good general is how good Raggy? From what you have posted on this and other WWI threads on this forum I would measure it as being pretty piss poor - Oh Dear, How Sad, Never Mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:33 AM

BBC puts Hastings at the top of its list of "Ten leading Historians."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324
The Comedy Comrades, as ever, know better!

If Hastings did not exist, it would still be true that no historian agrees your nonsense, while I say what they say.
It is just a diversion. What else can the Comedy Comrades do?

They have to reject the actual history because it rubbishes their daft dogma.
They can never, never admit that their dogma is a lie.
Which it is.

Dave said,
"we certainly do have examples above of historians who don't say this."
Three days later and he has still can't name one!

Then there was "REF2014"
"ROTFL24/7" !

No-one with any knowledge still believes your daft dogma.
Come back when and if you ever find one.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:38 AM

Bloody hell. The jingo jankers are accusing reality of dogma now.

Excellent.

You couldn't make it up.

But they do.

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 06:10 AM

Very amusing Comrade Musket, but have you found anyone with any credibility who believes all that shit?
No?
Come back when you do.

I have lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 11:43 AM

What do you mean by all that shit and anyone with any credibility?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 12:51 PM

All that shit refers to those old, debunked and discredited versions of history that he and the others cling to.

The people with most credibility on matters of history would be the historians, like all the ones I have been quoting.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM

Your weird twisted take can never convince normal people till you dig up the war graves and pretend it never happened.

How can you stand at your local war memorial and pretend to care? Sick puppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 01:05 PM

"Normal people" learn history from the history books.

No normal person believes themselves to somehow know more about it.
Only you Comedy Comrades.
You have yet to find a single historian who still believes that shit, because it has been shown to be shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 01:16 PM

I never realised my granddad's generation were a set of liars. Even the ones buried in foreign fields.

Fucking disgrace, that's what you are.

As someone who claims to admire historians, I didn't think the mindset of Irvine was what you had in mind.

Go back to your toy soldiers. Laughing at you is becoming less funny, the more you post.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 01:19 PM

Even for you Musket, your above post is way over the line. What is the matter with you, disagree with people yes, but don't villify them for not agreeing with you. And Musket, read some history, it won't hurt...er.. or maybe it will...who knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 03:03 PM

Ate you disagreeing with Musket or castigating him?

To me, Keith A of Hertford is saying something contrary to what happened and Musket is saying his revision of history is a slur on the memory of fallen soldiers and debasing the principle of "lest we forget."

From Musket's position, Keith's stance is everything Musket says it is.

If Musket is wrong, then not so.

Who is right? Are the soldiers there liars or are trendy commentators defending the establishment liars?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 03:54 PM

"Keith A of Hertford is saying something contrary to what happened"

Really GHOST - care to tell us all what that something is? - Somehow I don't think you will - Why do I think that? - Because you are just spouting meaningless drivel - like you always do - Now come on and confound and amaze us - It would make one hell of a change, a forum first in fact - But it ain't going to happen is it.

Oh Dear, How Sad, Never Mind.

PS: The Gnome would make an excellent "Lofty" - shorter, fatter, balder but still needs must when the devil drives.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:16 PM

Quite simple. Millions of men were killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:29 PM

Are the soldiers there liars or are trendy commentators defending the establishment liars?

The historians believe the words of the soldiers.
Words they left in tens of thousands of letters, journals and personal documents.
Words they wrote at the time.

Overwhelmingly, they knew and understood what they were fighting for, and they believed it the right thing to do.

The "establishment" of 1914-18 are long dead and no-one feels the need to defend them, trendy or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:32 PM

By the way GUEST - 13 Dec 15 - 03:03 PM perhaps you should get your terminology right with regard to who wrote what about the First World War and when it was they wrote it:

The Revisionists wrote their works between 1929 and 1969 and what they wrote contradicted the works written immediately after the war. It is those works that fostered the myths, lies and misrepresentations believed wholeheartedly by Jom, Musktwat, et al.

The "Historians" wrote their works after 1970 and have used information not available to The Revisionists to disprove and discredit the works published by them and the conclusions drawn by them. The work of the these writers is believed to present a fuller and more accurate picture of the period and the events, by the likes of Keith A and myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:35 PM

Guest. Kieth is not saying anything contrary to what happened.e is presenting a point of view taken by modern historians. I am both disagreeing AND castigating Musket. He has presented NO historical perspective and he appears to be bereft of any historical knowledge. He and some others here, who admit to knowing n history, go on and on in these threads about how Keith knows nothing. Not so, he does know things about history, far more than some of his detractors. So why this bullying and , frankly, quite ugly, attacks on someone who quite a lot on the subject ?

This is not about Keith at all. This is about people who , in spite of ignorance of the subject at hand, insist on denigrating people who clearly know more than they do.
I dislike bullies and I find that there are a few here who just don't admit to being misinformed. And hence, attack those who are informed.

Muskets stance is not that of an informed person, and he is not alone in this, it is the stances of someone who refuses to consider an alternative view.
Muskets position, as you call it, has nothing to do with history and everything to do with " I know nothing, but I am right. That is what is so galling about this constant bullying.
I would not suggest that soldiers are liars, nor has Keith ever suggested they were, however, first hand accounts are sometimes not as accurate as they could be.
Good history is based on meticulous research, not on disagreeing with Keith because you don`t like him.

   As an historian I do not always agree with Keith, but his facts are solid. Those who are underinformed ought to read more and shout less.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:45 PM

Still using my ideas then, teribums? Ah well, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 04:52 PM

BTW - Did you know that quote is attributed to Oscar Wilde and the full version is "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness". Too true...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 05:16 PM

And where Oh GHOST has anybody ever denied that millions were killed - I believe that everyone has belaboured the point. Even to the point of noting that according to all records that those who fought under Haig tended to die less frequently than their counterparts in the French or German armies fighting on the western front.

Well said GUEST,HiLo - 13 Dec 15 - 04:35 PM I share your dislike of bullies and it was the mobbing of Keith A on a WWI thread about two years ago that drew me into all this.

Ah my barely passable, shorter, fatter, balder "Lofty" Gnome the only other cross you have to bear of course is that, unlike you, Don Estelle could sing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 06:08 PM

I dislike bullies too.

Musket can defend himself but a swift butchers at the Onward Christian Soldiers thread shows Keith's appalling attempts to smear Musket.

Meanwhile, on this thread.. Teribus reckons that the early accounts, fresh and by many caught up in the war are all lies and only the more recent ones are accurate.

Oh, and Teribus's despicable personal comments aimed at Dave the Gnome above are beneath contempt.

They cannot argue with reality, and HiLo can't credibly defend their preposterous stance.

Donkey meat anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Hiloo
Date: 13 Dec 15 - 06:51 PM

Well, guest, you are a perfect example of my point. As to comments about Dave theGnome, he has admitted to little knowledge of the subject but insists on dozens of posts that he is right! How is that defensible ? As for personal "despicable" comments, well, I am sure that DtheG is used to those.
No one has attempted to smear Muskket. He just insists on setting himself up for ridicule then cries foul when it happens ! I hate bullies and he is one, thrives on ignorance, his own , and bellows when shown to be lacking in knowledge. He is not alone here. Perhaps it is time for this bullshit to be put where it belongs and allow people to have rational discourse!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:05 AM

Rational discourse?

This coming from someone who thinks Teribus is right when he says only recently written historical accounts are historical and anything written before is revisionist. He can't even grasp the meaning of words in plain English, and that's before you analyse the absurd fantasy he promotes.

Presumably you also defend Keith's provisos, added to whenever his silly make believe is found out. Let's see now.. Historians have to be living as of today's date, published somewhere or other in the last twenty years, their books available in Hertford library, oh, they have to be eminent too. Last and most certainly least, they have to support the political stance dreamed up by Michael Gove who, when education secretary decreed that WW1 history should be about success, victory and what a smashing bunch of people the military top brass are and were.

Everybody on here questioning that abomination merely remind us that the graves are the elephant in the room. That the stratified society 100 years ago had a very different take on soldier welfare and that duty and jingoism were the driving factors, not agreeing with the factors that made up the diplomatic mess Europe found itself in.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:08 AM

I would not say 'used to those' HiLo as it only happens on here. I would say that I could not give a shit what certain people on here say about me as it is obviously a load of bollocks. I would also suggest you look back over the thread for evidence that I insist I am right on something I know nothing about. It has never happened and it never will so your comments puts you as close to the load of bollocks category as those others. Are you going to provide that evidence? I am pretty sure I know the answer :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:47 AM

If Keith only reads books available in Hertford Library his choice will be pretty limited since it abandoned its rather splendid premises that I (and no doubt he) spent many hours in and moved into a rented broom cupboard in Maidenhead Street.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:51 AM

HiLo has a rather interesting debating style, when he/she is faced with a point they cannot answer, they post a couple of sentences of invective against their questioner, followed by "I hate bullies".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:53 AM

That's tragic! I bet Keith hadn't coloured them all in yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:05 AM

The reason that more recent histories are kinder to the perpetrators if WWI is that those writing them are too young to have heard many first hand accounts of its horrors. They may have read war diaries, but largely not these either. Also, the point raised by Guest is pertinant, there is a conscious effort by modern politicians, and Gove is but one, to whitewash the past in order to strengthen their justification for repeating its mistakes. Eric Bogle summed it in the verse, disgracefully omitted by Joss Stone and the British Legion in their sanitised version of No Mans Land:

"And I can't help but wonder, now Willie Mcbride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you 'The Cause? '
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain,
For Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again."

Killing and Dying will always be done in vain whilst the outcomes are dictated by the egos of politicians. Modern Historians are just their useful idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:06 AM

"Meanwhile, on this thread.. Teribus reckons that the early accounts, fresh and by many caught up in the war are all lies and only the more recent ones are accurate. "

More lies, more misrepresentation.

The early accounts, written by those who actually took part I have described as being personal memoirs and as such they are factual accounts of personal experiences and are totally one-sided, giving only snap-shots of what was going on. The writers of those memoirs had no access to material that was classified and would remain secret for 50, 60, 70 and 100 years, they had no idea of what drove events from the point of view of their own side let alone what drove them from the perspectives of their French allies and the German enemy.

Jom and Musktwat then invented atrocity stories and made extremely serious allegations against those in command of the British Army, first it was the Military Police and then it was officers who were ordered to summarily execute British Soldiers for not getting out of their trenches quickly enough, then according to Musktwat it was a crowd that he laughlingly referred to as "The REDTOPS" what did it, then Jom's "Special Groups of Military Police" whot dun it. Oddly enough to substantiate this all they (specifically Jom) can offer up are verbal accounts by two veterans - one of whom was definitely a veteran but who contradicted what he said he saw, and another who Jom did not not even verify and satisfy himself that he even ever served in the Army at all. Having made the allegations and presented them as indisputable fact on this forum, I spent a great deal of time researching for ANY evidence of it - I FOUND NOTHING. So are all those accounts "written by those who actually took part" in the immediate aftermath of the war all wrong? Are they all liars? You see GHOST in all those memoirs there are no accounts of any such summary executions - And before you quote Harry Patch at me remember his recollections, far from being "fresh", were given to the BBC when Harry was over 100 years old - nearly 80 years after the event.

If you do not find it strange that men of a particular platoon did not know each others names - I DO. If you do not find it strange that men of a particular platoon did not know the names of the officers and NCOs that they would have to report to every single day - THEN I DO. If you do not find it strange that those giving accounts of such summary executions cannot name a single victim or the name of a single officer who was supposed to have carried out such an execution - I DO. If you can look at a picture of a front line trench (Make sure you are looking at the trench from which attacks are mounted) and tell me where there was room for a line of Military Policemen, or indeed ANYBODY, to position themselves behind those about to go over the top then you will have found a rather unique photograph. Keith A and myself are accused of always slavishly accepting the side of the establishment, well it would appear from the above that while you are prepared to accept any cock-and-bull story because it feeds your prejudices and bias, Keith A and myself challenge stories told to us and demand proof - proof which so far has yet to be offered.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:10 AM

Dave, the brand new purpose built Hertford library is magnificent! You should pay a visit.
There are two other library branches within 3 miles (Ware and Hoddesdon) and for 60p I can ask for any book held in any library in Hertfordshire to be delivered within two working days.

What a nasty, pathetic attempt to denigrate me Dave.
All you people can do is make personal attacks because none of you know anything.
You have the conceit to believe the history books are wrong and you are right.
~Ignorant fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:20 AM

All you people can do is make personal attacks because none of you know anything.

Not at all true, Keith. People make personal attacks because they know you are a pompous ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HILo
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:37 AM

Just let me get this straight mr gnome....... You are clearly ignorant on the subject of history, you post nonsense about history and yet Keith is the pompous ass... And furthermore he is worthy of contempt because he knows more than you do. Have I got this mr gnome?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:38 AM

People make personal attacks because they know you are a pompous ass.

A bit rich coming from you Lofty.

GUEST,Dave - PM
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:05 AM

The reason that more recent histories are kinder to the perpetrators if WWI is that those writing them are too young to have heard many first hand accounts of its horrors. They may have read war diaries, but largely not these either. Also, the point raised by Guest is pertinant, there is a conscious effort by modern politicians, and Gove is but one, to whitewash the past in order to strengthen their justification for repeating its mistakes."

GUEST Dave, the one who appears to know nothing, historians who have made it their life's work and their specialisation in studying the period in question know a great deal more about it than either yourself, your pals, and Eric Bogle. They have had access both written and oral to a vast amount of material that is only accessible to accredited historians undertaking research - don't dismiss it so lightly.

Can either you or nameless GHOST (He/She of the pertinant (sic) point) provide any sane, reasonable or logical explanation for there being any need to whitewash the past? I can tell you very very plainly and simply why the likes of David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill wrote what they did during the revisionist period.

On your quote from Bogle's "No Mans Land", these two snatches from by Stephen L. Suffet's "Willie McBride's Reply" are more accurate than Eric Bogle's "No Mans Land"

1: "Ask the people of Belgium or Alsace-Lorraine,
If my life was wasted, If I died in vain,
I think they will tell you when all's said and done,
They welcomed this boy with his tin hat and gun.


2: It's easy for you to look back and sigh,
And pity the youth of those days long gone by,
For us who were there, we all knew why we died,
And I'd do it again, says young Willie McBride"

If you've got a month I'll go through the glaring inaccuracies and errors contained in Bogle's "No Mans Land" and "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 05:09 AM

you post nonsense about history

I haven't posted anything about history, HiLo. You really need to do some research before you make (more of) a fool of yourself. I suggested you provided evidence last time. You still have not done so.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 05:13 AM

Teribums - Is that really the best you have got; imitating my ideas? Tsk, tsk. 0/10 for effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM

Churchill and Lloyd George were of course part of the ego-driven political class of the time, for whom the need was to whitewash their own past. There are plenty of current historians who do not agree with the Keith/Teribus/HiLo assessment. Mayer and Schroeder, whose political views are at opposite ends of the spectrum, are examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 06:24 AM

"Perhaps it is time for this bullshit to be put where it belongs and allow people to have rational discourse!"

Interesting point coming from your posts Hilo. You have now posted 33 times to this thread and have added nil to the debate on either jingoism or commemoration and the same amount about WW1 in general.

Just pointing that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 06:37 AM

Funnily enough, I thought this section of the Mudcat was called BS because it was for, well, BS... Where else would bullshit belong? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM

Whereas you and your mates have contributed what Raggy?

GUEST Dave Mayer and Schroeder!!!! Is that who you come up with? The former a Marxist Historian who believed that Britain in 1914 was on the verge of a revolution and civil war (I'd like to see his proof of any evidence for making that assumption) and the latter who blamed the war on Great Britain Not taking the Austro-Hungarian Empire seriously enough - How bloody idiotic can you get?

"Churchill and Lloyd George were of course part of the ego-driven political class of the time, for whom the need was to whitewash their own past."

Very true GUEST Dave - yet those are the men who sought for the very motives you detail to blacken the name of a man who could not defend himself - they rather cowardly waited until after Haig died to come out with their "Butcher of the Somme" label that you and your pals latch onto and give credence to.

There are plenty of current historians who do not agree with the Keith/Teribus/HiLo assessment.

Please name them - Mayer and Schroeder don't make the grade, neither have specialised in the history of the First World War, Mayer in particular seems to come from a starting point located and fixed somewhere in cloud cuckoo-land.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 06:58 AM

I did not comment on jingoism or commemoration simply because I had not seen the programme that prompted that debate. Thread creep took the conversation in two other directions....... 1) tithe reliability of historians. A grossly misinformed person made the erroneous and sweeping statement that historians did not do their homework..the second path the debate took was on specific facts regarding the first war wherein both Keith and Teribus presented facts.
My first posting on this thread came well after the jingo and commem. Theme had been left. My responses have been largely to do with the defence of historians against the suggestion that they are all hacks.
I did observe on several occasions that teribus knew his history and went rings around some very very stupid arguments. One would not have to be genius to see which side of the debate presented facts and which side not. simple really.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM

"Keith and Teribus presented facts"

Anything to back that assertion up other than the views they quote agreeing with your prejudice HiLo?

Even they occasionally concede that history narrative concludes with an opinion assessing the evidence.

Very occasionally.

When taken off guard.

I love the bit above where Teribus accuses Dave the Gnome of personal attacks and then immediately calls him Lofty!
😆

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 07:11 AM

So yet again one, nay two, historians bite the dust.




And another one's gone
another one's gone
another one bites the dust


I'll have to stick to reading The Good Soldier (The Biography of Douglas Haig) by Gary Mead.


Interesting viewpoint to kick it all off though. Its entitled "THE" biography not "A" biography.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 07:18 AM

For God sake guest , have you not read the thread at all? As for Raggy, same old nonsense.
In any case , I shall leave you all to it, you can,t educate pork.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM

Still awaiting the evidence of my posting nonsense about history, HiLo. Are you too busy giving out the personal abuse that you are so against? As to "I shall leave you all to it". Well, many others have said the same before. I suspect you will not keep your promise either :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 07:45 AM

Dave,
There are plenty of current historians who do not agree with the Keith/Teribus/HiLo assessment.

We all know there used to be some historians who used to believe those now debunked myths.
That is why I always refer to everything written in the last twenty years. Neither of your two have written anything on WW1 in that time.
Older than that hardly counts as "current" Dave!

No historian still believes those old discredited myths you cling to.
Unless and until you find one, please stop wasting our time.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 08:20 AM

So Mayer and Schroeder don't make the grade, but Max Hastings does??? Dear oh dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 08:47 AM

That's because they don't fit the "criteria"

What's the criteria you may ask ............. hmmmmm ........ don't really know because it changes on a regular basis and is known only to the select, nay chosen, few.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM

What's the criteria you may ask ............. hmmmmm ........ don't really know...

Keith has explained the criteria at some length: not dead, "mainstream", books available in regular bookshops, work for the tabloid press, only English-speaking need apply, pick their noses with the left hand & etc & etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:37 AM

History is based on hard facts and knowledge.
It has nothing to do with fashion, being trendy, or protecting long dead people.

It used to be possible to make something of a case for what you believe, and a few did.
Current historians have all the knowledge available to them, plus a lot more that has become available since.
It has led to that rare thing, a consensus, at least on the issues we have discussed.

I have only ever claimed that consensus for the last twenty years.
Anything older is irrelevant to anything I have ever claimed, so why mention it?

So, can you produce anything written in recent times?
No.
I can. Lots.

Unless and until you can find one single historian who still believes that old debunked shit you cling to, STOP WASTING OUR TIME!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM

Q.E.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM

Me.
"Nothing written in the last twenty years supports your views."

Dave,
"Here is something written fifty years ago that does."

So what Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:45 AM

At the risk of repeating myself, just how much of what has been written in the last 20 years have you read? If I remember rightly you do not even know how much has been written in the last 20 years so how do you know it ALL supports you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:48 AM

Not QED Greg.
You have demonstrated nothing.

I have never claimed any consensus until about twenty years ago.
That is not a spurious reason for rejecting shit older than that.
I have always acknowledged that some historians used to believe it.
You have just demonstrated what I had acknowledged anyway from the start of all this.

Dave, I do not know or care how much stuff has been written, just that none of it contradicts my expressed views.
That is why none of you have found anything in three years of this one sided debate.

Unless and until one of you does find something, which you won't, STOP WASTING OUR TIME!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 09:54 AM

Me,
"There are no red swans."

Dave the Gnome,
"How many swans exist? Have you seen them all? Just because no-one has ever seen one...."

There are no red swans Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 10:07 AM

Shows how much you know Keith:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/ait/ait08.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM

If history is based on hard facts and knowledge, why do the commentators disagree and present alternatives?

Keith's little list isn't consistent, so such a naive statement is rather concerning really.

I'm sure if they knew people of such dismal intelligence were to read their book in the same silly way they read the bible, they'd write differently.

Talk about a little knowledge being dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 10:11 AM

Go back and check who it was that introduced the "It Ain't Half Hot Mum" theme to the discussion GUEST - 14 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM.

Simple rule in throwing invective around on this forum nameless GHOST if you can't take it then don't start it. I will treat anyone as respectfully as they threat me.

But that is the thing I found out about bullies and I learned it at a very early age - they don't like being hit back and complain loudly when they are. After making idiotic statements the Joms, Musktwats, Raggy, the Daves all they have left to resort to are personal attacks and made up shit, don't really object to any of that as it illustrates to everyone what complete and utter prats they actually are.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 10:13 AM

This thread has only been going since November 10th, so its unlikely that it has wasted three years of anybody's time. Also, does nobody else see inconsistency in the following statements (from the same post):

"History is based on hard facts and knowledge."

"I have only ever claimed that consensus for the last twenty years.
Anything older is irrelevant to anything I have ever claimed, so why mention it?"

For the record, I agree with the first, and whether something was written 20, 50 or 100 years ago has no bearing on its validity.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 10:19 AM

"What's the criteria"

Silly question Raggy the criteria has been given often enough - only thing is none of you are prepared to accept that if you want an accurate and comprehensive view of the period in question you read the works of an historian who has specialised in that period ( It is roughly the same as if you want a complex fault fixed on your central heating you go to a specialist to sort it out - you don't go to the village handyman). So far none of those you and your pals have put forward meet the criteria - go away and find someone who has specialised in the period and subject of the First World War who subscribe to your tired, cliched, and disproven beliefs - you've been asked it often enough all you lot have to do is come up with one name.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 10:48 AM

For the record, I agree with the first, and whether something was written 20, 50 or 100 years ago has no bearing on its validity.

A statement of astonishing ignorance!
Knowledge increases.
Understanding moves on.

On the issues we have discussed there is now a consensus.
All the history books say the same thing.
To challenge that, all you have to is produce one that differs.
Until you can, there is nothing to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM

Very good, Keith. You are getting the knack of the difference between theory and fact. Trouble is with your example is that the world of swans has, I think, been fully explored. All the histories of WW1 written recently have not been, Well, not by you, me or anyone here at any rate.

Teribums. I think if anyone was to look back through the thread they would see who is doing most of the the abusing. There is also the fact that it was Keith that said that all historians agree etc. It is therefore up to Keith to prove his claim, not for someone to disprove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 11:04 AM

just how much of what has been written in the last 20 years have you read?

The Professor? Virtually none, and if you care to go thru the tedium of searching this and other similar threads, he's admitted as much several times.

Dave, I do not know or care how much stuff has been written, just that none of it contradicts my expressed views.

See? The Professor knows all without the bother of having to read.

Q.E.D. 2nd.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 12:00 PM

"whether something was written 20, 50 or 100 years ago has no bearing on its validity."

Really GUEST Dave??

So someone let's call him David Lloyd George decides to write a book in which he firmly attaches blame on an individual who having recently died is in no position to defend his good name. In this book David Lloyd George places the blame for the deaths of soldiers on this individual on account of him choosing the battlefield, the timing of the battle and for his continuation of the battle, David Lloyd George does this knowing that those facts will be covered by government restrictions until 50, 60, 70 or even 100 years have elapsed, David Lloyd George writes these things knowing full well that it was he, David Lloyd George, who put Great Britain's armies under the command and disposal of French Generals, that it was he David Lloyd George, who insiusted that in 1916 the attacks had to be made on the Somme instead of in Flanders where Haig wanted to attack and vice versa in 1917 when David Lloyd George insisted that the attacks should be made in Flanders when Haig wanted the attack to be launched on the Somme where conditions best suited the tanks. It was David Lloyd George who knew full well it would years after his death that his guilt and culpability in the events relating to the Somme and Passchendaele would come to light and become public knowledge.

Of course works written 20, 50, 70 years ago once proven to be based on incorrect knowledge or understanding are no longer relevant - only a complete and utter idiot would suggest otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 12:08 PM

Lofty when you've got anything even remotely germane to this thread to contribute give me a nudge - so far you are prattling on about nothing. Leave it to the grown ups to understand a comment when it is made and the context in which that comment is made - your literal pedantic crap is tiresome, but as you seem to have to indulge in it carry on dancing on the head of your pin.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 12:14 PM

Knowledge, or at least understanding, doesn't always move on, sometimes things which were quite well understood are clouded by more recent, flawed, research, or, by flawed opinions based upon preconceptions and political positions. Or maybe even by personal self-justification. As to whether Haig or Lloyd George was the more culpable for the disaster of the Somme, well thats a futile argument between a pot and a kettle. Though LLoyd George was in part responsible for the entry of Britain into the war in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 12:28 PM

Dave the Gnome - 14 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM

Teribums [QED] I think if anyone was to look back through the thread they would see who is doing most of the the abusing."

Lofty if anyone was to look back through THIS thread they would find that it was your pal Raggytash who started the abusing and GUEST Dave who pulled him up on it - but there again Lofty when did you ever let facts get in the way of YOUR narrative?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 12:28 PM

When you have nothing left and your flush us well and truly busted, you revert to abuse.

Hence the "Lofty" insult at Dave the Gnome. It's bad enough sanitising the awful role the British military had in countless deaths and the slur on the memory of the fallen that Teribus and Keith A of Hertford insist on spouting, but to keep attacking those of us who merely wished to discuss the influence of jingoism on the act of commemoration, well you'd think they'd have some common decency?

Apparently not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 12:35 PM

... when your flush IS ....

I reckon Gary Sheffield wrote the autocorrect algorithm for my iPhone.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 12:41 PM

Teribums. your literal pedantic crap is tiresome Yet you still carry on responding. Amazing!

Guest, 12:28. It's no insult. Honest! Teribums could not insult me if he swallowed a dictionary of insults washed down with a draught of disdain. He hasn't got the imagination. Lofty had an excellent singing voice. Sergeant Major Shoutalot had nothing but bluster and was made to look a fool at every opportunity. Pretty much like here :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 12:50 PM

GUEST,dave - 14 Dec 15 - 12:14 PM He any different from GUEST Dave??

"Knowledge, or at least understanding, doesn't always move on, sometimes things which were quite well understood are clouded by more recent, flawed, research, or, by flawed opinions based upon preconceptions and political positions."

Examples of this please? Could be that GUEST,dave was the nameless one who considered that any historical theory was cyclical but who when asked could provide no such examples - This will undoubtedly result in no examples to prove this theory coming forward. But a few questions for dave:

1: What flawed research? Do you dispute that today there are far wider and more comprehensive research material available to the historian interested in the period. An Historians conclusions are drawn from his research so what preconceptions and political positions are you referring to - any examples of these? I would offer up Alan Clark and his book "The Donkeys", written as the 50th anniversay of the start of the Great War was approaching and written by his own admission to earn him a few quid (He also admitted to making up "The Lion's led by Donkeys" Quote)


2: "As to whether Haig or Lloyd George was the more culpable for the disaster of the Somme, well thats a futile argument between a pot and a kettle."

Only thing wrong there dave, if you look at the entirety of the Somme campaign it was without any shadow of a doubt a strategic defeat for the Germans and a tactical victory for the Entente Powers. It forced a general German retreat to the Hindenburg Line, Falkenhayn the German Commander on the Western Front was dismissed and resulted in irreparable damage being done to the German Army. It was the first major campaign fought by Great Britain's first citizen Army and from it they went from strength to strength. Lloyd George and the British Government were undoubtedly culpable - it was they who put Haig and the British Armies in Europe under French command (Joffre), it was they who backed Joffre's insistence that the attack be made on the Somme, thereby over-ruling Haig's preferred location.

"Though LLoyd George was in part responsible for the entry of Britain into the war in the first place."

The vote to declare war on Germany following the German invasion of Belgium was, I believe, taken by the House of Commons.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM

"It's bad enough sanitising the awful role the British military had in countless deaths and the slur on the memory of the fallen that Teribus and Keith A of Hertford insist on spouting, but to keep attacking those of us who merely wished to discuss the influence of jingoism on the act of commemoration, well you'd think they'd have some common decency?"

Who was it that wished to discuss the influence of jingoism on the act of commemoration? I think a bunch of idiots got confused and mixed up the RBL Festival of Remembrance with the Service of Remembrance. I think a bunch of idiots posted and incorrectly and inaccurately proclaimed that the RBL Festival of Remembrance was a CofE thing. I think it was a bunch of ignorant ill-informed idiots who when their errors were pointed out to them resorted to name calling.

Take a wee turn back down the thread GHOST you will find that I am right in stating the above.

Oh Dear, How Sad; Never Mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:01 PM

"and resulted in irreparable damage being done to the German Army"

Never, ever I have read such a utterly stupid, absolutely inane and totally naïve comment placed on ANY thread on Mudcat.

Is that the same irreparable damage that allowed the German forces just two decades later to sweep across Europe.



What a supremely idiotic remark.


(wait for the back-tracking and half hearted justifications)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:03 PM

Teribus,

First, I did not at any time "pull up" or accuse Raggytash of abuse, I noted that the thread was started by him and the title chosen by him, but that title is not abuse.

Second, I know that knowledge doesn't always move on because I am an actual researcher in a different subject entirely, I could give you examples but there isn't any point (though I have had a debate with Keith on another thread about some). I have no reason to doubt that the same occurs in research in history.

Third, amazingly and appallingly you have described the Somme as a tactical victory. At a cost of well over a million killed or maimed, over 400,000 in the British Army alone. What kind of tactical victory is that?

Similar numbers died at Passchendaele and we have already seen that we could have had a negotiated peace before that.

Finally you absolve Lloyd George of responsibility by saying that the House of Commons voted to declare war on Belgium. Lloyd George was a member of the House of Commons when it did so. And he seems to have voted for the war. Whatever else Haig did he didn't have that on his conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:06 PM

"'History is based on hard facts and knowledge.'

As someone with an actual Doctorate in the subject, I find that to be one of the most depressing statements I've ever read on this site.'"

And why would that be GUEST Modette? Was the First World War a fact or not - or was it all just imagined? Does knowledge have no place in the make up, study and research of any given period in history? Where did your Doctorate come from - A Cornflakes packet?

Perhaps you subscribe to the Alan Clark school of history where you just "Make Up Shit" in order to provoke controversy in order to turn a quick profit.

Floors yours I am all ears, dying to hear what you have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:14 PM

Modette,

That statement is up there with:

"absolute proof is a requirement in Science."

Same author, same thread, 3 days ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:16 PM

GUEST,Dave - 14 Dec 15 - 03:03 PM

Teribus,

First, I did not at any time "pull up" or accuse Raggytash of abuse, I noted that the thread was started by him and the title chosen by him, but that title is not abuse."

Really GUEST Dave?? Care to explain this exchange then:

24th post to this thread and the first example of name calling on the thread:

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash - PM
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 03:12 PM

A rather bold statement professor, could you provide us with some evidence to substantiate your claim.

26th post to this thread:
Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave - PM
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:55 AM

Keith is of course right, I don't always agree with everything he says but I find the instant aggression of some posters on here towards him a bit disturbing.

Don't tell me – different GUEST; Dave RIGHT???

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:17 PM

"Where did your Doctorate come from - A Cornflakes packet?
Perhaps you subscribe to the Alan Clark school of history where you just "Make Up Shit" in order to provoke controversy in order to turn a quick profit"


Is this from the same person who objects to personal abuse??


You really couldn't make it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:35 PM

Yep, same person, Raggy, just different rules. Like I keep saying, no one can ever win because no one knows the rules. They make them up as they go along to suit the situation. Fortunately, we can all do the same ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:37 PM

GUEST,Raggytash - 14 Dec 15 - 03:01 PM

"and resulted in irreparable damage being done to the German Army"

Never, ever I have read such a utterly stupid, absolutely inane and totally naïve comment placed on ANY thread on Mudcat.

Is that the same irreparable damage that allowed the German forces just two decades later to sweep across Europe.



What a supremely idiotic remark.

Talking of supremacy in idiotic remarks Raggy could you tell me what the f**k the German Army of 1916 has to do with the German Army that invaded the low countries and France in 1940?? Were they the same Army? By Christ they must have been owed some back pay.

I would say that when it comes to demonstrating what a complete and utter fuckwit you are nobody can surpass youself, you just jump right in at every opportunity, you have both feet firmly clenched in your mouth for so much of the time one wonders what you use to walk on.

But I will continue with your education you complete and utter clown - the German Army of 1940 DID sweep across Europe because unlike Moltke in 1914 they did not modify the Schlieffen Plan in 1940 they came through both the Netherlands and Belgium [As Schlieffen originally planned it] and when they came they employed the same tactics as were INVENTED and developed by the British Army of 1918 - the Army commanded by Sir Douglas Haig.

By Christ are you really that thick - arguing with you lot is like "shooting-fish-in-a-barrel". Not one single one of you has even the foggiest clue.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:39 PM

Ah but Lofty when it comes to the subject of the First World War I know more than most about it on this forum ask your pal Raggy - he's the one who told me that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:42 PM

It isn't even as if Teribus has a point regarding the subject of the thread.

His mate Keith has just been shown to be incompetent when it comes to even defining history.

I'm beginning to enjoy this.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:45 PM

GUEST, Modette and GUEST, Dave have gone awfully quiet haven't they.

By the way Raggy how do you know that GUEST, Modette didn't get her Doctorate out of a Cornflakes Packet?

Not really interested on your take on it or Lofty's I am waiting to hear from Modette herself.

GUEST, Dave on the other hand has just been caught out in a lie. So I expect that it will take him a little bit longer via the usual flurry of anonymous GUEST posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:52 PM

Oh NOT TRUE GUEST - 14 Dec 15 - 03:42 PM the RBL Festival of Remembrance on the Saturday in the Royal Albert Hall and the Service of Remembrance on the following Sunday at the Cenotaph are strictly national acts of commemoration, stated so quite clearly earlier on in the thread.

At no point at all in either is war glorified or celebrated - no point at all in asking a nameless one to come up with any examples of this so-called "Jingoism" - they seem to be entirely bereft of answers when pushed for details.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 03:59 PM

Knowledge, or at least understanding, doesn't always move on,

In history, as in all fields, knowledge and understanding advances.
Knowledge is gained, never lost.
Are you seriously claiming that all the historians have gone wrong and the Mudcat Comrades alone hold the truth of history?!

DtG, we have not examined every swan, but if there was a red one somewhere, we would have heard.

I only claim that the history books agree my points.
I read them. That is how I know.

The Comrades have failed to find anything written for at least twenty years that disagrees.
How could they? There is nothing.

They still think that the history books are wrong and they are right.
Only conceited, ignorant fools could possibly believe that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:26 PM

Teribums, when you finally untangle your knickers allow me to enlighten you on some very basic English.

Irreparable: (Of an injury or loss) impossible to rectify or repair:

This is from the Oxford Dictionary.

If the German army was IRREPARABLY damaged it could not, a little more than two decades later, have caused havoc across Europe.

As for Modette's qualifications I have no reason to doubt her claim, noting from her previous posts a well regulated and reasoned response, I have read nothing that would lead me to doubt her.

By the way which University did you attend?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:31 PM

Teribums, you are right in that your knowledge of history is encyclopedic. Sadly, due to the nature of your seemingly tiny mind, this knowledge seems to have prevented the more human traits of imagination and compassion from flourishing. So what we end up with is a toy soldier who knows all about the subject of past wars but does not have the imagination or compassion how to use that knowledge to prevent it happening again. You and your pal can know as much about history as you like but none of you will ever rise to do anything with that knowledge. Fortunately.

Keith

I only claim that the history books agree my points.
I read them. That is how I know.

Come back when you can say that you have read them all. Shouldn't take you long.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:33 PM

Ironically, every time I make a reasoned well balanced observation based on assessment of the evidence, the moderators spare the blushes of Teribus and Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 04:35 PM

Teribus,

Good grief thats not abuse, I may have described it as aggression but not abuse. Keith was called "professor", you can call me that if you like, I don't care. The abuse on this thread started much later, with comments like.

"WTF!!!! - Can you actually READ Mr Carroll??? What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???"

And this abuse did not not come from Keith, who I have found to be mostly polite though often misguided. It came from you. And later, HiLo.

And as for "gone very quiet" do you seriously think that waiting for your pearls of wisdom in order to give an instant response is all I have to do?

From someone who regards the battle of the Somme as a tactical victory, rather than an unspeakable and unforgivable sacrifice of life, and who does not see the jingoism of rows of current military brass (not veterans) lined up at the Cenotaph to celebrate the incompetence and inhumanity of their predecessors, why am I not surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 15 - 07:31 PM

Aggression IS abuse GUEST, Dave. They dish it out then they can expect nothing less in return.

"the battle of the Somme as a tactical victory, rather than an unspeakable and unforgivable sacrifice of life,"

As there was actually the greatest conflict the world had to that date ever seen going on at the time, there is nothing reasonably, logically or factually preventing it from being all three at one and the same time. In 1916 Falkenhayn put into practice a concerted campaign of attrition with the express intention of bleeding the French and British Armies white (His words GUEST Dave) by the end of 1916 the German Army had suffered losses it could not replace or recover from and which ultimately resulted in their defeat in 1918.

While we are on that subject Raggy the German Army that was defeated in 1918 was demobilised and under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles any future German Army was restricted in size to a force of 100,000 men that was allowed no heavy weapons. I believe the Army you are referring to was one built in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, so not really the same army that was irreparably damaged by Falkenhayn's misguided strategy in 1916.

But no mind go and join Lofty dancing on the head of his pin - mind you with someone as thick as yourself you'd probably dance on the other end.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 02:52 AM

They dish it out then they can expect nothing less in return.

Au contraire, teribums. We expect far more from you and, to date, we have been very disappointed :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:12 AM

We are discussing the degree of jingoism versus the degree of commemoration.

For Teribus to wade in and try to stifle the debate by his immature "it's all commemoration with no jingoism" is not only irrelevant to debating the degrees but also professing profound ignorance.

If the absurd position taken by Teribus, Keith, Michael Gove and HiLo had merit, nobody would have bothered debating it in the first place. But clearly, poster boy parades for the benefit of the recruiting sergeant still persist, still exacerbate conflict and still confuse the glory, pomp and circumstance of glorious war with the assertive social worker role many of our soldiers view their trips abroad as.

That the November services merely remind intelligent people of the ugly side of military incompetence is sad, because when they began many years ago, they were a warning to us all of the horrors of war, the bad decisions that lead to unnecessary death and to mourn rather than thank those slaughtered.

They have been hijacked by the crocodile tears of those who use war as a tool or for those with fancy uniforms, a reason to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:47 AM

Pssst GUEST (Who could any number of the "usual suspects") take a good look back through this thread and you will find that nobody apart from ourselves have been discussing this.

The thread started out with some fairly basically inaccurate and incorrect observations being made by Raggytash and Dave the Gnome then it transformed after 23 posts into your usual Keith A baiting exercise, which to give the man his due he has seen you all off once again.

To bait Keith A even further thread drift onto the subject of WWI occurred and as in all other threads on that topic the "usual suspects" took another walloping, their myths, lies and misrepresentations being countered by established and verified fact, logic and commonsense. To the extent where we get Raggytash and Lofty showing us all that they know how to look up words in a dictionary and demonstrating to us all that they have no idea at all how to use those words in either a written or spoken dialogue.

You and your pals in the Mudcat Forum Keith A Baiting Society have been asked to give examples of this alleged "Jingoism" and once again you lot come up big on allegations and smears, but awfully short on details, examples, proof. Oh Dear, How strange, How predictable, How Sad, Never Mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:55 AM

Mmmm, sort of nearly had it early on there but slipped into copying your betters later on. Must try harder.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 04:06 AM

Hi all!

Just thought I'd pop in and see how you all are.

Oh, no better then?

Keep taking the tablets. No, the lozenge type. The tablets of stone Terribulus thinks exist dissolved in 1919.

You know, there isn't a fine line, there's a huge Maginot line between laughing at entrenched fantasy and coming out with abuse. If Terribulus and Keith A hole of Hertford didn't insist on perpetuating romantic idealised views of what is at the end of the day a public service and no more, perhaps people wouldn't point and laugh so much?

You must get those Boys Own annuals onto eBay.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 04:44 AM

You missed a bit Teribums, you didn't tell us which University you attended.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 05:28 AM

Thank you GUEST at 03:12, a very erudite post summing up this whole discussion succinctly. Especially the last sentence. And if Teribus wants concrete examples, look no further than the UK Chief of Defence Staff using Remebrance Day as cover for a puerile criticism of the Leader of the Opposition's position on nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 06:26 AM

"Are you seriously claiming that all the historians have gone wrong and the Mudcat Comrades alone hold the truth of history?!"
One more time Keith - just for a laugh
You have never shown that you have ever read an historian - not once - a latest peep as a few world war books that you claim to have supported your case contradict utterly what you have claimed - Margaret McMillan and Max Hastings in particular make actual statements in their books which diametrically oppose tour claims (I read bits of 'The War that Ended Peace' and 'Catastrophe' with growing incredulity last week)
As for Clark's 'The Sleepwalkers' - that should be a compulsory part of any history curriculum!
If "history never dies" - why have you demanded only current living historians and disqualified dead ones throughout your arguments? - you are a self-contradicting joke!
Your arguments are a dishonest, ludicrous mess - the pair of you have refused to respond to the real points of the war (your bullying bodyguard sneered at the suggestion that the War should have a moral, humane aspect)
Your only interest in the subject is that of a jingoist setting out to show the War as a high point in British history when in fact it was the lowest - something to be deeply ashamed of and not glorified as it has been by you pair of extremist flag-waggers.
Between you - a braindead poser and a bullying, nationalist, wannabe soldier, you have proved nothing and convinced nobody of anything other than your own vacuous right-wing nationalism.
You have even gone to the extent of contradicting your own star tabloid journalist (remembering that you insisted on "real, living, qualified historians" from the rest of us.)
"Comrades" - don't you wish you had a few of your own? - The pair of you are totally alone on this one - which says all that needs to be said for your arguments - your contempt for those who disagree with you takes in all those on this forum who have an interest in British twentieth century history - "Muppets" all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 07:37 AM

Still nothing to add chaps? Give's a nudge when you have come up with something.

By the way at what point in either the RBL Festival of Remembrance or at the Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph did the UK's Chief of Defence Staff criticise the Leader of the Opposition's position on nuclear weapons?

"Corbyn has said he would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons. Corbyn's stance defeated the point of having a nuclear deterrent"

Has Corbyn said that would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons? YES or NO

If the answer to that question is YES then with Corbyn as Prime Minister Great Britain's nuclear deterrent just simply is no deterrent at all - In stating the above the CDS is merely stating the blindingly obvious - So chums how can that be construed as being an example of "Jingoism"?? I know that you are thick, unfortunately for you I am not, so best explain yourselves - I ask in vain because I know and Keith A knows, in fact the world and his dog knows that you never do.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 07:45 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 15 Dec 15 - 04:44 AM Care to tell me why I should have to Raggy? After all it is not me claiming to have Doctorates in anything, or sounding off about being a Fellow of any Royal Society. As neither yourself or Lofty sees the need to explain anything you come out with and deliberately ignore questions could you provide any logical explanation why either Keith A, GUEST HiLo or myself should jump through hoops of your making?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 07:45 AM

So which University was it Teribums?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 07:54 AM

As neither yourself or Lofty sees the need to explain anything you come out with and deliberately ignore questions

Eh? Come on, teribums, I thought you were at least making an effort before. You seem to have gone back to being confused. Time to change the meds I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 08:07 AM

"Has Corbyn said that would never be willing to approve the use of nuclear weapons? YES or NO"
Hopefully no - the existence of nuclear weapons is contradictory - the reality that countries have them is a threat to others who also have them (a sort of deterrence), but the actual use of them inevitably and unavoidably against millions of civilians would be nothing other than a mindless act of vengeance and only monsters would ever carry out such an obscene act of mass murder.
The only person in authority ever to have actually proposed such an obscene act in a wartime situation was General Westmorland who suggested that America "nuke North Vietnam back to the Stone-age".
The reality of the dangers of possessing nuclear weapons was when Israel attempted to persuade Apartheid/fascist South Africa to obtain them and offered their assistance in doing so.
I've never been sure whether this was one extremist state attempting to unite with another with similar views, or simply "business" - worth remembering that Israel has developed a lucrative drone industry.
The further to the right the world moves, the greater the threat to humanity from these obscene and unusable weapons - which is why I'm more than happy to be referred to as "comrade" by two right wing extremists - thanks for the compliment.
No sane military group or political party would ever use these weapons - it is obvious to all that their use would destroy the planet.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM

GUEST Dave here is how "erudite" nameless one's post was:

GUEST- 15 Dec 15 - 03:12 AM


1: We are discussing the degree of jingoism versus the degree of commemoration.

Nameless GUESTS and the usual suspects weren't go back to the beginning of the thread and count how many posts there were before we got "The Butcher of the Somme" crack?

2: For Teribus to wade in and try to stifle the debate by his immature "it's all commemoration with no jingoism" is not only irrelevant to debating the degrees but also professing profound ignorance."

I must apologise for having and opinion? Or am I just simply not entitled to voice it? And nameless GUEST has the brassneck to witter on about stiffling debate.

NOTE: GUEST Dave we are still waiting after over 1,000 posts to get one single example of this alleged "Jingoism" - the one you offered up had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either the RBL Festival of Remembrance or the Service of Remembrance did it?

3: If the absurd position taken by Teribus, Keith, Michael Gove and HiLo had merit, nobody would have bothered debating it in the first place.

Nobody as far as I can see has bothered to debate the subject of the thread - which was introduced and steered towards a Keith baiting exercise almost from the outset. By the way what absurd position? I have stated that as far as my witnessing of the event it was all about commemoration, until any of you can furnish one single example of "Jingoism" my opinion will remain unchanged.

4: That the November services merely remind intelligent people of the ugly side of military incompetence is sad, because when they began many years ago, they were a warning to us all of the horrors of war, the bad decisions that lead to unnecessary death and to mourn rather than thank those slaughtered.

Hate to point this out to you nameless one but the "ugly side" of incompetence that normally results in war is generally political. It was the horror of the First World War that lead to the vain glorious hope that the policy of appeasement would work - a policy I would hasten to add that was advocated by most of the writers of the "Revisionist" crap that you lot all believe. In 1933/34 had there been a GWB in power in either France or Great Britain then the Second World War would never have happened - doubt that? Then read the orders given to General Heinz Guderian for the re-occupation of the Rhineland:

If so much as one single French Gendarme puts up his arm and orders you back - you are to retreat - Source - Guderian's own autobiography - Panzer Leader which by the way Raggy was also on our compulsory reading list.

So come along chaps get your heads together and give us an example of "Jingoism" that was evident at the RBL Festival of Remembrance in the Royal Albert Hall, or at the Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM

Come back when you can say that you have read them all.

No Dave, you come back when you find one that disagrees.
None of us have yet found one (Ferguson acknowledged) that disagree my views.
Is anyone aware of one that does, that I somehow missed?
No!

I also know that there are no red swans even though I have not seen them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM

Keith - It is you stating it as fact. It is up to you to prove it. It is not for anyone else to disprove. Your red swans analogy is, if you will excuse the pun, more of a red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 08:37 AM

Have a look at No 9

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 08:40 AM

One of the benefits of a higher education Teribums is that you learn not just "raw facts" interesting as they are, but you also learn to question those self same facts. Is the "evidence" before you correct.

You question the writer. You question his/her ethos, you question their politics and WHY they are writing the book.

You ask if the "facts" they are writing of are presented objectively and not subjectively.

You seek all the available information, not just the selective bits that go along nicely with your personal preferences.

You should always question yourself, especially yourself. When you have done this you MAY have an insight into the subject in question. Providing you have a modicum of intelligence.

Regurgitating "facts" is normally left behind at your secondary school.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 08:41 AM

Jim,
Margaret McMillan and Max Hastings in particular make actual statements in their books which diametrically oppose tour claims

No they do not.
I have read both. You clearly have not.

Here is Macmillan on a book by Stephenson, which Rag and I both read and discussed.

"Like many of his fellow historians, Stevenson challenges much of the accepted wisdom – for example, that the generals had no ideas about how to break the deadlock – yet the prevalent view of the war remains under the influence of the highly critical literature of the late 1920s and early 1930s, with its emphasis on the horrors of the trenches and its portrayal of a futile struggle for obscure or ignoble ends, managed by inept political leaders and unimaginative generals. How many of us saw Oh! What a Lovely War with a slight sense of superiority to the people of the past, so easily duped?

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."

Elsewhere she said,
"The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd

And,
"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

Macmillan in her own words rubbishes your views on this.
Everything written in the last twenty years does!
That shows beyond reasonable doubt that you are wrong about this.

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

Dave,
Keith - It is you stating it as fact. It is up to you to prove it.

The absence of any sighting, any of us or anyone else, proves beyond reasonable doubt that there are none.
Both disagreeing historians and red swans.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 09:14 AM

I suggest you look up the Philosophical burden of proof, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 09:28 AM

Jingoism is on display on the very site of the Royal British Legion, for instancehere.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 09:34 AM

Here is another one. What are all those flags about if not jingoism?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 09:38 AM

!"I have read both. You clearly have not.
Not a chance - you don't 'arf tell 'em
You would know of her criticism of the way the war was conducted otherwise.
I made a point to following up some of the things we have argued in McMillan's book via her unsubstantial index - your claims are either mistaken or totally dishonest - or both.
The same with Hastings - he said what the review said he said - and what he agreed with in his response to the "generous" review.
You have never - never at any time - in any of our arguments have given anything other than selective cut-'n-pastes
In the past you have accused people of "putting too much information up in order to confuse the issue" - even the list of historians studying the war was "too long"
I don't believe you read anything substantial - I'm not sure you are capable of doing so.
You certainly have't read Deuscher and Conquest as you claim to have otherwise you could easily have responded to my question on the contradiction between the two accounts of the Ukraine famine - and you will not do so now - it is necessary to have read the whole book in order to be able to.
You can not comment on works of history with out-of-context quotes without reading the books - it is crass agenda-driving to attempt to do so.
This is the umpteenth time you "real historians" have blown up in your face in a spectacular fashion - Kineally (and all the other "revisionist" historians you used to back your Famine claims without even understanding the word "revisionism", Hastings, McMillan - and the rest.
When will you ever learn - you fool no-one with your dishonesty?
Neither you and your bullying blustering mate have ever responded to the real points of this atrocious war - instead, you have hidden by unread historians and, when soldiers actual words have been put to you, you called them liars, which sums up the veracity of your arguments and the respect for those who fought and died
You are a disgrace
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM

Sorry - misd a bit
Now get your script out ad call everything I have said "lies"
Jim Carroll

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

Here you are, teribums. Christmas present to keep you occupied while they decide which mood leveller to use next -

World of Warships

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

Jim, read Macmillan's own actual words in my previous post.
She rubbishes what you believe, as they all do.

Dave, it is not possible to conclusively prove that there are no red swans, but the absence of a single sighting is proof beyond reasonable doubt that there are none.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM

A bit like god, eh Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM

I have Hastings' book to hand, and have given you some quotes, but it only covers the first 4 months of the war.
It has little relevance to our discussion.
I have quoted extensively from his own articles and essays on the whole war. He is not your friend Jim.
The review you keep on about does not contradict anything I have said.
I asked you before to quote the bit that you think does.
Still waiting Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 10:28 AM

it is not possible to conclusively prove that there are no red swans

I know it isn't and as I said, it is a red herring anyway. You cannot prove the non existence of anything so your saying that there are none to counter your claim does not prove that your claim is valid. Did you actually read the link I posted?

It is possible to prove that all histories written in the last 20 years confirm your 3 points. Read them all. The alternative is that you stop stating that it is a fact that they all agree. It is not a fact until it is proven. The burden of proof is still with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 10:32 AM

No jingoism Dave.
The flags are those of British Legion branches, not national flags.
Where exactly did you imagine jingoism?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 10:37 AM

DtG
It is possible to prove that all histories written in the last 20 years confirm your 3 points. Read them all.

It is possible to prove that no swans are red. Examine them all.

However, proof beyond reasonable doubt comes from the fact that no-one has ever reported seeing one.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 10:47 AM

It is possible to prove that no swans are red. Examine them all.

But I am not claiming that there are any. That was you, remember. Red herring or straw man. Take your pick.

The burden of proof is still on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM

You will not find evidence unless you are prepared to look for it. Click on the link Keith, 8.37, and look at the ninth photograph down and then com back and tell me there are no red swans.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM

"She rubbishes what you believe, as they all do."
Sigh.... you haven't read "all of them" - or are you now claiming you have?
It's obvious that you have read any of them.
YOU CANNOT GIVE AN HONEST VIEW OF ANY HISTORIAN'S OPINIONS WITH OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTES - you have shown that over and over again
You still don't respond to the Deutscher/Conquest enigma, neither will you because you obviously haven't read either of them
Nor have you explained that if ""history never dies" how the ***** can you demand that we only accept the opinions of living ones?
You haven't responded to that either.
Or why you can you present unqualified tabloid journalists and demand that ours have to be living and qualified.
Something else you refuse to respond to.
You are not the brightest fairy light on the Christmas tree - who is - but you are immeasurably in front in the dishonesty stakes - and the most thick-skinned in the shameless stakes.
As for your unbelievably insulting behaviour towards the memory of the "lying" veterans - beggers belief - the pair of you!!
Does your churchj do confession and forgiveness - if not, I should move to one that does if I were you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM

It will either be the wrong sort of swan, the wrong shade of red, politically motivated or no longer living :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:02 AM

The swans landing on the man made lakes in no man's land were certainly red. Red stained from the blood of countless bodies.

Ok, well led eager to serve bodies of people who knew exactly what they were doing and anyway, they'll be home by Xmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:17 AM

"It will either be the wrong sort of swan, the wrong shade of red, politically motivated or no longer living "
Don't forget "a real swan" - very important!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:24 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 15 Dec 15 - 08:40 AM

Great pity that you don't follow your own advice, especially as you seem to be criticising people on their knowledge and study of a subject that you say you know nothing about.

No examples of this alleged "Jingoism" yet then?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:36 AM

YOU CANNOT GIVE AN HONEST VIEW OF ANY HISTORIAN'S OPINIONS WITH OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTES

Lie.
My quotes are in context, and I provided the links so they can be seen to be in context.

You still don't respond to the Deutscher/Conquest enigma,
No. It is not about WW1.
I opened the Stalin thread to respond there, but it is closed.

you demand that we only accept the opinions of living ones?

The consensus has emerged only about twenty years ago as a result of new evidence becoming available.
Nothing written in the last twenty years by living or dead historians supports your debunked and discredited version.

Or why you can you present unqualified tabloid journalists

You presented Tim Pat Coogan in another discussion, who is unqualified and a tabloid journalist.
Discount Hastings, and I can still say that nothing written in the last twenty years supports your debunked and discredited version, only mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:38 AM

Ah GUEST Dave so a Festival of Remembrance and Service of Remembrance to remember the sacrifices made by those who died defending our country cannot feature any representatives or representative image of any serviceman or woman? The Festival of Remembrance organised by the Royal British Legion a charitable organisation that does much for servicemen and women, their families and their dependents who find themselves in need cannot demonstrate the extent and commitment of the grass roots branches that do all the fund raising for those charities at their own Festival?

Careful you'll be calling for the banning of all those Trades Union Banners next.

Sorry GUEST DAVE it is a Royal British Legion event they are perfectly entitled to "advertise".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:39 AM

I can still say that nothing written in the last twenty years supports your debunked and discredited version, only mine.

You can say whatever you like, Profesor, but that don't make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:44 AM

You can say whatever you like, Profesor, but that don't make it true.

What makes it true is that none of you can find a different view from any historian.
Who cares what what a clique of Mudcatters think?
Historians actually know stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 11:45 AM

GUEST - 15 Dec 15 - 08:37 AM

Do you believe everything you read you prat - the bird shown is a f**kin Flamingo - Red Swan my arse.

Oh Dear, How Sad; Never Mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 12:27 PM

"You presented Tim Pat Coogan in another discussion, who is unqualified and a tabloid journalist."
Coogan does not write for tabloids and is not a journalist - and he is every bit as qualified as Max Hastings - nor have I or anybody else ever disallowed information from anybody other tha you - misrepresentation on three points
"I opened the Stalin thread to respond there"
You have never responded to it anywhere - I have only just raised it (stop lying)
I raise it here as an example of your lying about historians you claim to have read
"My quotes are in context, "
No they are not - I repeat - YOU CANNOT GIVE AN HONEST VIEW OF ANY HISTORIAN'S OPINIONS WITH OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTES
"The consensus has emerged only about twenty years ago as a result of new evidence becoming available."
The only "new" evidence to have emerged over the last twenty years is from the soldiers ("liars") diaries - and they are only available to a few people - no new evidence has been discoled from them and it wouldn't matter if it has - you've told us they are liars.
What we have seen is an effort by establishment historians to rehabilitate the war as acceptable on the deeply insulting premise that us stupid peasants believe Blackadder and Oh What a Lovely War presnts an accurate account - you have accused us of the same - downright ****** insulting that anybody should take a sit-com as an accurate account of anything - who they hell do they or you think we are?
If "new evidence" has emerged - what it it? (don't expect an answer to this one either)
"Careful you'll be calling for the banning of all those Trades Union Banners next."
Who gives a toss who attends a festival remembering "liars" as you have described them.
See you're keeping your head down from the awkward bits here - very wise!!
Jim (whoops-Jom) Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 01:21 PM

I love this.

Do you believe everything you read you prat

Were you talking to Keith, teribums?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 01:36 PM

"The only "new" evidence to have emerged over the last twenty years is from the soldiers ("liars") diaries - and they are only available to a few people - no new evidence has been discoled from them and it wouldn't matter if it has - you've told us they are liars."

Oh dear more Jom "Made Up Shit"

Where did you get that nugget about the only source of new evidence in the past twenty years has come from soldiers diaries?

You can call soldiers liars if you like I certainly haven't - Or are you back to your old pal Tommy Kenny again - the old man you cannot even prove was EVER a soldier because of your slapdash method of gathering data for research - you were too bloody idle to get verification that he was ever in the Army - you cannot tell what Regiment he served in, where he served, or in which actions he fought. YOU tell us ever changing stories of Military Policemen carrying out summary executions of British soldiers saying that Tommy told you all about this yet Tommy cannot name any of the men he saw shot, they would of course have been Tommy's comrades in arms, the lads he trained and served alongside, yet he cannot remember their names? Incredible and totally unbelievable. There have been hundreds of memoirs and autobiographies written by soldiers who served on the western front - strange that none of them mention anything about any such summary executions.

It is you Jom who depict those who volunteered to fight for their country as dullards, simpletons and fools, too stupid to know what they were doing - I really would have liked to see you try and tell that to either of my Grandfathers - they'd have lifted your head clear off your shoulders.

So far not one of you has provided any link to any historian who specialises in the study of the Great War who contradicts the three points originally brought to our attention by Keith A - NOT ONE.

Keep digging boys - carry-on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 01:41 PM

No Lofty talking to anonymous GUEST who when it comes to bird recognition obviously doesn't know his arse from his elbow, but who is dumb enough to believe whatever the caption says - thick or what eh?

With such star players on your side Lofty - we don't even need strikers - just a constant stream of own-goals, looking forward to even more "Howlers" now that Jom is back from his jaunt to Dublin.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 01:49 PM

Hey - Well done teribums (Seriously this time) you hit a significant 1111 with that last post :-)

Now, star players, strikers, own goals and howlers? Bit of mixed phrasing their surely? Can you not go further than three thoughts in the same vein without falling over? You are not even in the right league...

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 01:54 PM

For some reason my original post has been removed, presumably by a moderator. Why?

For the record, Teribus, my PhD was awarded by London University, as was my degree and my MA. I'm not going to reveal its subject as I am a specialist in a particular historical area.

History isn't just about 'hard facts and knowledge', it's about those voices which are rarely recognised in 'official' accounts of events. It's about documents which, even now, have still not been released into the public domain. It's about creating a voice for those who are under-represented. It's about recognising that historians themselves have been limited in their understanding because of access restrictions and embedded prejudices.

Teribus and Keith really do not have a full appreciation of the nature of history.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM

"You can call soldiers liars if you like I certainly haven't - "
Your words on our recording Tommy Kenny were:
"I bet he and his mates had a laugh at our gullibility in believing what he said"
You dismissed Harry Patch's statement on shellshock out of hand "because he said he'd never seen a case" and totally refused to respond to the fact that he was fighting next to people who certainly had.
You dismissed the report of summary executions from an old soldier becaus "they never happened" - simple as that.
If that isn't calling soldiers liars - what is?
I have at no time described soldiers as "dullards, simpletons and fools," - because they joined - I have taken great pains to describe the "emotional blackmail, the lying of the recruiting campaigns and the fact that employers forced them to join up under the threat of dismissal and also, as in Tommy Kenny's case, the enticements of three meals, a bed and a uniform which was offered to unemployed young men to gety them to join.
]I pointed out that half of a Paxman programme was dedicated to the techniques - you have responded to none of it.
Our "research" in recording Tommy Kenny was neither slapdash, nor was it research - it was recording actual experiences of an old man for a family who already had the actual details of his service - why are you pair so transparent in your deliberate distortion of what has been said.
Again - Tommy Kenny did not say he saw anybody shot - go ***** read what I wrote about what he said about executions - another case of convenient dyslexia
"strange that none of them mention anything about any such summary executions."
And you continue to call soldiers liars
"originally brought to our attention by Keith A"
Max Hastings (who he has called a liar or hypocrite, and Margaret McMillan - to name tw
]You really should have atayed away from this.
Jim Carroll


.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:07 PM

and he is every bit as qualified as Max Hastings -...and no more.

You have never responded to it anywhere - I have only just raised it (stop lying)

I know you have just raised it. I ignored it because it is irrelevant to this thread, and the Stalin thread is closed.

YOU CANNOT GIVE AN HONEST VIEW OF ANY HISTORIAN'S OPINIONS WITH OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTES

Lie.
My quotes are in context, and I provided the links so they can be seen to be in context.

nd they are only available to a few people - no new evidence has been discoled from them and it

Any researcher can make use of the archive, and it is all being put on line. The historians who have used it say it is very valuable.

by establishment historians to rehabilitate the war

What establishment?
Boot is American. Macmillan Canadian. Pennel did all her studying in Ireland.
That establishment are all long dead and no-one cares about protecting them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:14 PM

Modette, what is your opinion of the three points I have been defending?

They come from reading WW1 histories.
Nothing written in the last twenty years contradict them.
Nothing written in the last twenty years supports the views expressed by Jim.

Do you challenge any of those facts modette?
If you do, please give details.
I provide quotes from numerous historians working on that period.
What can you provide?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:20 PM

"Historians actually know stuff"

Unless they point out flaws in the logic of our novelty acts, Acheson and Woodcock.

Then they get their PhD from cornflakes packets apparently...

You coul...    You know the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:28 PM

Hurrah!

Thank you Modette. Perhaps if they hear a voice from (and please excuse any perceived syncophancy) a qualified historian, they may, just may, start to listen to some reason.

At the moment I am reading "The Good Soldier" by Gary Mead. To say he is trying to paint a positive picture is probably correct. Without extracting long exerts from it, it is not possible to indicate just how favourable, at times, the book is to Haig.

I would recommend reading it to all concerned. I could go further and say that the book is biased. However I am only one third of the way through it and will reserve judgement.

I know with limited education it may be difficult for some people to see beyond what is written but it shouldn't stop you trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:30 PM

Bollocks, I didn't check my spelling SYCOPHANCY!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:32 PM

Non person,
Unless they point out flaws in the logic of our novelty acts,

At last!
If I am part of the "novelty acts" please list all those historians who "point out flaws."

I did not think there were any.
How many do you have?

(It's none isn't it you silly non-person)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:34 PM

Oh I do not think so Lofty, it was one of your nameless ones who started te ball rolling with the "Howlers" - only thing was he couldn't provide any examples of any supplied by our side of the "Discussion" - we on the other hand could supply plenty of examples by those arguing against us (Jom's have been the most spectacular - but that bloody Flamingo - even you have to admit it was an absolute corker!! - I mean you couldn't even script it could you - thick as pig-shit or what???). I suppose that is why they opt for the anonymous GUEST facility afforded by this forum, I mean they would only have to make one such "F**k Up" and if they could be individually identified they'd never hear the end of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:42 PM

"My quotes are in context"

Hmm. Your infamous Geoffrey Wheatcroft "quote" was certainly in context, Keith. Unfortunately, even though you pretended it was a real quote, it wasn't, was it? You still haven't apologised for that deliberate piece of dishonesty. Whatever reputation you ever had is in complete tatters, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 03:59 PM

GUEST,Modette - 15 Dec 15 - 01:54 PM

1: For some reason my original post has been removed, presumably by a moderator. Why?

Probably just got lost - it happens - live with it,or resend it.

2: "For the record, Teribus, my PhD was awarded by London University, as was my degree and my MA. I'm not going to reveal its subject as I am a specialist in a particular historical area.

Oh great so we just have to take your word for it do we? Then Kow-Tow to your self-proclaimed superior knowledge - please forgive me but so far you sure as hell haven't shown any. So your area of specialisation has got nothing to do with what we are talking about.

3; History isn't just about 'hard facts and knowledge', it's about those voices which are rarely recognised in 'official' accounts of events. It's about documents which, even now, have still not been released into the public domain. It's about creating a voice for those who are under-represented. It's about recognising that historians themselves have been limited in their understanding because of access restrictions and embedded prejudices."

Oh WOW where do we begin:
(a) It most certainly has got something to do with "hard facts and knowledge" History is not abstract (I know Jom thinks it is - but there again it has been proven time after time Jom just "Makes Up Shit")
(b) Tell me Modette these voices that are " rarely recognised in 'official' accounts of events" how do you verify if they are authentic? What provides their provenance? Or do you like Jom just accept them automatically at face value because they suit your own in-built prejudices?
(c) Ah so you do agree that those who wrote about this particular period in history who have had access to new material must have a far better understanding than those who wrote before that information came into the public domain which means that you must agree with Keith and myself that those writing after 1970 have a far better grip and view on the overall picture than those who wrote before.
(d) ALL views have to be represented in any attempt at understanding any event in history - you most certainly do not skew it by pushing minority views to the exclusion of all others.
(e) Tell us Modette what restrictions are you referring to and please do tell us all what your embedded prejudices are? - Oh no wait a minute you are the only historian in the world that has none - unbelievable or what? Modette the purest of the pure.

4: Teribus and Keith really do not have a full appreciation of the nature of history.

Sorry Modette but on that showing it would appear that we have a damn sight better understanding than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 04:03 PM

Ooooh GUEST - 15 Dec 15 - 03:20 PM your desperation is showing - what is your next ploy to get this thread closed down? is it going to be one those clumsy hints like "We know where you live"?

If you have F**K all to contribute to the discussion why don't you just STFU.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 04:08 PM

What are you on about, teribums? I don't have any 'nameless ones'. You really have lost it now haven't you!

Did you enjoy the game BTW? Probably makes more sense than most of the strange stuff you seem to be saying at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 04:44 PM

Out of order Teribus, way out of order.

If you want to be offensive to someone have a go at me. I Really don't give a damn.

Your response to Modette was not acceptable under any circumstance.

I believe an apology might be in order.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 04:51 PM

Jim Carroll - 15 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM

1: "Your words on our recording Tommy Kenny were:
"I bet he and his mates had a laugh at our gullibility in believing what he said"

Chapter and verse please Jom - or is this just more Made Up Shit

2: "You dismissed Harry Patch's statement on shellshock out of hand "because he said he'd never seen a case" and totally refused to respond to the fact that he was fighting next to people who certainly had."

Harry Patch (80 years after the event) said that he had never seen anyone suffering from shellshock - that means that he can never have seen anyone summarily executed for suffering from shellshock. Harry Patch joined up in 1916 and was sent to France with those he had trained with in July 1917 those around him were those he had joined up and trained with. In September 1917 he was wounded he along with everyone he was there with took part in a British Offensive, there were no German Offensives against British positions between July 1917 and September 1917 so where and how could those who Harry Patch was fighting alongside ever seen anyone who may have been sufering from shellshock (You see I believe Harry Patch when he said he never saw anyone suffering from shellshock - you Jom obviously don't - you are calling Harry Patch a liar).

3: You dismissed the report of summary executions from an old soldier becaus "they never happened" - simple as that.
If that isn't calling soldiers liars - what is?

I have dismissed reports of summary executions because I can find no evidence at all that they ever happened. Prove that the Tommy Kenny you interviewed WAS a soldier - your own slapdash approach negated your own research, your anglo-phobic nature just got the better of you and you f**ked up right royally. I do believe the memoirs and autobiographies of many, many other soldiers who fought for a damned sight longer on the western front than three months and guess what Jom - NOT ONE OF THEM REFERS TO ANY SUMMARY EXECUTIONS - so are they all liars - YOU seem to think so.

4: "I have at no time described soldiers as "dullards, simpletons and fools," - because they joined - I have taken great pains to describe the "emotional blackmail, the lying of the recruiting campaigns and the fact that employers forced them to join up under the threat of dismissal and also, as in Tommy Kenny's case, the enticements of three meals, a bed and a uniform which was offered to unemployed young men to get them to join."

Of course you did you state quite clearly that they were tricked into joining up - only thing is Jom you cannot identify those who were tricked - Between August 1914 and December 1914 over 1,200,000 men volunteered, they were eager to do "their bit", they did it out of duty and patriotism, they did not have to be tricked, they did not have to be lied to (Harry Patch knew exactly what he was headed for - his own brother had told him). Here is another anomaly in your Tommy Kenny saga - Liverpool between 1903 and 1916 was booming, it was expanding at a terrific rate it was described as being economically almost a "golden age" - so what unemployment? But first above all else prove that Tommy Kenny was ever a soldier - if what you say is true go back to his family and get the actual details of his service - somehow I don't think that you will bother.

5: STOP THE PRESS - BREAKING NEWS - NEVER BEFORE REVEALED "Tommy Kenny did not say he saw anybody shot - go ***** read what I wrote about what he said about executions

Sorry Jom don't believe you it is your narrative you go back and dig out the relevant passages where you say that Tommy Kenny NEVER saw anyone getting shot - he was your original "smoking gun" the guy who told you he saw it happen. So we now have your two key "witnesses" who saw NOTHING - Believe me or believe me not I have searched high and low and far and wide and I HAVE NOT COME ACROSS ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF ANY SUMMARY EXECUTION - while you have maintained this fiction based on the vaguest hearsay and dramatic interpretation - Sorry Jom I deal in fact and substantive evidence, nothing whatsoever to do with "convenient dyslexia". Same old, same old, big on smears and allegations - hopelessly short on any substantive proof, evidence or detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 04:54 PM

I believe that GUEST Modette can answer for herself - don't you?

The points put to her are reasonable, rational and logical.

I already know that you know S.F.A. on the subject, so why would I address anything said by GUEST Modette to you TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 05:09 PM

So, in your mind the following is reasonable, rational and logical.

"so we just have to take your word for it do we? Then Kow-Tow to your self-proclaimed superior knowledge - please forgive me but so far you sure as hell haven't shown any. So your area of specialisation has got nothing to do with what we are talking about"

"Modette the purest of the pure"

Just one further querey: If I cannot reply for Modette why do you insist upon replying for KAOH.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 05:12 PM

Teribums - I wish you would stop using phrases that apply to Keith and yourself as well as anyone else. Like self proclaimed superior knowledge. Modette has said that he or she has a doctorate and specialist knowledge in a branch of history. I have no reason to doubt him or her yet. I have every reason to doubt you and Keith because you have both proven to be dishonest and dishonourable in the extreme. You have not stated what the qualifications for your proclamations are so we can only assume that your 'superior knowledge' is definitely self proclaimed whereas the word of modette is, as yet, unassailable. To use Keith's favourite ploy, everything I have read so far indicates that modette has a PhD so it must therefore be true... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 05:13 PM

"Chapter and verse please Jom - or is this just more Made Up Shit"
You've had it - you are lying - just as you lied about being ablt to trace Tommy's war record
"said that he had never seen anyone suffering from shellshock -"
He nevr claimed to - he said he hadn't - bu#t he almost certainly had served with soldiers who had - it was a common condition - but he's still a liar eh?
The other information is as valid as your claim that Tommy Kenny ever served - you can trace one soldier - you can trace them all -I've given you details of one decorated war hero - no cigar
"so are they all liars"
are you claiming you have evidence that they denied their existence?
Of course Ifucking can't - nobody can - but Paxman devoted half a programme on it and you've been given the actual posters that were used - a dzen of them.
"903 and 1916 was booming, it was expanding at a terrific rate"
Utter made-up bollocks - not for a school leaver it wasn't - and I do know this from my own family experience.
Now fuck off and get some real uninvented "facts"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 07:34 PM

Hey Lofty - here's another own-goal scored by your mate Raggy:

Raggy you felt it necessary for me to tell you what University I went to - why was that again? After all I wasn't the one banging on about a Doctorate or a Fellowship in some Royal Society was I. The one banging on about a Doctorate was GUEST Modette and by veiled inference she promoted herself as an expert on the study of history, possibly an historian with some sort of relevant specialisation in the subject at hand - and here you are just taking her word for it. Different sauces for Goose and Gander eh Raggy - how "socialist" of you.

Only thing is Raggy the little lecture GUEST Modette gave is the sort of meaningless waffle that I wouldn't even expect from a fourth former.

She accuses all other historians of having an "inbuilt bias" yet she has none and you swallow that FFS!! What a TC you really are, thankfully for reasoned discussion I am nowhere near as gullible.

If you lot keep jumping in and making statements and claims that are complete and utter bollocks I will continue to correct your wilder ravings - As I said, "It's like shooting fish in a barrel".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 07:40 PM

And another own-goal from Lofty himself:

"You have not stated what the qualifications for your proclamations are so we can only assume that your 'superior knowledge' is definitely self proclaimed whereas the word of modette is, as yet, unassailable."

Ask your pal Raggy Lofty he reckons that I am more knowledgeable on the subject of the First World War than most on this Forum and he acknowledges that I have a special interest in the subject. I on the other hand have made no such claims but I have been running circles round you jokers anytime you lot of self-confessed ignoramuses have voiced your idiotic opinions.

Oh Dear, How Sad, Never Mind Lofty.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 15 - 07:46 PM

Jim Carroll -15 Dec 15 - 05:13 PM any chance of a translation of that frothing rant Jom?? I mean really old son you're all over the place.

Any concrete evidence of summary executions? NO

Any evidence of "Jingoism" evident at this years RBL Festival of Remembrance? NO

As I said earlier big on unsubstantiated smears and allegations - totally short on proof to back any of them up.

You lot a re a complete and utter JOKE.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:38 AM

To refresh your memory - this is what I said about Tommy Kenny which you dismissed as him having a laugh at our expense in the pub with his mates - I thing you took me up about my use of the term "redcoats" (as you do)
"One of the most moving moments was when he told us about the deserters.
He described their not walking on dry ground for weeks on end - constant mud.
He described the permanent, deafening noise of gunfire and how young men, little more than boys, would turn around and walk away from the front, not in an attempt to desert, just to get way from the sound.   
The Redcoats would be sent out in trucks to pick them up and they would be brought back to base, where they would be tried and routinely sentenced to be shot by a drum-head court martial.
If another push came, they would be taken from the place they were held and put in the front line to fight.
If they survived, they would be returned to prison and later their sentence would be carried out.
Tommy described how you would be talking strangers, young men, about their homes and families, swapping cigarettes, and later would read a notice pinned up on the canteen wall that they had been executed for cowardice."
"Any concrete evidence of summary executions"
You've been given it on three separate occasions - not from official records, not from historians who came along a century later to tell us it was a glorious fight for freedom, but from the men who were there and experienced it.
"Any evidence of "Jingoism" evident at this years RBL Festival of Remembrance? NO"
I have not commented on the Festival of Remembrance - I didn't watch it - must have been somebody else (or maybe you dreamed it.
I have commented of so-called Christians who were part of sending young men to die monopolising it as a Christian ceremony
I commented on the schmaltzy way Eric Bogles song was turned into a cabaret number for the occasion, rather than the anti-war song it was designed to be.
I have also commented on the obscene personal profit possibly amounting to 10 million pounds made out of the sale of ceramic poppies last year.
That's all.
"1903 and 1916 was booming, it was expanding at a terrific rate"
You paint a rosy picture of the conditions Tommy Keny would have been experiencing in Liverpool when he was conned into joining up
I SUGGEST YOU READ THIS
It is an official account describing what was happening in Liverpool and Strasbourg from the beginning of the century to the outbreak of war.
Liverpool had one of the highest unemployment figures in Britain - it always has had.
This is how the document describes the plight of the unemployed:
"Contributory National Insurance (1911) reinforced this strategy. It was in the employer's interest to avoid hiring day labourers: each required a weekly contribution for health insurance purposes, a payment that was doubled if the worker was also a member of the unemployment scheme.29 Access to unemployment benefit, based on actuarial calculation, would separate the regular contributor from the rest (the ''morality of mathematics'', according to the young Winston Churchill). A stipulated annual number of contributions and benefits limited to fifteen weeks maximum each year identified unemployed claimants as temporarily jobless in previously regular employment. Long-term unemployment was not officially recognized: once benefit rights were exhausted, the claimant left the scheme and re-entered the pauper class. From the small print found in
the legislation, the British unemployed emerge: a select group of regularly employed men whose services were temporarily surplus to immediate requirements, in a scheme initially confined to trades known to suffer from seasonal fluctuations in demand."
Apart from the 1926 General Strike, the years leading up to the war were the nearest Britain ever got to to having a revolution, such was the mass poverty and unrest.
Tommy could not get work, nor could any of his mates - when he recovered from the wounds he had received in the fighting he eventually got work on the docks - the main employer in Liverpool,
was then operating the 'Pen' system, where men would be herded into a compound and be either selected or rejected for a day's work - the latter had to return home and come back the following day to go through the process all over again.
That was the 'land fit for heroes to live in' that Tommy and his contemporaries returned to.
You claim on pressure was put on young man to enlist
A REMINDER
You have ignored and refused to comment of the White Feather campaign, the emotional blackmail, the employers who forced men to join under the threat of dismissal, the massive unprecedented publicity campaign to cajole, shame and trick boys into joining up by suggesting it would be a short picnic in Europe - such as the concert party shows put on by Horatio Bottomley, who became a millionaire out of sending young man to their deaths and was later jailed as a crook and embezzler.
You ignore the disillusionment of soldiers on leave finding a Britain totally unaware of the fact that there was a war going on; the wealthiest dodging the rationing and hoarding food....
You ignore the reality of how the worst off suffered and the soldiers were cynically used as cannon fodder in what is now fully accepted as a war of attrition by all other than the Colonel Blimps and the Land-of-hope-and-gloriers like you pair      
You are alone here in propping up each others lies and distortions.
It is you pair who are "a complete and utter JOKE"
You have convinced no-one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:46 AM

Ah, that's OK them teribums. Your qualifications for pontificating about matters historic are the say so of someone you don't really know or like on a forum about folk music. While modette has a doctorate. And that makes you better qualified in what way? I really would stick to playing with boats if I were you. Logic and reason are obviously beyond your grasp.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM

So just which University did you go to Teribums or are you one of those sad cases who say "The University of Life" You obviously have no education and believe you can "win" an argument just by shouting at people. That may work in the armed forces if you a stripe on your sleeve but it doesn't cut the mustard in Civvy Street which is were you are.

Modette made no claims to be unbiased she said "History isn't just about 'hard facts and knowledge', it's about those voices which are rarely recognised in 'official' accounts of events. It's about documents which, even now, have still not been released into the public domain. It's about creating a voice for those who are under-represented. It's about recognising that historians themselves have been limited in their understanding because of access restrictions and embedded prejudices"

Your understanding of English is at fault, nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM

" Your qualifications for pontificating about matters historic are the say so of someone you don't really know or like on a forum about folk music."

I have not mentioned anything about qualifications your pal Raggy did. What does Modette hold a Doctorate in? Neither you or I have a clue and I frankly couldn't care less, particularly after her little lecture on the study of it which was the biggest load of bollocks that I have read for some time.

Jom - sorry I didn't wade through your latest badly written, punctuated and presented offering - quite frankly I can no longer be arsed, as they are only ever rehashes of the crap you came out with before that was shot down at the time. You'll be telling us that Kitchener was forced to resign next, and that the wrong ammunition was sent to France, all the work of a hate filled, tooth-sucking, spiteful, little clown who for reasons best known, and best kept, to himself hates and loathes the country of his birth, who uses this Forum to attack it at every opportunity.

There were no summary Drumhead Courts Martial Jom the Courts Martial records for every Court Martial held are available - perhaps you should restrict yourself to the ones involving Death Sentences you will see that all such Courts were duly constituted in accordance with Army Regulations and that after the verdict had been passed the findings of the court were passed up the Chain of Command for review and IF the death sentence was verified the papers then went to the Commander of the Army in the Field for his authorisation to carry out the sentence - Haig only signed off on 1 in 10 cases RECORDED FACT

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:05 AM

If you really believe that in a time of war everything went by the book you really are naïve.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:08 AM

Ah, OK, teribums. So, you have no qualifications to make such judgements yet you deem someone else's take on the study of history the 'biggest load of bollocks' that you have read for some time. Have you any grounds for believing that modette may be lying or is it just because his or her view does not fit in with your preconceptions? I guess we all know the value of your judgements anyway so I don't really expect a reasonable answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:09 AM

GUEST unless you are GUEST Modette posting anonymously then you do not have the foggiest clue - I will wait for her to reply for herself.

What my education was? Is no concern of yours, but I know for a fact that I am holding my own against you clowns in this particular discussion to such an extent that the phrase "hand over fist" comes to mind.

Perhaps you are the anonymous GUEST who supplied the photograph of the Flamingo and presented it as a Red Swan, perhaps your the anonymous GUEST who wittered on about "Howlers" yet could not provide an example of even one of them. Good at asking questions designed to distract and divert - absolutely useless at answering any.

Any points to counter anything I have stated? NO

Any examples of "Jingoism" at the RBL Festival of Remembrance? NO

By the bye nameless one, when it comes to use and command of the English Language I leave quite a number of the "usual suspects" on this forum way behind.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:10 AM

Modette may have a doctorate.
She attacks me for saying the historians all agree my points even though it is a fact, and she attacked me for saying they did not all agree on blame for the famine, which is also a fact.

I put this to you again Dr. modette,

My views come from reading WW1 histories.
Nothing written in the last twenty years contradict them.
Nothing written in the last twenty years supports the views expressed by Jim.

Do you challenge any of those facts modette?
If you do, please give details.
I provide quotes from numerous historians working on that period.
What can you provide?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:17 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 16 Dec 15 - 05:05 AM

Go on then Raggy - Floors yours - give us the examples where in cases involving a potential death sentence being handed down things were not done as I described.

For any reading this who happen to be betting folk - my money is on Raggy NOT providing anything.

NO summary Courts Martial - NO summary executions. You prats have had two years to come up with any examples and have failed quite spectacularly to provide any.

Oh Dear, How Sad, Never Mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:17 AM

Professor, everything written in the last 20 years doesn't agree with you. The writing that don't, you have dismissed. That doesn't make them go away. They are still there whether you agree with them or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:20 AM

Steve, I never rely on my reputation.
I never expect to be believed.
When I quote historians I give a link to the source so there is no question about context.

Jim lied about that.
He has to lie because he has no case.

If you are not a liar Jim, give an example of an out of context quote.

These?

"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

"The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd


" 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

American military historian Max Boot.

"World War I continues to be misunderstood by most ordinary people who have not yet caught up with the evolving consensus of historians. Three big myths, in particular, dominate the popular perception. First, that it was an accident, a war nobody wanted — a view immortalized in Barbara Tuchman's beautifully written if factually questionable 1962 book "The Guns of August." Second, that it didn't really matter who won — that there was scant difference between the Central and Entente Powers. And third, that soldiers were needlessly sent to slaughter by unfeeling and cloddish generals

Paxman/Open University
"Britain now had a tactically smarter, better organised army, capable of deploying men and machines to devastating effect"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:24 AM

Raggytash "If you really believe that in a time of war everything went by the book you really are naïve"

Teritowelling "Go on then Raggy - Floors yours - give us the examples where in cases involving a potential death sentence being handed down things were not done as I described"

Do you REALLY think that things like summary court martials were recorded?? Stored in the Regimental History ?? Copies sent the High Command ?? The War Office?? Perhaps sent to the Times for publication in the newspapers??

Grow up man and stop reading boys comic versions.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

Professor, everything written in the last 20 years doesn't agree with you. The writing that don't, you have dismissed. That doesn't make them go away. They are still there whether you agree with them or not.

Go ahead non person.
Produce something written by an historian in the last twenty years that disagree my 3 points.

Make my day!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

Lofty you may well believe everything you read (e.g. about Red Swans) and you may well believe everything everybody tells you. I don't, particularly in an argument where they just float in information about themselves meant to silence and intimidate, and even more so when what they go on to say is so patently idiotic that it beggars description.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:30 AM

I am pretty sure that is Raggy's point, teribums, but to try and make it clear you need to ask yourself the following questions. Do you believe, in a time of such death and destruction, that everything was done by the book? Do you believe that if anyone in power broke the rules it would be recorded anywhere but in the minds of the men it affected? Do you believe that all the men who died were victims of enemy fire only? Do you simply not accept the possibility that some of those suffering from the intense stress of the situation made mistakes and that these mistakes were covered up?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:30 AM

Rag, if such things had happened, people would have borne witness.
All those anti war poets.
The memoirs of anti war people like Robert Graves and Siegfried Sassoon.

No one remembers seeing or even hearing of such a thing.
If it had happened someone would.
You can find no evidence because there is none.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:37 AM

Hey Lofty - Raggy's just score us another!!!!

GUEST,Raggytash - 16 Dec 15 - 05:24 AM

Ah so Summary Court Martials did take place but no records were kept - So:

1: How did you come to hear about them Raggy?

2: Why do you think they'd bother to go through all that rigmarole? Wouldn't it be just simpler to summarily execute the guilty party? Which of course would lead onto

3: Who would carry out the execution Raggy - we are now up to about twenty odd people who have to be in on this secret.

4: Raggy as you are "in the know" on all these secret summary Courts Martial and Summary Executions can you give us a name of anyone who was executed, anyone who presided over such a Court Martial, anyone who acted as Chaplain, Doctor or indeed firing party? NO? What a surprise oh dear, how sad, never mind.

The number of British and Commonwealth troops who were executed is know and Court Martial papers for all are on line.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM

Keith, you really don't listen to things that upset your little apple cart do you.

Harry Patch said it happened, Jim's old soldier said it happened. You don't really expect it to be written down do you. It won't be written down in Regimental Histories or War Office records because it shouldn't have happened but we have two old soldiers who said it did.

You already called both these men liars before please don't stoop so low as to do it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 05:41 AM

meant to silence and intimidate

Absolute classic coming from someone who tries to silence and intimidate people with personal abuse. Well done, once again, teribums.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:06 AM

She attacks me for saying the historians all agree my points even though it is a fact

How many times, Keith? Not all historians. Remember that even you agreed that only the historians that meet your criteria that you have read agree with your points. Even that is in dispute now it seems that people who have read the same works have not interpreted them in the same way. Yet you still claim it to be a fact.

Are you really so insecure that you must get everyone's approval before your are happy? Why not just accept that some people will always disagree with you. It is not as if it matters to anyone but you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM

Rag, I would certainly expect such a thing to emerge in personal accounts, such as those I mentioned.
Murdering prisoners and other crimes do.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM

Teribus,

You have been given examples of jingoism at the RBL events. You have ignored them. Or maybe you choose to believe that people prancing about in uniforms with flags isn't jingoism, but you could apply that logic to the Red Square parades.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:11 AM

I would certainly expect such a thing to emerge in personal accounts

Ah, OK. So everything that was written in personal accounts was not subject to censorship or destruction? It was not covered by any official regulations? It is not true that some records from the war have only just been released and there are probably a lot more that we are, as yet unaware of?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM

You have been given examples of jingoism at the RBL events.
We have not.
All countries have a national flag used at national and military events.

people prancing about in uniforms with flags

They were veterans in civilian clothes but wearing their old service berets.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM

If you fed a swan with shrimps would the beta carotene have the same effect as on a flamingo?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:29 AM

Yesterday from Keith:

"No jingoism Dave, The flags are those of British Legion branches, not national flags"

Today from Keith:

"(You have been given examples of jingoism at the RBL events).
We have not. All countries have a national flag used at national and military events"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:07 AM

"Wouldn't it be just simpler to summarily execute the guilty party?"
You'vee already denied that ever happened (but of course, by British law, they wouldn't be guilty until they were tried, so it should be "innocent parties".
"Jom - sorry I didn't wade through your latest badly written, "
I'm not surprised you can't be arsed - it dismantles everything you have claimed about the War
It wasn't badly written, but even if it was it would not be an excuse not to read it.
The bulk of it comes from an official report and most of the rest of it is a fairly well written and perfectly legible account of our interview with Tommy Kenny
"If you are not a liar Jim, give an example of an out of context quote."
Where to start - Hastings welcome acceptance of the review of his 'Catastrophe' puts every single one of your Hastings quotes into perspective as being out of context - as with Christine Kineally, he has totally blown up in your face..
Margaret McMillan's claims on the conduct of the war show that she doesn't back your case in any way
When are you going to learn that single line quotes are in no way indicative of an author's opinion on any single subject - never - it's why I don't go in for out-of-context cut-'n-pastes.
Whjo but a madman can believe that one or two lines can pssibly represent th view of a author
You don't just claim dishonestly for your handful but you continue to claim all modern historians agree with you ((that presumably include the nearly 200 historians working on the subject) that is ***** insane, especially as you have read none of them.
Even having been shown Hastings' acceptance of the review - you go on to deny that as his attitude - you are totally dishonest in your use of the people you have not read.
"First, that it was an accident, a war nobody wanted "
Covered fully by Margaret McMillan's book and in depth by Clark's The Sleepwalkers; the entire book was based on the premise - both "Real" historians - a case of a disad#greement between professionals - nothing to do with the general public.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:15 AM

So Lofty out of a conflict that lasted 1,561 days in which millions were killed we have on one hand thousands of diaries, hundreds of memoirs and autobiographies written by soldiers (Whose service can be checked and verified) and NOT ONE MENTION of any summary executions against one or two accounts where both individuals say they saw nothing.

No-one can give the name of any of their friends who they claim were summarily executed by Military Police or by their own Officers. No-one can name anyone who carried out any of the alleged murders. And everyone kept quiet about it all - Sorry Lofty that is just plain unbelievable.

Please correct anything stated above that is incorrect.

This allegation is pretty old hat now, but to put it into perspective if you were charged with something would you be happy to be convicted on the doubtful and contradictory hearsay evidence of two men or would you wish the verifiable accounts of hundreds if not thousands to be taken into account that screamed your innocence.

Come up with ONE NAME. People peddling this crap on this forum have had two years to come up with any evidence and they've turned up NOTHING. Still Lofty you do not believe in evidence or proof - you are only interested in believing what you want to believe to bolster your own biased and far from impartial point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:25 AM

GUEST - 16 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM

Prat, while Mute Swans who live on salt water may eat molluscs they do not eat crustaceans.

If you cannot tell a Flamingo from a Swan I'd advise you to drop it. It is however a terrific example of your lack of attention to detail and basic general knowledge.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind:

Fish in a barrel.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:27 AM

"and far from impartial point of view" Ha Ha Ha brilliant. keep it up Teritowelling I like a good laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:38 AM

What about if you fed the molluscs solely on carrots?


http://comps.canstockphoto.com/can-stock-photo_csp8968669.jpg

Here's one with a bit of red just for you Teribums as you seem to get your knickers in a twist about all sorts of things recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:41 AM

This one sadly is blood

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:54 AM

Jim,
Margaret McMillan's claims on the conduct of the war show that she doesn't back your case in any way

What claims? I have read her book.
Your lies are exposed when she says,
""The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd"
IN CONTEXT JIM!

Nothing in your review of Hastings' book contradicts any of my claims.
For the THIRD TIME OF ASKING, show any bit that does.

Clark's The Sleepwalkers; the entire book was based on the premise

That book is about the events prior to the invasion of Belgium in August 1914.
I have expressed no opinion about any of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM

You are falling for the same logical falacy as Keith, teribums. Lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. It simply means it has not yet been proven. What I will say, in fairness as I keep saying it to Keith, it is up to the person making the claim to substantiate it, not up to others to disprove it. Personally I am not claiming that summary executions occurred as I simply do not know. What I am saying is that there is a possibility that they did happen, however rarely, and that possibility should not be discounted out of hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM

Keith, the line The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents can easily be interpreted as some wartime generals were cowards and incompetents. If Ms McMillan wanted to say none of them were cowards and incompetents then, surely, she would have said so. Yes? I think everyone accepts that there are good and bad in every walk of life so why should that not be applicable to wartime generals?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:11 AM

I should have said that both books are about the events prior to the invasion of Belgium in August 1914, and Hastings' book only covers the first months of the war.
I have expressed no opinion about any of that.

None comment on the conduct of the whole war.
None contradict any of my points.

Will you give a quote?
No you will not.
You lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:15 AM

Dave,
Keith, the line The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents can easily be interpreted as some wartime generals were cowards and incompetents. If Ms McMillan wanted to say none of them were cowards and incompetents then, surely, she would have said so.

Why would she spout such nonsense?
Sheffield said of British generals, "Some were incompetent, most were not."
I am sure he is right and that Macmillan would agree.

Has anyone ever claimed that any of them were cowards?
No.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM

And Dave, she followed that line with,
" A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM

"I served on the western front during the 1914/18 war as a platoon commander in 914 rising to GSO1 of a division by 1918. I never once saw Haig, nor did I ever see him after the war …. I can never forgive a General who intrigues, as Haig did – against his C-in-C, and against his political chief …....... There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front …....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:31 AM

"What claims? I have read her book."
No you ******* haven't - I doubt if you have ever read a book
Your claims to have read both McMillan and Hastings are the new kids on the block for this forum - they are both huge tomes of books - totally beyomnd your capabilities judging by past whinings of contributions being "to long" - I don't believe you have read either of them - certainly not since your claiming to have done here.
The Genals incompetence speaks for itself - at Loos, on the first day of the Somme, on The Dardanelles - the wrong shells fiasco all recognised disasters where many thousands of young man died.
The well known fact that while young men were dying on the Somme, the politicians and military leaders were conducting their own war back home - with each other - what eejit could describe that as "a well-conducted war?
"Nothing in your review of Hastings' book contradicts any of my claims."
You have been given the review - it undermines any support for your claim of support for Hastings - you bloody well know that because you first hysterically claimed that it was a "crap review" then, when Hastings acknowledged it as correct, you claimed he didn't mean it.
I've given you what I found McMillan said - she questions both the wisdom and the conduct of the war - I can't quote and I wouldn't if I could - I've said before, I'm not entering into a "my historian is bigger than your historian" battle on a book I haven't read with a brain-dead who has read nothing and has no intention of reading nothing.
You are a total waste of space - you have convinced nobody and you never will until you sit down, read a book and then grapple to understand it - a monumental task for you which should keep you busy.
You have been given fact after fact after fact here and on other threads - you first ignore them then deny you have been given them (as you are about to now)
A typical example of your dishonesty it shown in the fact that you started out to defend every single aspect of this shitty war - every one - and now you have whittled that down to only three points, claiming that's all you have ever mentioned - that is a stupid lie.
You denied that it was an Imperial War - and when you could not maintain that stupid argument "The Great Imperial War" - "The Imperial War Museum" - you have refused to respond to the fact that millions of young men died to defend a system that crashed in flames a few decades later - a family squabble over who should rule what - no comment on the grounds that it might nause up your case.
You refuse to comment that it was a war of attrition - waves of British lads against waves of German lads - who didn't know each other, let alone have a reason to slaughter each other.
You really are a squalid little jingoist of the worst type - an anachronism.
Why should you think anybody should want to argue with you - you have nothing to offer and you've far exceeded my expectations in exposing yourself for the rabid right winger that you are.
You never have responded to the points I have made above - either of you, and you never will.
If I were you I'd take your bullying mate's example and quit while you are this far behind.
On the other hand, respond to some of the points made and you might have an argument.
So far - nothing
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:37 AM

Oh bugger, that's not a swan either

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 08:38 AM

By the way - your first claims to have read McMillan and Hastings were two days ago , before that, despite having quoted bits from both extensively, you claimed only to "have read much"
Both are extremely large doorsteps of books - fast reader or what?
Another fine mess you have got yourself into Stanley
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:16 AM

Jim,
You have been given the review - it undermines any support for your claim of support for Hastings

No it does not.
Show us any bit that does. I have asked FOUR TIMES NOW!

I spent about three weeks on Macmillan's book (some years ago), and have now had Hastings' for two weeks.

You spent a few days in Dublin, mostly doing other things, and claim to have read all three books which are, as you say, "huge tomes of books."

I've given you what I found McMillan said - she questions both the wisdom and the conduct of the war

No she does not.
How could she and say, " "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. " ?

And, "A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation (of incompetence) and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked. "

It was not an imperial war for Britain, it was a war of defence against a cruel invader.
"Imperial" was added to the name of the museum to acknowledge the contribution of Empire troops. They had complained.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:21 AM

Dave, let us use some of your Gnomian logic on Macmillan's line,
" A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."

She does not qualify "A new generation of British historians," with "some," "many," or "most."
She obviously would if she did not mean "all."

As an historian of WW1, it is her job to read them all.
It is possible we all might have missed one, but not her.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:21 AM

Sheffield said of British generals, "Some were incompetent, most were not."

Meaning that some were. Most does not equal all as I have gone to great lengths to point out before. And don't start berating me for mentioning the word 'cowards'. It was MsMcMillan that first said it via your quote from her book.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM

" it is up to the person making the claim to substantiate it, not up to others to disprove it. Personally I am not claiming that summary executions occurred as I simply do not know. What I am saying is that there is a possibility that they did happen, however rarely, and that possibility should not be discounted out of hand."

Quite right Lofty you lot, primarily Jom and Musktwat originally then Raggy all claim categorically that summary executions were carried out - so according to your rather pompous little speech above - it is up to them to prove that they did indeed happen - two years on from them being called upon to do so and numerous WWI threads later what have we had from them - S.F.A.

Another own goal I'm afraid Lofty - Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:54 AM

"No it does not."
I can see little reason to debate with someone who tells lies and only wants to score points
You keep moving the goalposts - you have been give your behaviour towards the review - that is an exact description of how you reacted and are continue to react
you have not responded to one single point I made in my last posting - you are a shameless, dishonest waste of space.
Both McmIllan and Clark suggested that it took Britain nearly three years to get their act together in assembling a competent and efficient army - McMillan compared it to how long the French took - which meant that for at least two years British troops were fighting badly led and insufficiently trained - hence the high casualties at Loos and on the Somme - you would know this if you had read her book as you claim.
You have been given exampls of actual incompetence - you refuse to respon
d, once more hiding behind historians you haven't read.
"A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation"
You are still relying on hastily gathered cut-'n-pastes and are now dishonestly not linking them - This lot comes from this
Who do you think you're kidding, Mr Hitler
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 09:54 AM

Ah Lofty - why didn't you quote the whole thing???

"The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961)."

Sorry Lofty but apparently Clark did write a book that would lead clowns such as yourself, Jom, Raggy and Musktwat to believe that ALL the wartime Generals were cowards and incompetents.

Fish in a barrel, Fish in a barrel. Keep em coming Lofty, we can keep batting you down till the cows come home.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 10:03 AM

I am confident that I have never said that any General was a coward. The only mention of a General that I have placed was the comment below at 8.24. Not surprisingly you haven't referred to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 10:09 AM

Another own goal I'm afraid Lofty

Errr, teribums, this was exactly what I was pointing out. It seems that as well as losing the ability to reason you have now also lost the ability to read. You mentioned quoting the whole thing, above, which I will come to later but the whole sentence you partially pasted was What I will say, in fairness as I keep saying it to Keith, it is up to the person making the claim to substantiate it, not up to others to disprove it. That means that everyone as well as Keith needed to substantiate claims. No home goal at all. Just a home truth.

Right - On to what you call a partial quote. The part I quoted changes not one jot with the addition of the rest of it. She still says they were not all incompetents and cowards. Why would someone interested in accurately recording the events of the past use the phrase 'not all' instead of 'none of them' if she did not mean that some of them were?

I see you are now batting fish as well as howling at goals. Are you sure English is your first language? If you need some private tuition I can recommend a personal tutor in Hertford who I believe speaks your language.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 11:05 AM

" Jom and Musktwat originally then Raggy all claim categorically that summary executions were carried out "
Didn't you miss out the soldiers who were there and claimed they happened - course you did - "the liars"!!
Far easier to rely on establishment reports (which you have never at any time produced to deny they happened - though they were widely rumored to have taken place - lying soldiers eh)
"ALL the wartime Generals were cowards and incompetents"
The generals and politicians conducting the wars were incompetents because of the fiascos at Loos and the Dardanelles, the highest level of casualties in the early days of the Somme, the sending of the wrong ammunition and the fact that the politicians and military hated each other so much they couldn't get their act together - not because some historian coming along a century later says they were or weren't.
Address those facts and you might have th makings of an argument, and while you're at it, perhaps you might explain why sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths till one side gave in can possibly be described as anything but good butchery.
They're the ones you have studiously avoided throughout th length of these arguments.
It doesn't take a qualified historian to explain any of these - just to explain them away, as you pair of Blimps have.
Jim Carroll
I wonder are you also disillusioned enough to believe that your permanent sneery talking down to people constitutes good writing?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 11:39 AM

Teribus, I suspect Dave, and GUESTS are enjoying their thrashing just a little too much for it to be altogether healthy :0(

Pin dancing is simply a device to encourage more scolding from you and Keith.

None the less it is excellent entertainment for a winters evening and if you've nothing better to do ....swing the whip!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 11:49 AM

"are enjoying their thrashing just a little too much for it to be altogether healthy "
In your dreams Ake - don't suppose you'd like to put us right - no - didn't think so.
Hit 'n run trollism is much more your style
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 12:48 PM

I think you are right, Jim. The village idiot stands on the sidelines whooping and screeching without really understanding what is going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM

That's the trouble with the Oh What A Lovely War crowd. The stage and screen play relied heavily on Alan Clark's "The Donkeys" and unfortunately none of the left wing CND anti-war Luvvies realised that Clarks book was all about Sir John French and what happened in 1915 - they mistakenly took it to be relevant and representative of the entire war - which of course it was not.

Bad, poor incompetent British Generals? How about Sir John French? Superb job in keeping the BEF intact in the opening months of the war but far too timid by half thereafter so he had to go. Fortunately he was replaced by Douglas Haig who had been giving the Germans headaches since Neuve-Chapelle. At Gallipoli Ian Hamilton distant and unimaginative aided by Fredrick Stopford (A T.A. General for a T.A. Formation) totally useless and incapable of using any initiative he sat around on his arse and allowed his soldiers to do the same under conditions at Suvla where he could have cut the Turks off in one day. Then there was Nixon, Lake and Townshend out in Mesopotamia (Townshend being the worst of the lot) ALL from 1915 the last year commanders of British formations were selected on the Buggins turn principle - AFTER Haig took over on the Western front and Allenby went to Palestine and Maude took over in Mesopotamia they never looked back. But then if any of you clowns HAD done any reading up on the subject you would have known that.

Townshend is compulsory reading for anybody interested in object lessons of how not to lead.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM

Isn't it what I just suggested, teribums? Some good, some better, some bad. The point being they were not all bad or good.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:08 PM

Jim, you are entitled to your opinion about WW1, but not to lie that any historian agrees with you.
None does.

Macmillan certainly rubbishes all your views, and does so unequivocally IN THE LINK YOU JUST PROVIDED, and which I have given several times already.

Dave,
Meaning that some were (incompetent.)

Huh?
Obviously Dave, and never denied.
I have referred more than once to the incompetence of French, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:14 PM

You might have suggested it Lofty - your pals all to keen on
"The Butcher of the Somme" MYTH and baiting Keith A.

The conclusion reached by those writing about the Great War in recent times has been that in general compared to other combatant nations the British Army during the First World War was well led. And in assessing the veracity of that claim using any metric you wish to name it comes up as being a fairly accurate statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:28 PM

I've been at work all day, hence my late response.

Had Teribus been one of my students, his obnoxious and obstreperous behaviour would have resulted in a sudden need to find a new course of study. [Yes, Teribus, I run History degree courses. You wouldn't be accepted.] As a woman, I am also aggrieved by your condescension.

Teribus also clearly lacks any understanding of the ideological nature of history, otherwise he would have appreciated my earlier comments.

Keith has that all too common failing of not recognising how hegemonies operate. The fact that numerous historians may claim the same thing at contemporaneous times is an indicator of influence.

I cannot comment on anything to do with WW1 - my field is firmly set within the post-WW2 world. However, Keith clearly exhibits a characteristic which some historians call the 'Eccles piece of paper'. It has to be true because it's written on said piece of paper.

I definitely won't comment on this thread again. Life is far too short and Teribus and Keith are far too ugly.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:31 PM

"Jim, you are entitled to your opinion about WW1, but not to lie that any historian agrees with you."
You have your chance to prove me wrong simply by answering the points I put up - it really doesn't get more complicated than that.
A lie is when someone claims that "none does" - when not only haven't they read all (a fairly daunting task for a non-historian anyway) but has openly lied over and over again about books he simply has not read - I repeat " your first claims to have read McMillan and Hastings were two days ago , before that, despite having quoted bits from both extensively, you claimed only to "have read much""
Two days to have read two enormous books - Commmme oooon!!!
"Macmillan certainly rubbishes all your views,"
no she doesn't - and please explain to me how you can possibly say she does on the basis of a couple of lines
"Bad, poor incompetent British Generals"
Good butchers don't make good generals - but you refuse to respond to that aspect of how the war was conducted.
While you both refuse to responds to the points made about the actual cock ups that lost so many lives you will continue to appear the tossers you are
KEITH'S APPROACH TO HISTORY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:34 PM

Good! Glad we all agree that some were better than others. Like everything else in this life there was some good and some bad. This is what I find quite alarming about the attitude of some posters. Everything is either black or white. You are either for us or against us. I have found from experience that life just isn't like that and there is an element of good comes out of even the worse things. Like war!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM

Sums the opposition up perfectly Guest
This is going to go the same way as Keith's horrific 'Muslim implants' claim - blamed somebody else for telling him to say it, was given hundreds of chances to reveal his sources and humiliate us all but he refused - speaks for itself really
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM

...oh, and conversely there is an element of bad even in the best!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:49 PM

Jim,
your first claims to have read McMillan and Hastings were two days ago , before that, despite having quoted bits from both extensively,

That is not true.
I have never quoted from Macmilan's book because I do not still have a copy and it is a couple of years since I read it.
I borrowed a copy of Hastings' book about two weeks ago, and have never before claimed to have read it.


You have your chance to prove me wrong simply by answering the points I put up

I thought I had.
Put up anything you want me to answer but just 2 at a time.

Two days to have read two enormous books - Commmme oooon!!!

You claimed to have read three in just a few days while doing other things in Dublin!
I told you, "I spent about three weeks on Macmillan's book (some years ago), and have now had Hastings' for two weeks."

and please explain to me how you can possibly say she does on the basis of a couple of lines

Because those lines unequivocally and unambiguously rubbish your views, and she has done so in several articles and essays.

but you refuse to respond to that aspect of how the war was conducted.
Yes I have. I have shown you that the historians agree that the British Army was generally well and competently led.
They know more about it that you Jim.

While you both refuse to responds to the points made about the actual cock ups that lost so many lives you will continue to appear the tossers you are

Of course mistakes were made!
Do you really think that a WW1 historian is less aware of that than you?
Taking all that into account, they conclude that the British Army was generally well and competently led.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 01:52 PM

Before you disappear, I put this to you yet again Dr. Modette,

My views come from reading WW1 histories.
Nothing written in the last twenty years contradict them.
Nothing written in the last twenty years supports the views expressed by Jim.

Do you challenge any of those facts Modette?
If you do, please give details.
I provide quotes from numerous historians working on that period.
What can you provide?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM

Modette,

Even if you will not comment I hope you are still reading the thread. I am not an historian, but I am an academic and I have many times witnessed what you refer to as hegemonies. You won't get grant money, or access to facilities, or appointments to peer review panels when your views as expressed in your applications run counter to the current consensus. Then, suddenly, the consensus moves and you do. Or not. So I am perfectly prepared to believe that there has been a move in the last 20 years towards a reactionary view of the histories of the world wars. And I am also perfectly prepared to believe that it has little to do with new information, and a lot to do with political expediency. But I am also prepared to believe that Keith is wrong in his interpretation that all modern historians agree with the reactionary viewpoint, indeed we have already seen that Ferguson, and the two I gave who Keith decreed to be too old (although they are still living) do not. Much of the support for Keith's viewpoint seems to come from Catriona Pennel, who is the one serious academic (i.e. REF submittable) in his list. But I can't at the moment access her work.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:22 PM

I do notice the two main protagonists do not argue with my post of 08.24 which some may consider to be somewhat Black Adder (ish) or even Oh What A Lovely War(ish). A post which to my mind sums up a lot of what was deficient in the leadership of WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:30 PM

Thanks for the post, Modette. At least I no longer have to put 'him or her' :-) Please don't go as I am more than interested in what you say. I have, as I have repeated over and over again, little knowledge of the actual facts surrounding the event but I am intrigued by the process and procedure of assimilating that information and felt pretty sure it is not as cut and dried as some on here would have us believe! Nothing ever is :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:32 PM

What rattled Michael Gove was that Baldrick was far more on the button than the brain washing jingoistic shit he wanted to inflict on our children.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 02:36 PM

Sorry, Pennell, Catriona Pennel is someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 03:20 PM

Musket,
Your first line is deeply questionable .....but true.
Your second line is laughable. Factual actually. You must be a giggling fool.

Dave,
And I am also perfectly prepared to believe that it has little to do with new information, and a lot to do with political expediency.

That is an outrageous slur on professional people.
Ignore him Modette.
Of course there is new information. Historians are independent people and do not bend their findings for the sake of "political expediency!"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 03:23 PM

Raggy, I have no idea who Kiggel was, but so what?

Are you claiming that your book questions Haig's competence?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 03:36 PM

I'll post it again just for you Professor. I'm sure you tell me it never happened or it is made up or create some other excuse.

"I served on the western front during the 1914/18 war as a platoon commander in 914 rising to GSO1 of a division by 1918. I never once saw Haig, nor did I ever see him after the war …. I can never forgive a General who intrigues, as Haig did – against his C-in-C, and against his political chief …....... There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front …....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 04:04 PM

Actually Keith, for someone who claims to be well read and knowledgeable about WW1 I am surprised you have come across Lieutenant General Sir Lancelot Edward Kiggell KCG KCMG

I presume you know what they are ........... oh well perhaps not, Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath and Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George.

Chief of General Staff under Haig 1915-1918 and had no idea how men at the front lived.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 04:39 PM

A slur Keith? From you thats rich, you are the one accusing people of lying. I should stick to singing shanties in the pubs of Hertford if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:39 PM

I do note Modette that you have not called me to task or faulted any of the statements I have made. Liked the rather woolly "ideological" thing, not an aspect any of my History Tutors really bothered much about - smells to much of applying modern day mores and attitudes to past events and converting everything into a "class struggle" - Are you a closet Class-Warrior Modette - I can remember us exchanging views about newspaper coverage immediately prior to the start of the First World War - For someone who teaches, sorry runs, Degree Courses in History, you didn't come out of that too well either.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 06:41 PM

Ooooh GUEST - 16 Dec 15 - 01:33 PM - Musktwat another of your vain but futile attempts to get this thread closed down?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:03 PM

Whoops Raggy you've just dropped another one - FFS man why don't you just check things before you shove your feet in your mouth.

1: Nameless Guest had your Kiggell chap as ending up in 1918 as GSO1 of a Division in the Army under Haig - Go away and find out how many Divisions made up Haig's Army in France - I know YOU might find it strange but not every Lt-Colonel or Colonel was a personal acquaintance of Field Marshal Haig.

2: If Nameless Guest's chap Kiggell was as you say Chief of the Defence Staff (Well hate to be really picky but the title did not exist in 1918 it would actually have been Chief of the Imperial General Staff) and Haig would have been HIS subordinate.

Oh and Nameless GUEST it would greatly depend upon what Kiggell's duties were on his Divisional Staff as to whether or not he needed to know "the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought".

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:37 PM

From the information I have read, I wasn't there, Haig wanted General Butler CGS at headquarters but the War Office insisted that Kiggell was appointed. Butler became his Deputy.

I would have thought it IMPERATIVE that Commanders knew the condition of the troops they commanded. But hey that's only me, what do I know. But the person I quoted also thought the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket pointing and laughing
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 02:29 AM

Just pointing and laughing, that's all.

I assume "the historians" have a secret initiation etc. Tell you what Keith, your blind faith in a title that anyone can use, and often do, is touching. Many "historians" are not quite as independent as you think. Their publishers want controversy, their readers want to take comfort in what they read and The Daily M*il want to serialise it.

At their last meeting, they presumably passed a motion to agree with Keith.

I think I'll pop and pass a motion myself.





That's better. I concur.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM

Apart from Hastings, all the historians I have quoted are academics.
Dave accuses them all of lying about their subject for "political expediency"
Even the Canadian and American ones presumably.
He denies that vast archives of new information has become available to them, like IWM collection.http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/documents

Modette, is it your experience that hiostorians all collude to create a false history for political expediency?

Modette, how do you suggest people should learn about WW1 if every history of recent decades is falsified?

Modette, do you as a historian believe that all the historians are wrong about thise, and people should refer to Mudcat Lefties instead?
Does anyone believe such obvious nonsense.

My views come from reading history.
None of it supports you people.
You are arguing against the historians about history.
Such arrogant conceit and ignorance!

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM

Now historians are being accused of lying. This is in addition to Jim's old soldier, Harry Patch and the old soldier who wrote the quote I placed.

An old soldier known to a family friend so I've no reason to doubt his word.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM

"You claimed to have read three in just a few days while doing other things in Dublin"
Made a point of saying I hadn't read any of them Keith - just skipped through them - stop lying - sorry, you can't - it's congenital.
You are ignoring what people write just as you must have skipped through 'Catastrophe" (628pp)" which you claim to have "borrowed about two weeks ago" and read by 4 days ago, at the same time as scrabbling around Mudcat for cut-'n-pastes..... and did the Christmas shopping at the same time!!!! - - are you ****** mad - or do you think we are?
Is this really how you spend your life - reading about a century old war that nobody gives a **** about and flag wagging on this forum - really explains a lot about why you are the sad, sad individual that you are?
Nobody gives a shit about World War One anymore - the ones that experienced it are dead, those who are still around who lived through the aftermath remember the period following it as one of hardship, misery and a betrayal of the 'war to end all wars' promise' - another avoidable World War - another betrayal, both of the 'Land fit for heroes to live in' and the original 'war to end all wars' promises.
The world has been in a permanent state of warfare since the end of WW2, has gone through a series of crises one after the other, those of us at the lower end of the scale have watched our standards of living, our security of employment, tenure and access to health treatment wither away, our chances of seeing our children having a good secure future on a clean, healthy planet being taken from us, while at the same time, being treated to financial and political scandal circuses and the wealth of our nations disappearing into fewer and fewer hands.
You pair are like those Japanese soldiers who were found on South Sea Islands still fighting a war that had been over for decades.
World War One was a sordid bloodbath that decimated the world of its young men - nothing glorious, and certainly nothing to be proud of or to defend - it was a war fought to allow the wealthiest to stay wealthy and go on on pillaging, raping and exploiting the planet - it was what it said on the tin 'The Great/Imperial War'.
Debating with you pair is like watching one of those Medieval, or Civil War, or Battle of Waterloo reconstructions.
You are a pair of anachronisms in the extreme.
'Rule Britannia'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:01 AM

Rag, you are reading a biography of Haig that I have not read.
I recommend the more recent one by Sheffield.

No biography worth anything gives a purely one-sided view. Sheffield's does not.
A deceitful and dishonest person might be tempted to give a false impression of the overall conclusions by cherry picking just the negative bits.

What would you say the overall view of your biography is Rag?
Is the clue in the title, "The Good Soldier. A biography of Douglas Haig by Gary Mead?"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:11 AM

From Atlantic Books review.
"Mead notes that Haig strongly supported new technologies and tactics, including aviation and the tank, and was more concerned about the welfare of his troops than most Great War commanders. He also reminds us that many of the blunders attributed to Haig were due to the inherent flaws of the British Army, and most notably to its painful change from the small highly professional force of 1914 to the improvised mass citizen army of 1916, and finally to the highly sophisticated veteran force of 1918, arguably the most able army in the world.

So Haig emerges as a rather able commander who for much of the war was both overly optimistic and expected too much from the tools that he had to work with, but who finally got it right. As he tells us about Haig, Mead also contributes to the refutation of some of the continuing myths of the war, such as the endless rows of stoic Tommies marching forward with fixed bayonets on the first day at the Somme, or that Haig dwelt in an elaborate chateau well behind the lines."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

This is what I meant by the way some people state things as being black and white.

Modette, is it your experience that hiostorians all collude to create a false history for political expediency?

No. No one has suggested that all historians collude but they do reference each other. It is however in most peoples experience that that people will do whatever is required to secure funding/ ensure the faculty remains/ get published. No one is suggesting a false history has been created. Just that there are differing viewpoints and, at present, the one you suggest is ticking the right boxes.

Modette, how do you suggest people should learn about WW1 if every history of recent decades is falsified?

No one is suggesting anything has been falsified. Yet another straw man. All historic events have many different viewpoints. All viewpoints are all true to a greater or lesser extent.

Modette, do you as a historian believe that all the historians are wrong about thise, and people should refer to Mudcat Lefties instead?

False dilemma. No one believes that all historians are wrong. No one believes that all 'Mudcat lefties' (pejorative term) are right. There is a middle ground which can be agreed on.

Why can you just not accept that your viewpoint, while perfectly valid, is not the only possible answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

So both you and Terriblossom have suggested that my old soldier is mistaken. No doubt Terriblossom will tell me I didn't interview him myself or I didn't make a note of his army number or that I am lying.

My old soldier wrote: "There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front"

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM

The last guest was I

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:27 AM

Rag,
Now historians are being accused of lying.
Only by Dave and Musket.

Jim,
you must have skipped through 'Catastrophe" (628pp)" which you claim to have "borrowed about two weeks ago" and read by 4 days ago,

The book is largely about events prior to the invasion of Belgium, which I have never expressed an opinion about.

The chapter "The British Fight" is just 38 pages, and "The Retreat" (not just British) 19 pages.

He says almost nothing about the conduct of the whole war by Britain, and I quoted everything that there is.

Nothing in the book or your review contradicts anything I have claimed. It is about something else, hence the subtitle "Europe goes to war 1914."

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:34 AM

DtG,
No one is suggesting anything has been falsified.

Dave said, " I am also perfectly prepared to believe that it has little to do with new information, and a lot to do with political expediency. "

So they lie for political reasons, even Canadian and American presumably.
To all tell the same lie, unsupported by evidence, they would have to collude.
Their students must be outraged that their professors lie about what the original sources reveal.

Rag,
My old soldier wrote: "There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front"

Of course they did, and still do!
That is how large armies fight wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:45 AM

Do you actually read your own cut and pastes Keith.

You copied "Mead also contributes to the refutation of some of the CONTINUING MYTHS of the war, such as the endless rows of stoic Tommies marching forward with fixed bayonets on the first day at the Somme, or that HAIG DWELT IN AN ELABORATE CHATEAU WELL BEHIND THE LINES" (my emphasis)

If Mead suggests it was a myth that Haig lived in an elaborate chateau well behind the lines why do you claim it as fact that senior soldiers did and still do reside well behind the lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 05:49 AM

There is really no point in trying to reason with you is there, Keith. Mo matter how many ways I try to say that all viewpoints have their place you will not be happy until you feel you have 'won' or the thread is closed. Are you really so insecure?

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:12 AM

why do you claim it as fact that senior soldiers did and still do reside well behind the lines.

Because it is a fact. I did not write the review.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:18 AM

"I have never quoted from Macmilan's book because I do not still have a copy"
You first quoted McMillan as a witness back in December 2013
You first claim to have read her book four days ago - I'm sure if you ahev read it . as you claim, you would have mentioned it (unless you managed to fit in her tome in the fast five days)
You are an exposed liar (again) Keith.
As I said - nobody gives a shit about WW1 anymore expest as an example of humanity at its worst - which is more or less what everybody here is saying apart from you two flag-wagging dinosaurs
Pip-pip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:18 AM

"During the war more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or captured. Most visited the front lines every day. In battle they were considerably closer to the action than generals are today."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

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

Oh ! ! Dilemma ! ! Who should I believe the review of Gary Mead the noted Historian or the professor Keith A of Hertford.

I think I'll have to go and lie down. Or I could believe my old soldier.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM

By the way - the typos were to give the galley-swabber something to hang onto
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:21 AM

Jim, I have been quoting Macmillan for years, from her many essays and articles.
I have not quoted from here book ever. Like Hastings' it is not about the conduct of the war.
I read it some years ago and never looked at it again.
I do not lie Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:31 AM

Rag,
Who should I believe the review of Gary Mead the noted Historian or the professor Keith A of Hertford.

Gary Mead calls himself a journalist.http://www.jerichochambers.com/who/gary-mead/ and I have not disagreed with him.

The myth the reviewer was referring to was that because they slept and had their offices away from the fighting, that they were out of touch.
Historian Dan Snow says of WW1 British generals,
"During the war more than 200 generals were killed, wounded or captured. Most visited the front lines every day. In battle they were considerably closer to the action than generals are today."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM

GUEST - 17 Dec 15 - 05:45 AM; Raggytash; OR GUEST - 17 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM

Could you please get your story straight:

Was Kiggell by 1918 serving as a GSO1 on a Divisional Staff or was he serving a Chief of the General Staff (Military Head of the Army) - No man called Kiggell has ever held the post so I can only assume in your ignorance you have got your wires crossed.

You clearly have no idea how an army functions, you have no idea of how the the various "Staffs" function (i.e. Headquarters, Army, Divisional, Corps, Brigade) GSO1 stands for General Staff Officer Grade 1 warrants a rank of Lt-Colonel or Colonel if he is tasked with responsibilities relating to transport of replacements, and logistics from port to Divisional supply bases then the conditions men are living under and fighting under at the front have no bearing whatsoever on his job.

Such a busy thread this never ever seen such a clamour for people to so willingly demonstrate their ignorance about a subject before.

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM

"Jim, I have been quoting Macmillan for years, from her many essays and articles."
All cut-'n- pastes Keith (about six times in all - go and count them) - every one in defence of this fucking bloodbath - never, never before you scrambled and found her on the net - earliest, December 2013 - sorry, it's all very accessible in the archive.
Jay-sus - this really is the season for pork pies. isn't it?
Keep it up - it really does round off the year nicely - beats a stocking full of Smarties and paper hats any day!!
Jim Carroll