BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:49 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:31 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,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: 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: 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 - 08:11 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Dec 15 - 07:41 AM

This one sadly is blood

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 - 07:27 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:20 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
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: 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: 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 - 05:09 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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.