The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #158817   Message #3761945
Posted By: Jim Carroll
31-Dec-15 - 06:56 AM
Thread Name: History and mythology of WW1
Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
Keith's arguments are, and always have been a mass of contradictory, ill-thought- out claims
He claims to believe that history is "THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD, PAST AND PRESENT" yet he excludes as irrelevant the use of all historians no longer alive, including historians who were alive during and just after the War (such as Liddell Hart, who actually fought) - how dishonestly stupid is that?
He tells us that he is not going to respond to a question because we are all "empty-headed, abnormal random know-nothings": "Who cares what random know-nothings might believe? Just political whims from empty heads! Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle! I read history books to learn my history! Normal people do!!"
Shortly afterwards he claims to have responded to the question - he isn't even singing from his own hymn sheet, let along his claimed 'historians'.
His motivation is crystal clear; he obviously has no knowledge of WW1 - the subject probably doesn't even interest him beyond at the 'Boys Own' comic- book level
He has proved himself a rabid, pro-establishment nationalist who will hear nothing criticising the British establishment.
When the centenary campaign was launched to whitewash the events of 100 years ago and make them, acceptable, he was there like a rat up a drainpipe to do his bit for God, Queen and Empire.
Despite claims to the contrary by this pair, nothing new has emerged from the War - it was as bloody, as ruthlessly vicious and as politically-driven as we have always known it to be.
It is pointless to ask either of them to produce anything new that has been discovered - they don't do that sort of thing, though they have often claimed to have "already done so".
They are, of course, quite welcome to prove this is not the case, but they won't - neither of them.
Hiding behind "experts" and "historians" and refusing to take responsibility for his own opinions, has now become one of Keith's main gambits to "win" arguments, every bit as useful as 'The English Opening' or 'Fools Mate' in chess.
These arguments are a prize-winning game to Keith - personally, I find them only useful for their entertainment value.
Thanks to Keith's obsessive desire to win, I have long given up any hope that we might actually learn something from them - his New Year present to all of us - Happy New Year Keith.
Jim Carroll