The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #158817   Message #3762019
Posted By: Jim Carroll
31-Dec-15 - 11:31 AM
Thread Name: History and mythology of WW1
Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
"Only if there findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge."
And nobody has here Keith, but you have written all of them off without exception
Your Margaret McMillan out of context quotes are totally meaningless, as are all you other out-of-context ones.
The facts of the efforts made to recruit young man, the emotional blackmail inducements, the threats of dismissal by employers, the per pressure of the''Comrades Brigades' the exaggerations and downright lies about how easy the war would be, and when it would be over... and above all, the fact that the recruiting campaign ran out of steam and was replaced by enforced enlistment - all makes total nonsense of any idea that men joined up as a crusade.
Even your mate claimed (not true, of course) that the majority of men came from the middle classes - suggesting that the workers really wanted nothing to do with the war other than as a source of employment and romantic adventure (which were two major features of the recruiting drive)
You have claimed throughout that Historians back you up on Germany's blame fro starting the war - McMillan doesn't support that view by any means
She was interviewed and said:
"You do mention the thesis of the German historian Fritz Fischer about German culpability, but you don't endorse it unambiguously do you?

No. He was writing at a particular time and I think what he did was very brave. But having read his books again, I think that he allowed the hunt for German guilt to guide him in the selection of documents. He and his followers were so fixated on looking for German guilt that they failed to take into account some of the other possibilities. After all, Germany was not operating in a vacuum. It was having to deal with other nations which were also making decisions."
Smacks your claim in the face, for a start.
McMillan interview
She makes it quite clear that she believes that every aspect of the war is complex, yet you have used her quotes throughout to make them simplistic - that is a major part of your dishonesty.
Out of context quotes are dishonest manipulation of the facts to suit an agenda - your agenda.
You claim taht "all historians" agree with you on everything" - she doesn't, as has been pointed out to you.
I suppose any attempts to get you to commit yourself to why the war was "well led" is a bit of a lost cause!!!
Jim Carroll