History and mythology of WW1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:51 PM

Surely, Jeri, it is in your power to put a stop to this ludicrous thread and all the others that are bound to follow.

Please do so!

Pretty please?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:49 PM

Jim, I am sure that Keith will, after 10 minutes reading in Hertford Library, be quite able to discern which virologists are discredited and which are not.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:41 PM

Jim,
Even Keith's historian acknowledges it was a waste of young lives,
Sheffield does not Jim.
You made that up.
His view is that the war was necessary, and the army generally well and competently led.

World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.

Not true Jim.

Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grou

Of course I disagree. Where do you get this stuff.
Not from history books!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:33 PM

"Cue Keith and Teribus searching for a reason as to why Professor John Oxford's research should be considered as discredited."
Don't be stupid Dave - he's not a historian
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:17 PM

Hi Terribulus! Any chance of you standing with your mates pointing and laughing at whatever you seem to be aiming at me?

Mind you, two problems with that....

On other matters, I agree with guest completely regarding the role of historians. It's ok to believe their conclusions but that infers a) they flatter your views and b) their selectivity of evidence to deliver their view is also to your comfort.

It is clear, self evident and factual that the deaths of so many people in such a short time cannot lead to a conclusion of "well led." It is also a fact that social class division meant people respected the country's leaders so therefore were more inclined to swallow jingoistic bullshit. It is a fact that war between nations occurs when diplomacy has failed, questioning leadership in any and every way you wish to judge it.

The war was a beast of its time and to judge it by today's standards would be wrong. People fell for bullshit, were less world wise and informed and let's face it, gullible. Most people were superstitious a hundred years ago, so used to being told what to do.

No. The war resulted in the needless slaughter of a generation of Europe's finest. Not a single lesson was learned as we raped what was left of the German economy, leading to extremism flourishing and for that, the sacrifice was futile, wasted and for no purpose.

To defend inept military leadership and to judge the attitude of common or garden recruits against today's intellect is not only wrong but rather distasteful. Sadly, there are many people with the same base intellect as Terribulus. After all, without such ignorance, we'd never get tomorrow's cannon fodder.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:40 PM

Jeri, pop and put the kettle on love.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:13 PM

I wonder if these threads exist for any other purpose than to provide a place for ad hominem back-and-forth always and, unfortunately, forever.

Repeat after me "Get off my lawn" "GET OFF MY LAWN NOW!"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:08 PM

"Jim, if you post screenfuls of text in one posts it becomes impossible to reply with anything short enough to be readable by any normal person"
For crying out loud Keith your not a child and you've used this before - if you cant read a couple of sentences how the **** do you manage to have read what you have claimed to have read - Max Hastings and Margaret McMillam my arse, as for Isaac Deuscher..... further evidence of your truthfulness!!
You really are something else!!

1"simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?
Is that too difficult for you or shall I break it down even further.
You have already claimed you have answered this - so you are ow accepting that you lied.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:04 PM

What happened there?

What that post was supposed to say was that a million dead (British and Commonwealth) is most definitely "MANY", especially when compared with much smaller death tolls over which a great deal of fuss has been made more recently.

And as far as Spanish Flu is concerned, maybe those deaths should be added in as well. For, according to Wikipedia:

"Investigative work by a British team led by virologist John Oxford of St Bartholomew's Hospital and the Royal London Hospital identified a major troop staging and hospital camp in Étaples, France, as almost certainly being the center of the 1918 flu pandemic. A significant precursor virus, harbored in birds, mutated to pigs that were kept near the front."

Cue Keith and Teribus searching for a reason as to why Professor John Oxford's research should be considered as discredited.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:48 AM

"all your questions have actually been answered, "
No they haven't - jeez -you're as big a liar as your mate.
Where have you responded to your long-exposed lying about what I said about Tommy Kenny?
Your contemptuous and contemptible response to my point on the butchery of World War One in no was constitutes an answer - if you have contrary information that it was conducted otherwise, give us it instead of your old usual bluster and bullshit.
Even Keith's historian acknowledges it was a waste of young lives, tough he (as an establishment lackey) asses the opinion that "winning made it all worthwhile.
Where is your response to the suggestion that so many lives were not worth defending the ill-gotten-gains of Empire - you have admitted it was an Imperial war - now justify the sacrificing of so many millions of lives.
You have never attempted to justify your "well-off Liverpool", or "democracy since the beginning of the 19th century" or "classless army" nonsense.
The problem with you Tory bully-boys is you're too used to your victims baring their arses when instructed to do so.
Please stop lying and answer the points, instead of accusing other of doing what you have made a long-standing practice.
You never answer questions - you make arrogant pronouncements.
Sorry if this is difficult for you to read - perhaps you can ask a neighour's sprog to abandon his video game and give you a hand
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:36 AM

Jim, if you post screenfuls of text in one posts it becomes impossible to reply with anything short enough to be readable by any normal person

If you REALLY want my response to something, put them them to me just one or two at a time as briefly and simply as possible.

I think that I actually have answered all your point and you are just obfuscating.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:20 AM

"Many of them did not think that. Many of them were not in a position to think any such thing, on account of them being dead."

Is that where MANY = 1 in 10 GUEST Dave?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:16 AM

Ahhh Jom - all your questions have actually been answered, but as usual with you, you ignore all that does not agree with your idiotic, biased and bigoted point of view.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:11 AM

GUEST,Dave - 01 Jan 16 - 04:31 PM

"We are talking about the history of WW1."

I think we are talking about the actuality of WWI. You know, where 17 million including a million British and Commonwealth died."

No GUEST Dave we all know that WWI actually happened and we all know roughly how many people died during it, a number dwarfed by the way by the Spanish Flu pandemic that followed it

What we are discussing GUEST Dave is the HISTORY related to the First World War as opposed to the MYTHOLOGY related to the First World War.

The MYTHS introduced and promulgated between 1929 and 1969 have to a great extent been disproven, they were after all promoted by people driven by their own agenda's and those ulterior motives have all been exposed for exactly what they were.

A.J.P. Taylor and Alan Clark were put up as champions of those believing the myths - I note that defence of these champions has been notable by its absence since it was brought to notice that the works of both were savaged in peer review by the leading World War One specialists of the day when those works were published. Alan Clark admitted to making stuff up - now exactly what kind of credible historian does that? Certainly not one that any sane person would ever put forward as an expert on anything.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:02 AM

Whoops
"the same challenge that he totally failed in responding to"
You seem to have entered into a vow of silence on all the questions you have refused to answer - particularly about your deliberately distorting what others have said.
Starting the year as you mean to go on, no doubt!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:01 AM

"Those who actually fought it think it was even worth the higher cost, so once again who cares what Dave thinks?"

Many of them did not think that. Many of them were not in a position to think any such thing, on account of them being dead.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:46 AM

Well then "nameless" GUEST you get set the same challenge that he totally failed in responding to

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:23 AM

Missed a bit
Re "New evidence"
WHAT NEW EVIDENCE? THERE IS NO NEW EVIDENCE AND EVEN IF THERE WAS, NO HISTORIAN HAS EVER AT ANY TIME WRITTEN OFF THE WORK OF PAST HISTORIANS - NOT EVER.
THEY MAY HAVE DISAGREED WITH WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, BUT YOU HAVE WRITTEN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM OFF IN ONE FELL SWOOP
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:18 AM

missed a bit
Re "new evidence"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM

"You keep saying this and I keep asking for a clear statement of what you want.
Now you are lying again - you have never asked for any such thing - never!!
Proof of your lying
01 Jan 16 - 09:12 AM
"Simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?
If you do disagree with it, what evidence (historical or moral), to support you?
You insist on our providing historians - where are yours to contradict that statement?"
Couldn't get clearer than that - please stop this dishonesty
"If you think there is a book I should read, name it."
You claim to have read may books and have written off all those who don't support you.
Read what McMallan really says in 'The War that Ended Peace' it dosn't bear comparison with your claims
Read her 'The Misuse of History' which deals specifically with what you are doing here.
Read The Sleepwalkers - which deals with the avoidably of war
"Your quote is of Gary Sheffield WHO YOU KNOW BELIEVES THE ARMY WAS WELL LED!"
Nothing dishonest Keith - Sheffield says what he says about Haig - no editing - you claim he supports Haig - he qualifies his support, which you have deliberately avoided doing - that is dishonesty - it is what you have done with every single quote you have put up - without exception.
Explain the contrdictions in your claims and Sheffield's own statement
"One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. Haig's decision to continue with the fighting at Passchendaele in 1917 after the opportunity for real gains had passed comes into this category."
That is not the unqualified support you have claimed.
Sheffield and McMillan state that the army did not reach fighting fitness until 1918 - virtually the end of the war - so they fought the rest of it unfit for purpose, which leaves the question, was the war worth the sacrifice of so many lives? another question you refuse to respond to   
Don't you ever accuse me or anybody here of dishonesty again after the way you pair have behaved and are continuing to behave here - you have monopolised the practice.
Another simply put question AGAIN
How dare you disqualify all but modern historian when no individual working in the field has ever done so EVER? If that is not the case - show us who has
By the way - yet another lie - you are now claiming that you haven't answered my questions because you don't understand them (having first claimed you had answered them and then told us that you won't answer questions from agenda-driven igoramouses who are incapable of thought) - I make tthat three contradictory answers to the same question - don't suppose you ahve an explanation other than "I told lies" which is the only one I can think of.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 09:40 AM

Jim,
You are not going to respond to my points, are you?

You keep saying this and I keep asking for a clear statement of what you want.
Put it simply and briefly and I will respond.

If you think there is a book I should read, name it.
I have read lots and on these issues they all agree.
None has yet been found by any of us that does not.

Long dead historians are no longer relevant" - sheeeeesh!!

I said that in the context of your post about one whose work has been discredited by new evidence.
I clarified by saying, "No silly!
Only if their findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge."(31 Dec 15 - 10:36 AM)

Your quote is of Gary Sheffield WHO YOU KNOW BELIEVES THE ARMY WAS WELL LED!
Dishonest Jim.
Read the whole thing here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

Dave,
So Keith has accepted that 17 million really did die.

Keith knew that all along.

he believes that this loss of life was worthwhile in some nebulous cause,

It was not a nebulous cause. Powerful and cruel German armies were attacking neighbouring countries and heading our way.
The government and people of the time believed that they should make a stand, and modern historians think they were right.
Compared to all that, why should I care what you think about it?

I suspect they say nothing because they are starting from the viewpoint that the survival of a state trumps the survival of individuals.

If you actually read some, you would find you are wrong about that too!

of the loss of life had been reduced by a factor 10 or 20, the war still would have not been worth it.

Those who actually fought it think it was even worth the higher cost, so once again who cares what Dave thinks?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 09:18 AM

Yes, and the way to learn about it is to read the history books.

Which, as you've admitted numerous times, Professor, you've never done.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 08:44 AM

So Keith has accepted that 17 million really did die. And the corrolary is that he believes that this loss of life was worthwhile in some nebulous cause, though the history books that he quotes are pretty vague about what that was. My contention is that it was petty political egos and vested commercial interests. Keith may say it was the survival of the British state and I would say thats the same thing. History books are irrelevant, the difference between Keith and myself is whether it was worth that sacrifice to preserve a national identity. Especially when the vast majority of those doing the fighting and dying had no stake in that national identity, never had and never would.

So what do these historians beloved of Keith, lets call them apologists for want of a better word, say on that? I suspect they say nothing because they are starting from the viewpoint that the survival of a state trumps the survival of individuals. A bit of a socialist viewpoint it would seem. But I think that is why they say the war had to be fought. Those longer ago (and indeed many more recent, we have seen now that Messinger does not pass muster with Keith, although he is still writing) may have a more nuanced view.

Jim's point is different, it is that if the politicians and military brass had been more competent the war could have been won with less loss of life. I have nothing to say on that, except that of the loss of life had been reduced by a factor 10 or 20, the war still would have not been worth it. And that I would rather it had been lost with fewer casualties than won with as many as there were.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 08:25 AM

"My method of argument is to say, "this is what all the history books say.""
You haven't read "all the history books say" so you are lying - they don't
You are not going to respond to my points, are you?
Doesn't matter; they were not for your benefit.
Your gross stupidity and on history has long been common knowledge - now you have confirmed it yourself.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant" - sheeeeesh!!
Must remember to put that in my 'future use' file.

This is a leading historians description of the competence of the leadership - he goes on to claim the Army only reached the point of becoming a fully efficient fighting force in 1918 - the year the war ended - so the army fought their way through the war below par - McMillan says the same.
"One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. Haig's decision to continue with the fighting at Passchendaele in 1917 after the opportunity for real gains had passed comes into this category. In some ways the British and other armies might have grasped the potential of technology earlier than they did. During the Somme, Haig and Rawlinson failed to understand the best way of using artillery."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 08:05 AM

No, Keith. That's like saying that in the match that ended Chelsea 12 Man U 11, Chelsea defended really well because they won, when the reality is that they defended very badly, though not quite as badly as Man U.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:33 AM

I'm commenting on your apparently flawed method of argument.

My method of argument is to say, "this is what all the history books say."

Jim and Dave's method is to claim the historians have all got it wrong, and it is not even worth their while to read one because they already know everything.

Any comment on that Steve?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:29 AM

Jim
you are now including blame for starting the war in your arguments,

I am not, but you raised the issue and made a false assertion about Macmillan's view on it.
She said Germany and Austria-Hungary were responsible.
Here are ten other historians who mostly agree. None of them blame UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

Dave,
So this new knowledge is what exactly, "did 17 million really die?"
You will find the new knowledge laid out in the histories written in recent years. Just read something Dave, instead of endlessly exposing your woeful ignorance.

"did 17 million really die?"

Yes, and that seems to be the sum total of your knowledge.
The war had to be fought (read the history books).
The war could not be fought without incurring heavy losses (read the history books).
Had the army not been well led, the losses would have been even heavier (as they were for all the other armies) and we would not have won.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:26 AM

Well I'm not pontificating, nor am I commenting on the substantive subject matter of this thread. I'm commenting on your apparently flawed method of argument.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:06 AM

A dogma that can not incorporate knowledge should be questioned, and if it can not accommodate the facts, discarded.
Which Christmas cracker did that come from.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:46 AM

"The military historians say you are wrong, so who cares what you think?"
It is totally mindless to claim that it was well led without being able to say why it was well led.
You have the reasons why I believe it was nothing but butchery, you tell my why you believe it wasn't - and you agree free to quote any historian to back you up by showing they claim is wasn't as I described.
You have lost any right you might ever have had to claim the authority of historians with the most outrageously stupid statement on history anybody has ever made - that all past historians have been made irrelevant by modern ones - that is tantamount to claiming we must now burn all books written by past historians.
Nobody in the history of scholarship has ever made such a suggestion.
No historian has ever had his or her entire work debunked because is was wrong - not one - yet this is what you have suggested - mindless twaddle.
George Bernard Shaw once joked that he was a better playwright than Shakespeare because he had read everything he had written - Shaw was joking - you apparently believe your idiocy.
Your suggestion will remain a Mudcat classic while I am a member.
By the way - I see you have expanded your 3 points to 4 as you are now including blame for starting the war in your arguments, despite your "historians" (particularly Margaret McMillan's) attitude to the subject.
The war was carried out using a policy of simple butchery - show how this was not the case, and again, feel free to use as many historians as you wish
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:36 AM

"You are exactly like those Creationists who can not accept new knowledge because it challenges your irrational belief in dogma."

So this new knowledge is what exactly, "did 17 million really die?" David Irving would be proud of you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:34 AM

Steve, that would be a fair comment if this was all uninformed speculation.
It is not. People who have devoted their lives to the study of military operations have been working on this for a hundred years.
They have now all, independently, reached the conclusion that the army was generally well and competently led.
That is not my opinion. I am not qualified to have one on such a complex issue.
Read a book about it Steve.
Anything less tan twenty years old.
Then read another and you will find general agreement.
I have read lots and I know this.
Jim and Dave are pontificating about something they know nothing about.
They have read nothing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:01 AM

"Had the army not been well led, the losses would have been even heavier (as they were for all the others) and we would not have won."

Without commenting on the veracity or otherwise of this strange remark, I'd just point out the illogicality of it. The easiest way would be to turn it on its head, thus: "Even though the army was very badly led, our enemies' armies were even worse led, leading to heavier losses for them than for us." Just saying.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:55 AM

Yes.
Open your mind to new knowledge.

A dogma that can not incorporate knowledge should be questioned, and if it can not accommodate the facts, discarded.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:19 AM

Its all so simple isn't it. Just black and white.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:53 AM

Jim,
it was not "well led"

The military historians say you are wrong, so who cares what you think?
You are only informed by political dogma.
You reject all the new knowledge of the last thirty years.

If you believe it was well led you would be able to explain it.

I can Jim.
The war had to be fought (read the history books).
The war could not be fought without incurring heavy losses (read the history books).
Had the army not been well led, the losses would have been even heavier (as they were for all the others) and we would not have won.

Instead of political theorising read ANY HISTORY written in recent decades.
They will all tell you what I have been telling you.
Reading those histories is how I know this stuff while you wallow in ignorance and make ridiculous political pronouncements about an event you actually know nothing about.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:43 AM

Dave,
I think we are talking about the actuality of WWI. You know, where 17 million including a million British and Commonwealth died.

Yes, and the way to learn about it is to read the history books.

You consider them all to be deluded while you hold the truth!

You are exactly like those Creationists who can not accept new knowledge because it challenges your irrational belief in dogma.
Hard evidence will never convince you.
Pointing and laughing is the only way to respond.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:16 AM

"The historians and military historians agree it was, so why should anyone care what your view is Jim?"
If it was a case of young men sent over to their deaths until the other side gave in - it was not "well led" - that is not leadership it was enforced butchery.
Justifying that historical fact as good leadership is not the domain of historians - it is only their opinion that it was right.
If you believe it was well led you would be able to explain it.
Who cares what an historically illiterate right-wing agenda driver like yourself believes
The scale of death in World War One makes it little short of a holocaust
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:34 AM

Ah but Dave. The actuality of WW1 isn't something that the government wish us to celebrate. They like to see it as an example of serving your country (which means supporting them rather than criticising them.)

Jingoism isn't just good for recruiting sergeants, it allows us to forget how inefficient, unreconstructed and plain inept our military actually are. It is designed to give us a fuzzy warm feeling that young men in uniform who act rather than question, led by people trained to take on armies trained in the same way can somehow make us feel safe in the wake of fear stemming from a source they cannot tackle with their silly drill, medals and shouting at other ranks.

Which is ironic considering WW1 is portrayed as starting as a result of civilian terrorism.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:31 PM

"We are talking about the history of WW1."

I think we are talking about the actuality of WWI. You know, where 17 million including a million British and Commonwealth died.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 02:46 PM

"The (Bryce)report has long been a bête noire for those cultural historians examining popular attitudes during the war, it having been concluded by some very emphatic commentators in the 1920s and 1930s (such as Arthur Ponsonby in Falsehood in War-Time and Irene Cooper Willis in England's Holy War) that the Report was simply a tissue of lies. Modern research, as we shall see, has confirmed that the Report's conclusions were substantially correct."
http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/memoryofwar/the-rape-of-belgium-revisited/

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 02:32 PM

It wasn't though, as you find when you read the whole of that chapter

It was thought to be true at the time, and turned out to be true in fact. It does not justify your false claim of the people being lied to about the Germans.
They already knew about the atrocities anyway from the hundreds of thousands of Belgian refugees.
The revisionist historians tried to understate the German atrocities, but we now know that 6000 civilians including children were deliberately massacred.
Messinger is out of date on that. It was published 24 years ago.

But we arent't talking about history as an abstract concept.

We are talking about the history of WW1.
Of course the historians know more about it than you do!
Your pomposity is truly breathtaking!

Jim,
Far from being "well led", it was.....

The historians and military historians agree it was, so why should anyone care what your view is Jim?

You are very ill informed about this Jim.
It is blatantly obvious that you have read no history written for at least twenty years.
Almost everything you have said about it is wrong.

If you want a response on something, try to formulate a question and I will answer it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 11:13 AM

Teribus quotes Edward Grey, as some length:

"And I do not believe, whether a great power stands outside this war or not, it is going to be in a position at the end of it to exert its superior strength."

Exerting superior strength, thats what its all about, not the interests of the working people.

"For us, with a powerful fleet, which we believe able to protect our commerce, to protect our shores, and to protect our interests, if we are engaged in war, we shall suffer but little more than we shall suffer even if we stand aside."

Commerce, shores, interests, not a mention of the people anywhere

"We are going to suffer, I am afraid, terribly in this war, whether we are in it or whether we stand aside."

Not him though, not Sir Edward Grey, the suffering is something to be done by the lower orders

"Foreign trade is going to stop, not because the trade routes are closed, but because there is no trade at the other end. "

Thats what its all about, trade and the interests of the mercantile classes, of whom Sir Edward Grey was very much a scion.

Wikipedia says a bit about Sir Edward Grey, descendent of baronets, related to other politicians, privilege all over the place, and this bit about his time in Oxford:

"Grey subsequently became even more idle, using his time to become university champion at real tennis. In 1882 his grandfather died and he inherited a baronet's title, an estate of about 2,000 acres (8.1 km2), and a private income. Returning to the University of Oxford in the autumn of 1883, Grey switched to studying jurisprudence in the belief that it would be an easier option, but by January 1884 he had been expelled. Nonetheless, he was allowed to return to sit his final examination. Grey returned in the summer and achieved Third Class honours."

An idle child of privilege who only obtained a degree because of bending of the rules, not stated there but one suspects that daddy had pulled a few strings.

A third rate scholar and a fourth rate human being. Remind you of anyone else from Oxford, a bit later??

Sir Edward Grey was a big part of the problem, and if revolution had come to Britain he would have been one to get his come-uppance in a very big way.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 10:57 AM

"I think historians know more about history. I do not believe anyone to be better informed about history, and certainly not you!"

But we arent't talking about history as an abstract concept. We are talking about the deaths of 17 million people, including a million British and Commonwealth.

Regarding the quote from Messinger:

"P75 "He (Masterman) saw the (Bryce) report as based on authenticated fact, which he always believed should be the basis of propaganda."

It wasn't though, as you find when you read the whole of that chapter

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 10:31 AM

"First part is a gross over-simplification of what went on - I think that you actually do know this, but for sake of clarity if you do not - then you are a complete and utter idiot who should actually do some reading (Even by people you think are wrong) and educate yourself."
Are you going to educate us on how World War One was really fought or are you going to leave us in suspense forever - as I suspect will be the case?
Happy New Year
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 09:36 AM

Eehh. You don't half talk bollocks Terribulus.

"Wealth, security and prosperity." You forgot the common denominator, "privilege."

A bit of a glaring omission, coming from such a cap doffing fool.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 09:24 AM

"They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans, and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos." - GUEST Dave

Not in July and early August 1914 - Forget about historians looking back at the events, as you do not seem to believe them - go to Hansard and read the speech given in Parliament by the British Foreign Secretary of the day Sir Edward Grey on the 3rd of August 1914:

Grey's Speech 3.08.1914

On the IN or OUT thing here is what SIr Edward Grey said:

It may be said, I suppose, that we might stand aside, husband our strength, and that, whatever happened in the course of this war, at the end of it intervene with effect to put things right, and to adjust them to our own point of view. If, in a crisis like this, we run away

[Loud cheers.]

from those obligations of honour and interest as regards the Belgian treaty, I doubt whether, whatever material force we might have at the end, it would be of very much value in face of the respect that we should have lost. And I do not believe, whether a great power stands outside this war or not, it is going to be in a position at the end of it to exert its superior strength. For us, with a powerful fleet, which we believe able to protect our commerce, to protect our shores, and to protect our interests, if we are engaged in war, we shall suffer but little more than we shall suffer even if we stand aside.

We are going to suffer, I am afraid, terribly in this war, whether we are in it or whether we stand aside. Foreign trade is going to stop, not because the trade routes are closed, but because there is no trade at the other end. Continental nations engaged in war all their populations, all their energies, all their wealth, engaged in a desperate struggle they cannot carry on the trade with us that they are carrying on in times of peace, whether we are parties to the war or whether we are not. I do not believe for a moment that at the end of this war, even if we stood aside and remained aside, we should be in a position, a material position, to use our force decisively to undo what had happened in the course of the war, to prevent the whole of the west of Europe opposite to us -- if that had been the result of the war -- falling under the domination of a single power, and I am quite sure that our moral position would be such as --

[the rest of the sentence -- "to have lost us all respect." -- was lost in a loud outburst of cheering].

And THAT was part of the speech that took Great Britain to war the next day because the Germans violated the neutrality of Belgium - a move clearly to e seen as being AGAINST Great Britain's best national interests.

"They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans, and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos."

Nothing whatsoever to do with "supposedly superior breeding" or with "petty political and aristocratic egos." it was all to do with protecting the wealth, security and prosperity of the nation - and that includes the jobs and livelihoods of all.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 09:12 AM

Agree entirely with that guest.
Simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?
If you do disagree with it, what evidence (historical or moral), to support you?
You insist on our providing historians - where are yours to contradict that statement?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 08:19 AM

Normal people don't "accept" anything Keith. They consider.

The only people who "accept" either lack capacity or are superstitious, which is basically the same thing.

There is no definitive "history." I was at Orgreave in 1984, and have yet to read an account from any viewpoint that coincides with my own recollection. I am sure any of us could give examples of this. In my professional life, a newspaper once turned my "we cannot comment on individual cases" into about three column inches of comment attributed to me.

If you are impressed by someone being given the (non legally reserved) title of historian, then I'm sure they wouldn't complain. But being a "historian" doesn't stop David Irvine from being a holocaust denier, and doesn't stop Max Hastings from altering his view of the same evidence as his earlier view based on pushing his "opinion."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 07:58 AM

"and I have expressed no opinion on events before Belgium."
Belgium was the start of the war - what's your point?
You have supported every single aspect of the war
You have either denied or ignored and refused to respond to the effect blackmailing nature of the recruitment campaign, the threats of dismissal by employers, the promises of a short war, the conditions that forced men to join up, and the fact that compulsion was introduced when the recruiting campaigns failed, insisting that people joined up because they believed in the war - you spent a graet deal of time on these - which one of your "three points£ covered that?
For ***** sake Keith - stand by your arguments and stop moving the goalposts
You have supported every single aspect of this war from day one - stand by what you have claimed.
Despite having claimed otherwise, you have at no time attempted to answer how the war was "well led" or how it was a war worth millions of lives.
You have said you have answered these points - indicate where you have or answer them.
How about a New Years Resolution like "I promise to speak the truth".
It really would life much easier for the rest of us.
Jim Carroll