History and mythology of WW1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 07:35 AM

Jim, my argument has never changed on this, and I have expressed no opinion on events before Belgium.

Do not repeat the accusation without an example, which you will never find.

I have given the views of the historians.
You can not find one who disagrees or supports you, because you are wrong.
You have no case. Give it up.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 06:35 AM

"No I have not."
Your arguments seem to have changed yet again from "onlt three points to "prior to Belgium"
You are a running joke Keith (running being the operative word)
As you rightfully say "This is getting silly." (except it's always been silly as far as your arguments are concerned.
How about some response to the nature of a war that slaughtered millions of young men - you dishonestly claimed you had already responded to it - now make good that lie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 06:18 AM

This is getting silly.

I have given the views of the historians, which like any normal person I accept.

Your answer is that the historians are all wrong but you know the truth!

That shows laughable hubris and extraordinary arrogant conceit.
No other reply is needed.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 06:09 AM

Dave,
were responsible for the war, it was still not necessary for Britain to fight it.

That is your opinion. Historians disagree. I do not believe you to be better informed.

Whether or not they are historians is neither here nor there.

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

Chapter 5 of Messinger, on Lord Bryce.

The reports about German atrocities were basically true.

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

There is nothing here to support your false assertion "They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans,"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 05:48 AM

Keith, you should then read Chapter 5 of Messinger, on Lord Bryce. Unfortunately the online scanned version goes little further than this, but from the titles I think the last four chapters should be interesting too.

In a different post you say that Macmillan holds Germany and Austria-Hungary responsible for the war. Point 1 - the lesser point is that Macmillan here is expressing her personal opinion based upon evidence which she and others have collected, and others are able to, and have, expressed different opinions. Whether or not they are historians is neither here nor there.

The more important point is that even if Germany and Austria Hungary were responsible for the war, it was still not necessary for Britain to fight it. The only reason was the preservation of the privileges of the elite.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 05:11 AM

Your quotes of me support me not you!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 05:07 AM

"I have never argued about events prior to the invasion of Belgium Jim, "
Yes you have Keith

No I have not.
You can not challenge what I do say, so you pretend I have said something else!

I await with some interest to see how he is going to revise how the war was fought.

No revision needed.
Here is what Macmillan says about it.

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: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 05:00 AM

Keith
A quick scoop from a past thread "conining yourself to only three issues and "agreeing with McMillan about the blame for the war - ad I only went back to 2014.
As I said, you defended every aspect of the war from day one.
Jim Carroll

29 Dec 13 - 01:54 PM
Not relevant to Britain in 1914.
They were faced with aggressive, invading German armies rampaging across Europe towards the English Channel, massacring civilians and children as they went.
No-one chose that implacable enemy.
They just had to deal with it.

29 Dec 13 - 02:07 PM
Remember where the German armies were at Xmas 1914.
Where would they have been had they not been stopped at huge cost and sacrifice by the Allied forces?
It was nice that they stopped trying to push deeper into France and Belgium on Xmas day, and nice that the allies could stop resisting them.
It would have been nicer had they returned to their own borders.

30 Dec 13 - 12:54 PM
Are you quite sure you saw that sniper thing in The Week?
Which issue?
How did moving snipers prevent fraternising?
How would they know where to put them?
How would they know they were not best placed already?
It takes time to prepare a hide, so how long in advance?
It sounds a bit made up.
I have never heard of such a thing.
Why do you say it is "well documented" ?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:44 AM

"I have never argued about events prior to the invasion of Belgium Jim, "
Yes you have Keith - you backed away from all your arguments at a later dates and retreated to your present "three" when the rest of them became unsubstainable - you have done this with your 'Famine' arguments and with your 'implants' (with which you added, "I only believe it because some#body else said it".
It's became a technique of argument with you.
"I will remind you that Macmillan holds Germany and Austria-Hungary "responsible" for the war."
And I will remind you that McMillan, in all her arguments makes a point of stating that the subject of who started the war was an extremely complex one - one of the articles is headed "Please don't ask me who started the War".
She condemns the simplistic way jingoists like you approach the subject - half truths and inaccuracies.
"I agree with her"
Must have made her New Year for her - you can't stop being pompous, can you - just as Terribulus can't stop being belligerant.
I await with some interest to see how he is going to revise how the war was fought.
"who has actually written a book about it?"
Nobody - there have been no new revelations on WW1.
What has happened was that a handful of writers, from historians to tabloid journalists, have decided to take the opportunity of the Centenary of the war to rehabilitate its reputation and make it more acceptable, not with new historical facts, but with their own opinions - a PR exercise.
It was based on the deeply insulting claim that we all took our understanding of the war from 'Blackadder Goes Forth' and 'Oh What a Lovely War'
There is now access to soldiers' diaries, but these seem to confirm what we already know - and what is being argued about here is a justification (and distortion) of what we already know.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:27 AM

Guest,

To be impressed with their evidence is one thing, but to be so impressed as to blindly follow their conclusions without balancing it against what we also know from other sources

The history books, and the historians who write them, are where normal people learn their history.
Your "other sources" seems to refer to political dogma.

I claimed that the historians agree my points.
They do. None have been found who disagree.

I do not claim that the Mudcat Comrades are capable of understanding their findings.
You clearly are not, but who cares? It is no challenge to me.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:20 AM

Dave, I have read the introduction to the Messinger book.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0719030145

By propaganda he does not mean lying about the Germans.
I do not think the book will support your assertion, and nor will anything else.
I wonder why you made it.
Lying propaganda?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:08 AM

The Austrian Hungarian Empire must be quaking in its jack boots..

The question from Donuel above, whilst withering and intended to be sarcastic, accidentally makes an interesting point.

There are some on here, (let's call them Fred and Hubert to save embarrassment for Keith and Teribus, oh..) who confuse the role of historian with the role of commentator. You do not need to be a historian to conclude from the research of historians.

To be impressed with their evidence is one thing, but to be so impressed as to blindly follow their conclusions without balancing it against what we also know from other sources merely shows that this discussion is on two levels of intelligence. In order to sell your books or make your academic mark, you need to come off the fence, which is what these people are doing. In many cases, their personal take does not flow from the evidence as much as flowing from publisher requirements or promises from the establishment they increasingly serve.

No point in discussing it when the opinions of a few historians are carved in stone by those incapable of intellectual discourse.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 03:21 AM

Dave, all nations use propaganda in all wars, but you specifically stated that "They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans" in the context of the start of the war.

I challenge that, and ask for an example of any such lying about the Germans.

Jim,
McMillian says that historians are at odds about most aspects of the war - read what she says.

I agree with her, but on those specific three issues they are in agreement, as I have shown.

You said it was why Britain had no other alternative but to fight.

I have never argued about events prior to the invasion of Belgium Jim, and I will not embark on a new one at this stage.
Ferguson aside, the historians all agree that Britain did have no choice but to fight after that.

I will remind you that Macmillan holds Germany and Austria-Hungary "responsible" for the war.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:51 PM

Of everyone who has contributed the many sage insights regarding the expanding insights about WWI, who has actually written a book about it?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:43 PM

Jim, you seem to be in a war of attrition, and having to fight on two fronts, happy new year.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 03:21 PM

"I say that historians agree my three points."
McMillian says that historians are at odds about most aspects of the war - read what she says.
"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
I made no such claim."
That was one of your first claims until you retreated to your present three.
Yo defended every single aspect of Britains involvement in the war - your three points are now your Fort Alamo - that's where you have retreated to.
You said it was why Britain had no other alternative but to fight.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 03:15 PM

"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."
I know nothing of the sort and your arrogantly bullying tone indicates that you don't either but are trying to bluff your way through, as per usual.
Enlighten us, pray do as you have on every other declaration you have made in your somewhat aggressively defensive manner.
G'arn - educate us
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 02:08 PM

But seeing as how its available inline, I will read Messinger more thoroughly, he seems to have done some thorough research.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 02:07 PM

No, in the physical sciences I read the papers. But I am selective, I have to be. History, well the papers are less accessible to me anyway, so often you are limited to reviews (its worth noting that so is Keith, since that is what he has been quoting recently). If Keith quotes reviews, I will respond to reviews. Maybe you, with access to the academic publications in a subject, would be prepared to quote something from a peer-reviewed paper which back's up Keith's views. And I don't mean the opinions of historians, which are no more valid than the opinions of everybody else, I mean facts backed up with a description of the methodology, i.e. how they were ascertained.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 01:25 PM

So in the physical sciences you read reviews and then make an assessment. I think you don't really know what the study of history actually is. You claim to be an academic but you give no credence to expertise, you don't read history, you judge based on reviews and you deny that carefully formed opinions from historians are no more valid than your ill informed nonsense. A very strange sort of academic indeed.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 01:21 PM

"HOW CAN A WAR CONDUCTED BY SENDING YOUNG MEN TO CERTAIN DEATH IN WAVE AFTER WAVE UNTIL ONE OR THE OTHER SIDE GIVES UP BE DESCRIBED AS ANYTHING BUT RUTHLESS BUTCHERY - WHERE DID THE "GOOD LEADERSHIP" COME IN" - screams Jom the infallible in RED

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.

Second part:
1914 - Hare & Hounds stuff all movement and scamper. Faced with odds of up to 3:1 in both guns and men, the BEF managed to stay intact as a fighting force. The Germans outran their lines of supply (Which they would not have done had they stuck to Schlieffen's original plan and invaded through Holland as well). The Battle of the Marne ends all hopes for Germany achieving its quick victory in the west, so they dug in where they were.

1915 - Britain's reserves and Territorials start to arrive to build up the strength of the British Army in France, the sector of line held by the British is increased. Britain's industries are nowhere near a level to sustain the war effort. But two offensive operations are planned, both initially succeed in taking all their DAY One objectives but poor handling of the reserve troops delays their arrival and the sought after breakthrough does not occur (NOT MY opinion, those are the opinions of the men who were there). Scandals involving munitions and handling of the BEF means that Sir John French is replaced by Douglas Haig - the man who has given the Germans opposing him two very real scares - the German response is to double, strengthen and deepen the defences in sections of their line where they are opposed by British Forces - (By the way neither Taylor or Clark would have known about this as this detail only surfaced post-1972)

1916 - Build up of the British Army continues and by now we see the volunteers of 1914 starting to arrive. The German commander on the western front General Falkenhayn opts for the strategy of ATTRITION to, in his own words, "Bleed the French white". He sees the French as the largest army opposing him and hits it at Verdun - The French demand a combined British and French attack on the Somme (The junction of both Armies) Haig disagrees with the location he says an attack in Flanders would stand a higher chance of success, he is overruled and is ordered to attack, meanwhile the French have taken away half the troops they said they were going to commit as they are needed by Petain at Verdun. The Battle of the Somme starts badly for the British, but where they are successful Haig reinforces that effort, by the time both the battles of Verdun and the Somme are over Falkenhayn has failed to "Bleed" anyone other than his own forces white. He is dismissed, the Germans now know they cannot defeat the British, the Belgians and the French while they are still fighting the Russians. The Battle of the Somme results in the largest retreat of the German Army on the western front since the Marne one year before - the Germans start to prepare the Hindenburg Line to the rear of their new positions, Britain's first ever "Citizen Army" has faced and forced the best army in the world to retreat. And up to this point every single man fighting EXCEPT THOSE IN THE BRITISH, COMMONWEALTH & EMPIRE ARMY have been conscripted – Although a system of conscription had been introduced for England, Wales and Scotland, those called up had not as yet been deployed to France ( Harry Patch – Conscripted, joined up in October 1916 first deployment was to France in June 1917 – so much for being trained in only days).

1917 – The lessons learned in 1916 by the British Army are refined and put into practice the Battle of Messines was carried out successfully in Flanders – and should have been immediately followed up but it was thought that the Germans would have been prepared and that the British Army needed respite before another battle. Allied powers were now biting bits out of the German line and holding them. Because of the German U-Boat threat from Belgian ports Haig was ordered to attack in 1917 in Flanders to divert and split German forces from the planned French attack by Nivelle. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George was totally mesmerized by the man, put all British troops under French Command and insisted that Haig attack the Passchendaele Ridge – Haig's location of choice, selected for the terrain and ground conditions was the Somme – Haig was overruled again by his French commanders and by David Lloyd George. The Passchendaele offensive did result in further German withdrawals. Attrition now meant that the British and the French could sustain their losses, the Germans could not sustain theirs and with the Americans now in the war the Germans would have to do something quickly or lose the war. The Russians have been effectively taken out of the war – (Anybody interested in knowing what German terms for a peace were like take a good look at the terms imposed upon the Russians by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk – in comparison the terms agreed to under the Treaty of Versailles were benign)

1918 – The German Army on the western Front is almost doubled in size by seasoned battle-hardened troops released from the fighting in the east by the Treaty with Russia. This time they attacked the British and pushed both the British and the French back to almost the high water mark of their attack in 1914. This time they were attacking across a battle-torn landscape that the British and the French knew intimately, the Germans did not. The Germans mounted a total of five offensive operations which ended in July 1918. Twenty-one days later, with all battle losses in terms of men, equipment and material made good a full strength British, Commonwealth and Empire Army went over onto the Offensive – the 8th August 1918 was regarded by Hindenburg as being the "Blackest Day of the German Army", the collapse all along the front was almost complete. One hundred days the war was over, Haig was the ONLY Commander on the western front to achieve and exploit a breakthrough in the entire course of the war – to do that with what started out as the smallest army of the major powers required amazing powers of leadership.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM

There are a number of examples of the lies spread by the British establishment about Germany in "British Propaganda and the State in the First World War" by Gary S. Messinger, much of which is free to view online.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 01:07 PM

Dave, you have now dismissed the work of Macmillan, Hastings and Stevenson!
Sheffield?
Is there any historian working now whose work you do not dismiss?

Please give us some names so we can discuss their views.

Happy New Year everyone.
keith.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 12:38 PM

Jim,
"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

No.
I say that historians agree my three points.
I say that previous work that did not agree has been shown to be wrong.

Your Margaret McMillan out of context quotes are totally meaningless, as are all you other out-of-context ones.

The whole piece was provided.
That IS the context it was in!

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

I made no such claim.
I have never argued about blame for starting the war, just for invading Belgium and France, but in that interview she states,

"I'd assign more responsibility (for the war), rather than blame, in the end to German policy and to the policy of Austria-Hungary. - See more at: http://83.223.124.158/derbyshire/judgement-and-understanding-margaret-macmillan-on-the-first-world-war/#.VoVmcvmLSt8"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 12:23 PM

Guest,
Keith A of Hertford has a blind faith in any opinion that is near to his own whilst scoffing at the opinions based on the same evidence that might upset his fantasy world order.

No.
I expressed three views that are those of historians today.
I only scoff at people who dismiss the work of historians, imagining they somehow know more about history than they do.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 12:20 PM

Dave, she was talking for herself.
She found it persuasive, but I am sure she was persuaded by other evidence already, that the British people believed the war to be a necessary evil.
You will find no historian who challenges that view.

They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans,
What lies? Justify your wild assertion.
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.
Justify that assertion too!

Stevenson isn't persuasive to me.
Have you read the book?
Rag and I have. We found nothing to dismiss. How do you?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 11:46 AM

From OED:

Methodology: A system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity:

As someone who purports to do research on Medieval History, I am surprised that you do not know that.

Methodology in my field which is physical sciences will be quite different, and includes but is not limited to an analysis of the statistical significance of any conclusions.

As to Stevenson, that is the first indication that I have had of him, and based upon the review and the selected quotes I am not favourably impressed. Phrases like "disgusting establishment toady" come to mind, but I don't know him he may not really be like that, as the review inevitably presents quotes out of context.

The GUEST above puts it well. Historians are useful for assembling facts, but their opinions based on these facts are no more valid than those of anybody else. They can argue that people thought the war worthwhile, although I don't see how they have assembled a large enough database to establish that. But even if they do, it doesn't make it true. The parallel with ISIS is apt.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 11:31 AM

"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

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 11:09 AM

This blind faith in an opinion... You do realise that MacMillan has a view based on the evidence she collated.

As a historian, she collated the evidence and laid it out.

As a commentator, she gives a view.

Educated people can form different conclusions from the work of historians than that of the historians themselves. Thousands upon thousands of people, myself included, have used the evidence of others in our thesis or dissertation on our subjects to form an opinion or conclusion that differs from that of those whose work we cite.

It's called the academic process. The problem here is that Keith A of Hertford has a blind faith in any opinion that is near to his own whilst scoffing at the opinions based on the same evidence that might upset his fantasy world order.

But at least Keith tries, even if his lack of academic approach fails him. Teribus must have led a frustrating life before he learned to google, cut and paste. Lilo, Akenaton and others merely resemble the weak kids standing behind the school bully egging him on.

By the way, "accepting the war, even willingly" equally applies to ISIS cannon fodder who willingly blow themselves up on the basis of a room full of Virgins for them to rape. It's a bit like our grandparents actually believing in God. If those in authority tell you, and you have little other option, you accept, even willingly.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 11:08 AM

Dave, explain this "methodology" thing. What do you mean by that ?
What is your take on Stevenson, I presume , although it would come as no surprise if you had not, that you have read Stevenson.
Should quit while your behind Dave, really it just gets odder and odder.
As an Academic Dave, what is your methodology ?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM

Thats just a review, no description of methodology. "Stevenson argues persuasively" - persuasively to whom. How does he argue, what is his methodology. The last paragraph is revealing, British soldiers were fighting for "king and country". The very fact that they should mention this in one sentence suggests that they were still in thrall to the mindset of subservience to their "betters". A French soldier fought because "he did not want to become a Boche". Suggests that the propoganda efforts of the French elite to portray the Germans as subhuman had been effective. Reading that paragraph I am even more disgusted by our rulers of the time. 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. Stevenson isn't persuasive to me. And if he persuades me of anything it is that the lying, cheating, venal swine who ran our country at the time would stop at nothing, including sacrificing the lives of millions of their countrymen, in pursuit of their nefarious ends. The only people who had the nous to know what to do about this were in St, Petersburg.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 10:41 AM

Dave, another Macmillan quote that makes it clear she is referring to the people not the state.

"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: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 10:36 AM


So the works of Herodotus, Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Niccolo Machiavelli, Edward Gibbon et al are irrelevant are they.

No silly!
Only if there findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 10:34 AM

It it utter nonsense to claim that past historians are no longer relevant - do you have this as an official statement from anyone, anywhere

Knowledge advances.
The work of some of the previous generation is thus superseded.

On my three points there is now agreement, which shows some earlier historians to have been wrong.

Unless you are claiming that all the current generation are wrong about those points, you have no case.
Is that your claim?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 09:07 AM

So the works of Herodotus, Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Niccolo Machiavelli, Edward Gibbon et al are irrelevant are they.


By no means as irrelevant as The Professor.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:41 AM

"Hiding behind experts and historians. The nerve! "
I've said it before Hilo, Hiding behind experts and historians he ha not read and doesn't understand - cut-'n-pastes don't allow you to do that sort of thing.
"Long dead historians are no longer relevant."
Then how the **** can you possibly believe that "THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD, PAST AND PRESENT" - it is a contradiction in terms
We are not talking about "long dead" anything - we are talking of writers who were alive during the war - which gives them an advantage over modern writers for a start - they were there, and those who were in a position to examine the people who experienced the war first hand, as participants and as those directly affected by the war - not an advantage any historian has today.
It it utter nonsense to claim that past historians are no longer relevant - do you have this as an official statement from anyone, anywhere - if anything, it is absolute confirmation that you know nothing whatever of history.
"Sorry, not myself today."
I am genuinely sorry that you are not at your best - but we all have our own crosses to bear healthwise - me, not the least.
I have been involved in heated arguments at a time I was having prods shoved up my arse for suspected prostate problems (over a priod of four years now).
The one time, when I was particularly low and frightened and happened to mention it on line, I was told in no uncertain terms that it had no place in those discussions - that was good advice which I have always adhered to.
I suggest that if you are not up to it, wait until you are and let the rest of us get on with it - it has no place here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:40 AM

"Long dead historians are no longer relevant"

So the works of Herodotus, Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Niccolo Machiavelli, Edward Gibbon et al are irrelevant are they.

Truly astonishing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:18 AM

Sorry, not myself today.

Dave,
But if she says what you say she says

I am not passing judgement on what Macmillan says. Just on what Keith says Macmillan says. Which I have read.

You know she said it. You have the quote and the link.

Jim,
"your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war"

I think your beliefs are wrong. They are contradicted by the history books.
That is why you can not find anything supporting them.

"That is the knowledge of current historians."
No it isn't -

Ye is is. I have quoted many.
You can not quote one.

Jim again,
Keith's arguments are, and always have been a mass of contradictory, ill-thought- out claims

I have made no arguments.
Just stated my 3 views, and showed that they come from the history books.

Current historians know everything their predecessors knew or thought they knew, but now have much more information available to them.
Historical knowledge only advances.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:15 AM

Sorry, quote missed.

delete my last.


Dave,
But if she says what you say she says

I am not passing judgement on what Macmillan says. Just on what Keith says Macmillan says. Which I have read.

You know she said it. You have the quote and the link.

Jim,
"your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war"

I think your beliefs are wrong. They are contradicted by the history books.
That is why you can not find anything supporting them.

"That is the knowledge of current historians."
No it isn't -

Ye is is. I have quoted many.
You can not quote one.

Jim again,
Keith's arguments are, and always have been a mass of contradictory, ill-thought- out claims

I have made no arguments.
Just stated my 3 views, and showed that they come from the history books.

Current historians know everything their predecessors knew or thought they knew, but now have much more information available to them.
Historical knowledge only advances.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:12 AM

Dave,
But if she says what you say she says

I am not passing judgement on what Macmillan says. Just on what Keith says Macmillan says. Which I have read.

You know she said it. You have the quote and the link.

Jim,
"your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war"

I think your beliefs are wrong. They are contradicted by the history books.
That is why you can not find anything supporting them.

No it isn't -

Ye is is. I have quoted many.
You can not quote one.

Jim again,
Keith's arguments are, and always have been a mass of contradictory, ill-thought- out claims

I have made no arguments.
Just stated my 3 views, and showed that they come from the history books.

Current historians know everything their predecessors knew or thought they knew, but now have much more information available to them.
Historical knowledge only advances.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:10 AM

Hiding behind experts and historians. The nerve!
You and Dave are a great team, don,t have time to read much but loads of time to dismiss the people you have not read.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM

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

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:39 AM

The difference is that you exist I dozens of incarnations , most of them very nasty indeed. Are you just one nasty or half a dozens nastiest hat is the difference, err guest or guest or.... Even more guests.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:30 AM

No Hilo you are just nasty hiding behind a consistent name. It is surprising that the people who complain most about nastiness on threads tend the be the same people who are nasty themselves.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:19 AM

SorryI sent the message before I meant to. Perhaps I am as anonymous as you are. But am an identifiable poster. I use the same name at all times and do not go from thread to thread being nasty,.
Dave read your latest post and tell me it isn,t a joke.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:12 AM

Yes perhaps

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:09 AM

I am not passing judgement on what Macmillan says. Just on what Keith says Macmillan says. Which I have read.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:03 AM

And who is Hilo, does anyone know, do anyone care, you are just as anonymous as I am.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:53 AM

Hello guest, how's yer day going, nasty enough for you ? What did you say your name was? Ah , you forgot to mention your name... Or perhaps you just conflated it with another person of the same name.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:43 AM

You are being cruel Dave, Keith will not even understand the word conflate, still less be able to do so himself.