History and mythology of WW1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:39 AM

God Dave it must be a vast subject. And we already know you don,t read much else. As an academic you ought to know that passing judgement on things you have not read is an absolute no no. I am surprised that all of the profs you know at Oxford have not pointed this out to you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM

HiLo, I am the kind of academic who doesn't have time to read in full about 100 papers which come out on arXiv every day in my subject.

And Keith, I certainly don't have time to read in full papers in a different subject to mine, which may or may not support your jingoistic viewpoint.

I am not accusing Macmillan of being incompetent and deluded. But if she says what you say she says I would be accusing her of conflating the interests and opinions of the British state and establishment with those of the British people. Although really I suspect that it is you who is doing this conflating, not her.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:23 AM

"That is the knowledge of current historians."
No it isn't - you have spent your time debunking past historians as have those who are presently trying to resurrect the reputation of this squalid war.
Despite your claims, nothing new has been produced to justify the war - the soldiers diaries still by and large remain out of reach to most of us, what has been released has confirmed what a horrific affair it all was, but nothing else - what will be released in future has been filtered through a process so as not to rock the boat too much - nowhere has the war been commented on.
You refer to 'methodology' as if you understand it, you have proven over and over again that you haven't a clue - your pomposity makes you a grater caricature than you already where.
And you sill haven't answered my question.
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 ID THE "GOOD LEADERSHIP" COME IN
You dishonestly claimed that you have already answered this: "Here AGAIN are the answers to your questions Jim." having previously said you refuse to do so:
"your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war"
Your reply
"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!!"
You have yet to reply
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:17 AM

Dave, what kind of academic are you? "I look at the conclusions to see if they interest me". You really are too funny Dave!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:11 AM

So check her methodology yourself Dave!
I see no reason to believe that she is incompetent and deluded, along with every other historian!

You are just driven by hopeless desperation in the face of overwhelming evidence against your position.
(Or have you found something, ho ho?)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:07 AM

Keith,

Telling phrase in your post at 04:58:

"I am sure it is all open and published."

I thought that you were supposed to have read all this stuff.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:06 AM

We haven!t all regressed Dave. Some have continued to study, research, and dig into newly available material. I do wonder at what kind of "academic " you are when you can' t seem to understand the need for vigorous and relentless research .

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:04 AM

Keith, I am an academic in a different subject, and when I see an academic paper, sure I look at the conclusions to see whether they interest me, but if they do I then look at the methodology to see whether it is sound. Even if they are professors at Oxford. I know lots of professors at Oxford, and they would expect no different, and would do the same with my papers.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM

Funnily enough in 1949 I think we had begun to get over all this stuff. Unfortunately in the last few decades we have regressed.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:58 AM

You claim to be some kind of "academic" Dave.
You also appear to be questioning Macmillan's methodology!
Do you doubt she has one?
Have you tried referencing her work?
I am sure it is all open and published.

I do not question her work.
Please do not expect me to question it for you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM

A.J.P. Taylor & Alan Clark

Points of similarity:

Both are "historians" and each represent the opposite ends of the scale in academic achievement.

Neither specialised in the period in question. Both wrote books about it around the same time with one purpose in mind to make money on the back of the 50th anniversary. Years after his book "The Donkey's" came out Clark was forced to admit in an interview that for his book he had just made things up.

Both books were savaged by peer review by "historians" who were specialists in the period, most notable being Hugh Trevor Roper who had been Alan Clark's history tutor at Oxford.

Neither Taylor or Clark had access to the mass of information that came to light after 1970 which means that anything written by them could not possibly be as detailed, factually accurate or as insightful as work produced by those specialising in the period after 1970.

So if Taylor and Clark are your candidates the Keith A is correct in saying that their work has been largely discredited and their conclusions proven wrong.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM

"Discredited" Or put another way, not conforming to Boys Own Annual 1949 jingoism aimed at perpetuating generations of seeing war as something to take pride in.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM

So you don't actually know Macmillan's methodology Keith.

Nor do I care.
There is no greater authority on the period in the world!
Why should I doubt a historian and professor at the University of Oxford, where she is Warden of St Antony's College. She is former provost of Trinity College Oxford, and professor of history at the University of Toronto and previously at Ryerson University.


She has been researching the period for decades, and her findings are confirmed by all the others, e.g.
" 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."
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:50 AM

I have been looking forward to your response regarding macmillans" methodology". It was worth the wait. Too funny.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:37 AM

So you don't actually know Macmillan's methodology Keith. Despite your extensive reading. For sure, if her work is published in peer-reviewed journals she would have to have described her methodology.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:34 AM

Is my summary correct then, Keith?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:33 AM

If Keith wants to win, fine, let him.

I was ridiculed and castigated for holding those views, and disbelieved when I said it was what the history books say.

Three years later, no one has found a historian who disagrees, but still I am ridiculed and castigated just for repeating what all the history books say.

Forgive me for defending my position which is proved correct.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 03:15 AM

Sorry - Incomplete first line.

....clarify what my point is and what I believe is the point of many others on here.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 03:13 AM

I was keeping out of this but I feel I must try to clarify what my point is and what I believe is

Keith says on 3 points no one has been able to prove him wrong. The three points are, if I remember rightly, that the war was necessary, it had the support of the people and that our troops were well led. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.

Of those three points he has admitted that an historian who meets his criteria disagrees with the first one so we are down to two.

I have no idea if the second is true or not but as it is Keith making the claim, it is up to him to prove it, not for anyone to disprove. Considering the number of historians who have written on the subject I do not believe anyone on here has read them all so no one can say that all historians agree.

The last one is relative. There is no doubt that our troops were better led that the opposing forces. We won, suffered fewer casualties and were not beset by the mutinies that some suffered. However, better led does not, in my mind, equate to well led. In the case of the lesser of two evils it must be remembered that neither is actually good.

Others are claiming that the war was a disaster of the first order. Of that there is no doubt and the number of lives lost is testament to that. Whether it was necessary, supported or well led pales into insignificance when you weigh those points up against 17 million deaths and 20 million casualties.

If Keith wants to win, fine, let him. There is no doubt that everything he has read, apart from one thing, supports his points. Those points are minor and have no impact on anyone alive today. It is akin to arguing that the Nazis had smart uniforms. What we have to remember is not to glorify war and try to make sure a similar thing does not happen again.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 02:08 AM

Dave,
Keith, did you really just describe AJP Taylor as discredited?

On the issues under discussion, there is no historian who accepts his views.
He is discredited by advances in historical knowledge.

Keith, what then is Macmillan's methodology for determining the views of the British people in 1914.

I am sure she knows her job Dave!
She is a historian and professor at the University of Oxford, where she is Warden of St Antony's College. She is former provost of Trinity College Oxford, and professor of history at the University of Toronto and previously at Ryerson University.
There is no greater authority on WW1 in the world.

All the other world authorities have independently reached the same conclusion.
I have quoted Sheffield, Boot, Pennel, Todman, Snow, Stevenson, Hastings, Brown, Paxman/OU, etc. (count Jim!)

Is it your claim that they are all completely deluded, and you are somehow above them all in your knowledge of this period?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 06:57 PM

Peter Cochrane? How about Jimmy Clay:


JIMMY CLAY
(Patrick Sky)(c) Rabelaisian Music, Inc.

When you walk down the street, who will follow you?
Six o'clock, its getting late.
The moon it is rising as the sticky dew
Molds on the ground by the gate.
With your rifle on your shoulder as you walk along
Listening to your boot-heels hit the sod
Smoking your cigar as you hum a song
Thinking of your mother, and your God

Ah, but you're alone, Jimmy Clay
As you smoke your cigar and earn your pay.
And fifteen thousand soldiers are marching by your side
Still you're alone, Jimmy Clay.

And remember New York town, good old New York town?
The friends, the drinks, the cops and all
And the whores who took your money when you couldn't stand
And all the roaring nights you can't recall?
And remember Alice Fay, good old Alice Fay?
She'd been through life at least ten times around
And when she said she loved you, well she meant it, boy
Remember the night you nearly drowned?

Ah, but you're alone, Jimmy Clay
As you smoke your cigar and think of yesterday
Well, yesterday don't matter when its gone away
Where did it go, Jimmy Clay?

So as you lie there in the mud, who will talk to you?
Nobody, Jimmy Clay
For when you're gone mankind follows after you
Doesn't it, Jimmy Clay?
And your face is growing moldy where they kissed your cheek
And said "Please die for us, Jimmy Clay"
And so you died a soldier and a hero's death
Congratulations, Jimmy Clay.

Now you're alone, Jimmy Clay
You can smoke your cigar, and earn your pay
And somewhere in the distance you can hear the fiddle play
But not one note will change, Jimmy Clay

[With thanks to Spaw, god rest him.]

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 06:36 PM

As this is a thread on warfare, here is an obituary of a gentleman, a hero and long time friend.
He encapsulated the spirit and resolution referred to by Mr T and Keith. Major "Peter" Cochrane.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 06:14 PM

Q: Keith] Are you really THAT stupid?

A: Yes

I believe that's all than needs to be said. No sense wasting more time and words.

Ditto for Colonel Blimp a.k.a Teribyte.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 05:17 PM

Keith, what then is Macmillan's methodology for determining the views of the British people in 1914.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 05:13 PM

Keith, did you really just describe AJP Taylor as discredited?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: gillymor
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 05:10 PM

What about Neil Faulkner?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:31 PM

There used to be a few historians who believed the myths you still cling to, but now there are none. They have been discredited.
They were wrong

Nothing written in recent decades supports you.
It all supports me.

Should we reject all the historians and believe you?
Why?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:24 PM

"The historians"

AJP Taylor
Alan Clark

Interesting how when you look up purely a list in alphabetical order of those whose work is used in BA (history) courses through most joint matriculation boards where early c20 military and political is used, the first two alone are dismissed by our resident "all" merchant...

I enjoy being right. I see where Keith and Teribus get their kicks. My high is even more orgasmic though cos I'm on the side of history, not "history."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:23 PM

Q: Are you really THAT stupid.

A: Yes

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:21 PM

" 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."
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:14 PM

Dave, read the whole piece.
She means the people.

Are you saying she is wrong.
Also Pennel, Brown, OU/Paxman, Sheffield, Todman, etc., etc.

Can you find a single historian who challenges that view?
No, and you have tried.

You are claiming that the historians are all wrong and you are right.
Tell us about your researches.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:37 PM

"Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says.

What the blazes does that mean. If by Britain you mean the island of Great Britain, that is an island surrounded by sea. Or a number of islands if you mean the British Isles. It is a geographic entity, no more capable of rational thought than any other rock. Does she mean the people who lived in Great Britain. In the British Isles. Which ones? What is her methodology for determining what they thought? Opinion polls?

No, what she means is the British government and establishment of the day. Herein lies the problem with historians, they are incapable of distinguishing the interests of the People from those of the Government and establishment. The Government and establishment were concerned only with their own survival as an entity (not even their personal survival for there is no evidence that had the Germans taken over they all would have been killed). They were not interested in the lives of the soldiers they sacrificed for their own personal interests.

We have the same problem today. The media bang on about "the reforms Britain needs from the EU", when what they mean is the reforms that Cameron and his mates in the City of London want. No mention of reforms which are in the interests of the British working people. They do not count.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:14 PM

THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD, PAST AND PRESENT.

That is the knowledge of current historians.
They have access to the knowledge of all their predecessors, and new data as well.

Historical knowledge advances.
It is added to, not lost.
It does not go backwards.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:10 PM

Jim,
"Macmillan said they believed in it and were right to.
She said no such thing - she covered the recruiting campaigns fully in her book.
Give your quotes - in full and with their evidence for making such stupid statements."

Macmillan
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

Pennel
"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

Dave and Jim, are you claiming that these historians and the oothers are all wrong, and you are right?
Why can you find no single historian who agrees with you?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:00 PM

Missed a bit
THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD, PAST AND PRESENT
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 02:58 PM

"It did become a war of attrition, like most wars (including the jingoistically named "Great Patriotic War)."
Sorry - what the **** does that mean?]
Attrition is the wearing out of one side by rubbing it against the other - in this case, hurling one groups of human beings against another until one of them gave in - no tactics, just simple brute force.
It ever "became" that - it was that from the beginning - the man were never anything but expendable.
"Macmillan said they believed in it and were right to."
She said no such thing - she covered the recruiting campaigns fully in her book.
Give your quotes - in full and with their evidence for making such stupid statements.
If they had "believed in it" - there would have been no need for such tactics as emotional blackmail, inducement from employers at the threat of dismissal, no pantomimes, no recruiting campaigns, no white feathers and certainly no compulsory conscription.
Your bullying mate claimed the vast majority of volunteers came from the middle classes - if that is true - why didn't those who believed in ithe cause join up?
Paxman devoted a half programme to the techniques used to inveigle young men into joining up (want me to put up "The Man Wh Was John Bull again?
Do I claim they ware wrong - I am claiming that you are making things up again - just as you have never put up this shit before
"Here AGAIN are the answers to your questions Jim."
Utter bollocks.
And no - it doesn't answer my question -
If it was a war of attrition how can throwing one group of soldiers to their deaths against another group of soldiers possibly be described as anything but simple butchery - how was it "well led" THAT WAS MY QUESTION
And please stick your unread historians up your hole - you haven'rt read them, you don't understand them and you most certainly do not understand how history works.
History is accumulated knowledge gathered constantly between the event in quesion to the present day - no "modern historians only", no half dozen selected superstars, and certainly no eejit who can't tell the difference between historical fact and opinion - THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD.
The selecting of out-of-context sentences from a minute handful of carefully chose, like-minded people
Fuck your historians - I haven't read them through, but what I have read from a couple of yours, what they say bears no relation to what you claim they say - your deliberate misrepresentation of Hastings proves that beyond a shadow of doubt.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 02:52 PM

Macmillan, Pennel, and Paxman are far too young to have spoken first hand top those directly affected. And the are quite the wrong people to make the judgement as to whether the war was necessary or justified. People who were there, and historians writing in a closer time frame are better placed to make that judgement. Because it is a judgement not an issue with a clear yes or no answer. If the war had not been fought, maybe the British state in its form of the time would not have survived. You can argue whether that would have been a good or a bad thing. But I would argue very strongly that the survival of the British state was not worth 18 million lives, a million of those British.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 02:05 PM

Here AGAIN are the answers to your questions Jim.

It did become a war of attrition, like most wars (including the jingoistically named "Great Patriotic War).

It did not start or finish as one.
Neither side were likely to surrender because it became one.

The people were not duped.
Macmillan said they believed in it and were right to.
So did Pennel.
So did the OU through Paxman.

Do you claim they are all wrong and you right?
Why can you find no single historian who agrees.
I could produce many more as you know.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:56 AM

Are you going to respond to my questions Keith?
If not - Game set and match -using your own criteria
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:51 AM

Do you disagree that it was a wart of attrition

Yes it was.

based on forcing/tricking/persuading young men to go to their deaths?

No. They were not tricked or duped.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM

Jim,
"You can only be right if all the history books are wrong. Is that your claim?"
Sighhhhh again - you haven't read all the history books - I strongly doubt if you have read any

I have read the books Jim, and quoted you the historians.
Do you claim they are wrong and you right?

You can not claim to have read anything recent that agrees with you because nothing does.

Justify your claim that all historians agree with you - you have given less than six and you haven't read them

I listed about eight just yesterday that I have quoted.
You have failed to find any!

Do you disagree that it was a wart of attrition

Yes.

based on forcing/tricking/persuading young men to go to their deaths?

No. They were not tricked or duped.
That is what Macmillan, Pennel and the others told you.
Are you saying they are all wrong but you are right?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:44 AM

Q: Are you really THAT stupid.

A: Yes

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:41 AM

Rag,
Just how many times do you need to be told that not ALL historians agree with you.

Telling me is no good.
I want to see a quote.
I have given you many quotes of many historians
You can find nothing.

Are you claiming that all the historians I have quoted are wrong but you are right?
That is an unbelievable claim.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:05 AM

Keith
One step at a time, dear Jesus
Do you disagree that it was a wart of attrition based on forcing/tricking/persuading young men to go to their deaths?
If not - how was it fought - and who says it was not fought the way I have just described - a simple yes or no will do for the first part, a name, a quote and a source will suffice for the second?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 08:42 AM

"I have quoted you all those historians saying the same, while you have not found a single one to support you"

Just how many times do you need to be told that not ALL historians agree with you.

How many times do you need to be reminded of those who don't. Are you really THAT stupid.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 08:42 AM

"You can only be right if all the history books are wrong. Is that your claim?"
Sighhhhh again - you haven't read all the history books - I strongly doubt if you have read any
No historian has ever denied the fact that the war was fought by mindlessly sending young men to their deaths until the other side gave up - if that is the case, that is simple butchry - show it isn't?
It is not the job of historians to say whether the War was worthwhile.
The war was fought in defence of a rapaciously exploitative system - if that is not the case - prove it - if it is - justify it.
"I have only claimed to know three things about this, which you and your supporters denied and ridiculed me for."
Everybody ridicules you for your ruthlessly dishonest use of historians - you are now a legend in your own time.
Justify your claim that all historians agree with you - you have given less than six and you haven't read them.
Nobody other than you is interested in "my historian is bigger than your historian" games (especially when you set rules excluding the ones you don't like) - if you knew the first thing about history you'd know that that is not how history works.
History is the sum total od accumulated knowledge, not the century later justification of a bloodbath because everybody recognises now that it was a ruthless waste of life to defend inbred Empires and exploitative big-business.
Answer that ad you might hase a point - until you do, you will continue to display yourself as the clown you are.
You might start by telling us how sending young men to they almost certain deaths in wave after wave constitutes "good leadership"
You won't of course.
You are using 'historians to defend your jingoism (even through people like Hastings, McMillan and even Sheffield have specifically condemned that same jingoism).
It was simply a war of attrition - with your vast superio#rity of knowledge show it was not - or show us who says it was not.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 07:43 AM

Jim,
You have fully declared yourself an arrogant know-all fully paid up meglo.

No.
I have only claimed to know three things about this, which you and your supporters denied and ridiculed me for.

You were wrong to do that because I learned those things from history.
I have quoted you all those historians saying the same, while you have not found a single one to support you.

What is the basis for your argument?
No historian agrees with you.
You can only be right if all the history books are wrong. Is that your claim?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 05:32 AM

Success!!

I no longer have to type anything at all in order to rattle Terribulus. It appears anybody who can string sentences together, weigh idiots up and post anonymously is labelled "Muskrat" presumably in my honour. I'm humbled 😎

Let's see now

In the red corner! Weighing in at the combined weight of the fallen, all the poor sods who were actually there!

In the blue corner! Weighing in at the burden of his ego and his armchair, Terribulus!

The crowd are eager for this, grapple fans. One side of the town hall is packed, the other side has Michael Gove and Keith A of Hertford, although his head appears to be in a book. Bouncers confirmed that a third member of the Terribulus Fan Club was barred access to the town hall by order of the council's strict policy on equality.

Round one hundred and forty three!!!

🛎

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:52 AM

"Jom could you please give us that again in English."
Typos again shipmate - perfectly understandable and you know it
You deliberately launched into a defence of French, who was never an issue, to avoid responding to all the other cock ups - which you have yet to respond to.
There - that'll save you having to ask the nearest five year old to explain it to you.
"Jom you said that Tommy Kenny was a soldier, yet you could not state where he served,"
Wasn't what we were there for - all in his documents (I've told you this several times - even when you sneered at our poor collecting technique)
"I resorted to IWM records and found the service records of six Tommy Kenny's who served in the Army during the Great War"
And you said none were from Liverpool, suggesting that Tmmy lied about his having served.
"What by asking about your Uncle who served in the Second World War??"
You had as much information as you did on Tommy Kenny - more in fact yet you drew a blank, having said it was relatively easy.
You said you were unable to - the "spending good money" is an addition to the equation - is it any wonder that nobody believe a word you say - you make it up as you go along?
"YOU accused the Military Police of forcing men over the top at gunpoint and pointed to Tommy Kenny and your third hand hearsay source as proof"
More misrepresented distortions - I said Tommy Kenny told us that men were forced over the top - by being beaten and sometimes at gunpoint - I didn't suggest it was the Military police who did it to justify anything - I reported the contents of our recordings.
At no time did mention the military police having done so – the only time they got a mention was in their rounding up 'deserters' (shellshocked young man walking away from the noise) and bring them back to stand trial - will you please stop making things up as you go along - it's now getting very silly.
"YOUR story changed to Special Groups of Military Policemen gunning down troops who didn't move quick enough and who returned to British Lines"
Sighhhh - for the umpteenth time, I said no such thing.
The report of military police summarily executing those who didn't go over the top quickly enough came from the website you were linked to by the grandson of a veteran - he even gave the squad a name (which escapes me at present)
You went though somersaults trying to claim this wasn't true so it's hard to believe you have forgotten - once again, stop making things up.
My accounts of what the soldiers had to say about these things came from numerous sources, Tommy Kenny, somebody's Grandfather, Harry Patch, and earlir on, Irish author, Patrick McGill, who fought in the Loos debacle.
What corroboration do you want - the word of somebody who was there suits me far better than a whitewash of century old events which the nation has every reason to be deeply ashamed of.
You have described the men who fought and gave their lives as "liars" as gullible, and now as rumourmongers.
You are obviously not going to respond to any other of the points made (other than to claim that you already have), so unless you learn to sort out fact from fiction, I suggest we're done here.
If you weren't so struttingly and unpleasantly arrogant in trying to pass over your bullshit, perhaps you wouldn't look so stupid when it all collapses around your ears - that goes for the pair of you - though I have to admit that your contrasting styles are amusing - your Bill Sykes to Keith's Uriah Heep.
Keith has had the arrogance to claim that nothing we have to say is worth consideration, yet on every topic where the British establishment comes under criticism – Ireland, unemployment, Israel and now an Imperial War, you both have knee-jerked in defence of the extreme right – get on our bikes when we can't find a job, British industry was shit and not worth saving, the Trades Unions ruined Britain, the miners were thuggish greedy scum.... your arguments are ultra-right in their nature, whatever the topic – that is the political motivation Keith has accused us as having – you are a pair of lone ultra-right voices defending a system that is greedy, corruptly dishonest, wealth and privilege driven and still happy to sacrifice the lives of our youth for the benefit of our "betters" and well past its sell by date – that is as politically biased as it gets.   
Jim Carroll
And to repeat - if you still claim I changed Tommy's story - say where I did

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:44 AM

If the war graves represent his success, it's a good fucking job he didn't fail then...