History and mythology of WW1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:46 AM

At least one historical note turns out to be accurate in this latterday reenactment.

It isn't over by bloody Xmas.

Ho, ho, ho!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:45 AM

"Yes rag. Well known."

Wish you guys would make your mind up. You say it's well known Teritowelling has stated categorically that we did NOT shoot our own men.

Although Robert Keating's diary does state that no one was killed he does state this was fortunate.

You seem to consider it acceptable to turn a machine gun (up to 600 .303 rounds per minute) on our own troops.

Amazing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM

At least one historical note turns out to be accurate in this latterday reenactment.

It isn't over by bloody Xmas.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:23 AM

Yes rag. Well known.

JTT, no-one with any knowledge at the time believed the war would end by Christmas, and Pennel contradicts your view of people being "dupes.


" 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."
Whilst enthusiastic crowds certainly existed in August 1914, the new research suggests that this didn't reflect the whole picture. "Other gatherings around late July and early August opposed the war," Dr Pennell explains, "and many more people were shocked and disbelieving that such an event could happen."
"Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. 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

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:10 AM

"Rag, it is well known that both sides took steps to prevent fraternisations after the 1914 Christmas Truces"

Yes it is and in this case turning their own machine gun on them !!

Truce's occurred ALL through the war despite order from above.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:02 AM

Rag, it is well known that both sides took steps to prevent fraternisations after the 1914 Christmas Truces.

Dave,
The first duty of government is the defence of the people,

The invading German armies massacred Belgian and French civilians, including children.
Slave labourers were taken from the conquered lands they occupied.

You take the side of the imperialist aggressor, denying their victims the right to defend their homes and families from tyrannical invasion.
Why should they not resist?

Were the Belgian Socialists wrong to be "defending themselves against 'militarist barbarism' and fighting for liberty and democracy?"

Should we have let Hitler have his way too?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM

Interesting Article

Nice bit about firing a machine gun on our own troops, but he will no doubt be called a liar

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM

Merry Christmas to all

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 09:34 AM

Merry Christmas Akenaton

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 07:36 AM

As someone who started off with the perspective that WW1 was a crime against humanity perpetrated by power hungry combatants, tempered by the opinions of my paternal grandfather who deeply respected General Haig as a man of principle, this and the other thread has convinced me that my perspective was wrong and my grandfather who served with the Black Watch in France, was correct
Access to new information from abroad has shown the work of the pre 1970s "revisionists" outdated and badly ideologically skewed.

In common with many of the "soft lefts" social ideas it appears to be based on mythology.....a mythology written and espoused by fellow travellers with a political agenda.
This mythology is extremely insidious and has now enveloped all facets of society....Perhaps the time has come for a large injection of reality into our social system we have been sleepwalking into a "neverland" where responsibility for EVERYTHING can simply be passed down the line until it disappears.

Our grandparents were faced with the choice of defeat or victory, a choice that we will never make because we will always find someone to blame whilst they measure us for our shackles.

Nothing of any substance has ever been accomplished without sacrifice...ask the Russian people who survived WW2......and at some point there is nothing left to do but fight or die.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM

Merry Christmas Teribus

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 05:38 AM

GUEST - 24 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM

Defence of the people seems to have meant sending them over the top in waves followed by rounding up those traumatised by the experience and sentencing them to death.

Teribus stated in some of his random keystrokes that those who wrote about the war first off were the revisionists and his Johnny Come Lately establishment apologists aren't revisionists, but err.. are revising....

Ehmmm GUEST - Do you have problems with reading and understanding the English language? As you certainly appear to I will say it again as clearly as I possibly can.

Three "sets" of writers have written about the "Great War":

1: Those who fought and/or lived through it, who because of the timing could only really write about their own personal experiences, as in 1918 a whole host of documents were still classified. They would also have no knowledge at all of the war from "foreign" perspectives.

2: Those who wrote about the war after the death of Earl Haig - these writers followed their own agendas to besmirch the name of the man who when all said and done took over a tiny army in 1915 which had suffered terribly incorporated into it Britain's first ever citizen army and with it took on and defeated what was considered to be the best army in the world at that time. He did so by introducing new tactics made possible by innovation and a readiness to accept new and revolutionary ideas and put them into practice. His main detractors waited until after his death so that he would be unable to defend his name and reputation and to blow a smokescreen over their culpability in mistakes that they had made. Those who wrote about the Great War between 1929 and 1969 "revised" what had been written by those described in 1 above so they were referred to as "The Revisionists", they too wrote without the benefit of classified government documents and a lack of access to foreign material which only started to become available in the 1970s - So are we perfectly clear who I am referring to as "The Revisionists"? - one of them nameless GUEST, Alan Clark, even admitted years after the publication of his book "The Donkeys" that he just simply made stuff up to ensure that the book was controversial so that it would make him money.

3: Those who wrote about the Great War in the period 1970 to the present day who have had access to documentation both foreign and domestic that neither of the other groups has had, and guess what nameless GUEST they, with the aid of all that material had disproved and discredited much of what was written by The Revisionists and Keith A is perfectly correct when he states that so far on this forum in discussions relating to the First World War nobody has been able to come up with any historian who can counter what todays historians have said on the subject.

Out of an army of ~5,300,000 around 266 were executed for desertion care to work out what they represent as a percentage? Pretty minimal I would say, but there again up until know you have never let FACT, KNOWLEDGE OR PERSPECTIVE interfere with you "revisionist" drivel.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 04:53 AM

In re Irishmen volunteering for the British Army, there were two largely separate groups:

1) The one more remembered now, the Irish Volunteer dupes of John Redmond who joined en masse after Redmond's September 1914 speech at Woodenbridge, thinking that Redmond's Irish Parliamentary Party had gained a promise of Home Rule (a rather watered-down version of what's now called devolution) if they joined up to support Britain in the war that was to be over by Christmas 1914;
2) The workingmen put out of work by a series of brutally suppressed strikes and management lockouts between 1911 and 1913 and unable to get work to support themselves and their families because they were blacklisted by employers. The 'separation allowance' paid to these men's wives or mothers or children and the pay to soldiers was the largest transfer of wealth to the poor of its era. All good? Not quite: 67% of those killed from the Royal Dublin Fusiliers (which was devastated in Gallipoli and Flanders) came from between the two canals of Dublin.
The better-off Irish were also slaughtered; the rugby and cricket sides joined as 'Old Pals' and were virtually wiped out in Gallipoli.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 01:15 AM

I hope you are all playing football together

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 12:22 PM

Chief of General Staff, oh yes just any General who was part of Haigs High Command. Give your head a shake.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 11:26 AM

Teribus stated in some of his random keystrokes that those who wrote about the war first off were the revisionists and his Johnny Come Lately establishment apologists aren't revisionists, but err.. are revising....

I think you misread the post to which you are referring, I suggest you reread it for comprehension.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM

Defence of the people seems to have meant sending them over the top in waves followed by rounding up those traumatised by the experience and sentencing them to death.

Teribus stated in some of his random keystrokes that those who wrote about the war first off were the revisionists and his Johnny Come Lately establishment apologists aren't revisionists, but err.. are revising....

This war will never end by Xmas if educating pork is the aim.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM

Hope this helps - Sir Launcelot Kiggell

Have a peaceful and happy Christmas everyone.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM

The first duty of government is the defence of the people, not the state. Without the people, the state has no meaning.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM

Rag, I have indeed taken a life long interest in WW1 and have read the histories extensively since my teens.
That does not mean I have committed to memory the names and careers of every General!

This is a Wiki page on "British Army during WW1"
There is a chapter "The Commanders" that lists about 70 generals, but no single mention of Kiggell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_World_War_I#Commanders

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 05:07 AM

Dave, the first duty of government is usually given as the defence of the state.

I have been rereading Macmillan's book. As I remembered it has little to say on what we have been arguing.

"When the news of the rejection of the ultimatum (to Belgium) was leaked,... the Belgian public showed its approval."
"The Socialist Party issued a statement to say that their members were defending themselves against 'militarist barbarism' and fighting for liberty and democracy." (p586-587)

No solidarity with those comrades?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM

It really isn't going to be over by Christmas - again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 04:53 AM

If any of you think my reading inadequate, please suggest something written in recent decades that might change my views.

Nothing any of us has found so far does so.
The obvious explanation for that is that there is nothing recent that does.
Boot and Macmillan actually say that.

You arguments are based on myths and versions of history discredited by more recently available original sources.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 04:28 AM

Dave,
Keith, I am not going to trawl back for the names since you have already said that any who do not agree with your reactionary views are of no value. You havn't answered on Beckett though, no doubt you will find a reason that he does not pass muster.

You have given two names who have written nothing in 50 years, and Becket who you failed to show disagreed with anything I have claimed.
Nothing in his reviews suggests he does.
You are being dishonest.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:00 PM

"Jim, I have a problem with you referring to Teritowelling as Pugwash."
Think of the pirate hat, the cutlass and the stupid grin.
I quite like the feel of territoweling - having this bollix hanging round your neck does't bear thinking about!
"don,t think they are Thatcherites"
Why not - Terrytoon (if you insist Raggy) has defended Thatcher, he has told us that when the Government adopts policies that create mass unemployment w should "Get on our bikes" (classic statement from arch-Thatcherite, Deaths Head Danny Tebbitt), he thinks British industry (before Thatcher closed it down) was shit and it was more profitable to buy abroad, both of them remain silent when her support for mass-murderer Pinochet is mentioned, Keith says what Thatcher believed but didn't dare to say out loud, let alone put into practice.......
If it quacks and waddles, it's almost certainly a duck.
" They raise good points and provide facts"
Only if you take what they say as being true and ignore the fact that they consistently refuse to respond to challenges.
Terrytoon just makes statements and talks down to people (always the sign of a bullshitter)
As far as things getting heated and out of control, both of them can be as insulting as anybody (to us poor "Leftie Muppets" and "ignoramouses". "gullible", "moron") - I have become extremely bored at being called a "liar" by Keith and actually counted a dozen times when he wrote "I win" or "you lose" on one thread - enough to make Mother Theresa spit feathers.
Their habit of claiming they have actually "won" and argument when it has been demolished (classless army, well off pre-war Liverpudlians, democratic in Britain in the 1830s....) used to be amusing, now it's just irritating.
If you believe their arguments, you are on your own - they are a couple of Lone Rangers here (still "winning", of course)
None of this makes for decent discussion - it would be nice to have an intelligent right-winger to argue with... not o far.
Best to all - off to spend Christmas where we don't have to cook or make beds for a few days - and drink a lorra - lorra Guinness..
Happy humbug.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:16 PM

Well,Richarrd I don,t think they are Thatcherites( whatever that means). They raise good points and provide facts. But it all gets heated and out of controlling that we all miss each other's points. butDaves question may get us to a far more important discussion. That is all I meant say. That issue is the essence of history, am I wrong?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 04:59 PM

Guest Dave I though made four good points which have not been the subject of rational dispute, only insult.

I made no point on history, merely that KtheA and Terribilis appear to be rabid Thatcherites. I remember that bitch all too well.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 04:37 PM

Dave, I do think you have raised a very interesting point. a discussion of thee issue you raised could take us away from that tedious and fruitless discussion of various views of history and get people on to a good debate on what the concept of the roll of the nation is. We seem, on some of these threads to get bogged down on historical interpretation. I was not meaning to dismiss or put aside your question. I just found it an interesting question about which we might have a really good question. I did not mean it to be an argy Barry response. It seems to me to cut to the heart of things and I feel it would make for a fruitful discussion. A whole different thread perhaps!!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 03:09 PM

Jim, I have a problem with you referring to Teritowelling as Pugwash.


Many years ago I had (was staff to) a huge black and white cat who I named Pugwash. That cat was an absolute star whom I loved dearly. To have him in any way mentioned in the same sentence as Terribums touches my sensibilities.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:55 PM

As I have said earlier Teritowelling I can only restate the things I have read (I wasn't there)

However Gary Mead in this biography of Douglas Haig states the rank of Launcelot Kiggell as does Wikipedia (not the best source I acknowledge)

Both sources state his rank as being Chief of General Staff under Haig from late 1915 until 1917 when, as you rightly state, he was dismissed after pressure from Lloyd George.

Keith, fount of all knowledge regarding WW1, stated CATEGORICALLY that he had not ever heard of him. So much for Keith's lifelong study.

Perhaps you would like to read the final line of his inclusion in the attached tome which also states his rank a being Chief of General Staff.

Now, either all these august sources are incorrect or you are.

Kiggell

Just how much do you actually know about the subject I ask myself.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:50 PM

Not complicated HiLo, and you don't need political science or history or anything like that, just current experience, to know that the state which doesn't function primarily for the welfare of its own citizens is a failed state.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:45 PM

"You have stepped beyond history and into the world of political philosophy, "
That's really what this is all about and far from being complicated (as our betters would, have us believe) it really is as simple as right and wrong.
Nobody here has responded to the suggestion that the present system we live under has outlived its purpose and is no longer fit for purpose - go and look at the rapidly growing poverty, homelessness, unemployment..... and the wanton destruction of the planet for profit.
We know how our couple of Tory Boys would react if they had the balls - everything is fine and those who wish to change things only feel that way out of "jealousy" - we've already had that from Pugwash 'ere, who also told us we should all get on our bikes, despite the cost to our families, if there's no work in our area - Tebbitt rides again.
No wonder the Tory Party are having such problems over bullying at the moment - these people are political thugs - Blackshirts writ small.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 01:11 PM

"As far as being left behind Jom - It was you wasn't it who tried to tell us all that in 1914 there was no work in Liverpool"
Correction - it was me that showed you there was no work in Liverpool - I already knew this - as I said, family history; both of my parents were alive and living in a fair degree of poverty at the outbreak of WW1 - don't need one of Keith's historians to tell m otherwise - SWF to do with "victimhood (a typical Tory smear, like "class jealousy - that's the way it was for working people at the time - nothing unique about my family - it's th way the other half lived.
Lloyd George was still attempting to adapt the Poor Laws at the outbreak of war - look it up, it's in the books.
In most of the North of England there was little work and the tactic of getting men to join the army as an alternative dates back at last to the 18th century.
You really are a nasty, right-wing piece of work, aren't you?
You have yet to even refer to the facts you were given, let alone disprove them, despite your somewhat dishonest attempt to claim you have - nor have you acknowledged all your other foot-in-mouths (democratic war my arse)
"land fit for heroes with everything they could possibly want provided for them"
That is a downright distortion of anything anybody has claimed - if you can't score points, make it up eh?
You have failed to address one single point made about the morality of how and why the war was fought - nor will you - your sort never do.
You have persuaded nobody here and you have humiliated yourselves with you outdated jingoism, your ignorance of how people lived and your grasp of the facts of a war that was fought by first persuading, then forcing young men to slaughter each other for territorial gain.
Your "new facts" change nothing - the soldier's diaries have largely not been published, some are available to researchers and those that have been given the light of day show what a barbaric exercise it all was.
if new evidence has been forthcoming, tell us what we kow now that we haven't always known instead of alluding to it as if you have studied it minutely - WHAT MAKES IT ANYTHING BUT BUTCHER FOR EMPIRE WILL DO FOR A START AND TELLING US WHAT WE GAINED OUT OF IT AS ORDINARY CITIZENS MIGHT HOW THAT IT WAS ALL WORTH WHILE - DON'T BE COY - GIVE IT A GO!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 12:43 PM

Ah Dave, you have opened the door much wider now. You have stepped beyond history and into the world of political philosophy, a complicated maze of a place and a much more turbulent issue than can be discussed briefly, but intriguing none the less.
"The nation has no other function other than the welfare of its population" . That seems simple enough on the surface but I believe that this is where there be dragons...in the actual definitions of things like , nation, welfare and indeed, function.
How does the "nation" ensure the "welfare" and so on.
What do you mean by this, I am truly interested to know.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 12:25 PM

Teribus, the nation has no function other than the welfare of its population. Which is something our current politicians seem not to remember.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 12:16 PM

Take it whatever way you like, they are laden so much with a twee brand of "Class Warrior" crap that they are so risible they damn near beggar description particularly #4:

"4) Military commanders, if not actually incompetent on which there are differing views, were prepared to place the interests of the national governments above the welfare of those under their command."

Of course in time of war political leaders and military commanders put the interests of the NATION ahead of the welfare of those under their command - those who are under their command have either volunteered or been conscripted to be deliberately put in harms way you bloody idiot.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 12:01 PM

Ok, Teribus, I will take that as an admission that you cannot answer.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:56 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 23 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM

Keith's claim to have made a lifelong study of WW1 was shown to be complete nonsense when he asked me who Lieutenant General Kiggell was, he said he'd never heard of him."

Hardly surprising that Keith A had never heard of him - apparently you haven't a clue about the man either.

What Lt-General Kiggell?

The one who in 1918 was a Divisional GSO1 in one of the many Divisions making up the British Army in France in 1918? If he was as someone stated a GSO1 attached to some Division in France in 1918 he would be numbered among the thousands of tiny cogs that allowed the machine to function.

Was he the Lt-General Kiggell who acted as a Liaison Office with the French, who was sacked by them in 1917 with the assistance of David Lloyd George?

Or as you claimed him to be the Chief of the General Staff in 1918 in which case Haig would have been working for him - hardly likely either as in the British Army of 1918 there was no such thing as the Chief of the General Staff the title was Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the man holding that rank was Haig's boss a man called Robertson - I can also assure you Raggy that no man by the name of Kiggell has ever held the post of Chief of the General Staff (CGS) or Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS).

You see some clarification is required, you introduced us to the man, he's your pigeon - but he is nowhere near as influential as you seem to think.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:30 AM

GUEST,Dave - 23 Dec 15 - 07:39 AM

YOUR four points, until I read them I had had no idea that anybody could be so naive, so misinformed or so bloody stupid.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:25 AM

As far as being left behind Jom - It was you wasn't it who tried to tell us all that in 1914 there was no work in Liverpool and that the only alternative was to join the Army and that the men available were all stupid enough, gullible enough to be hood-winked by lies told to them by the Government on the following promises:

1: That it would be over by Christmas
2: That they would be fighting the war to end war
3: That they would return to a land fit for heroes with everything they could possibly want provided for them

Only trouble was that in 1914 Liverpool was in the middle of a building boom so there was no shortage of jobs for unskilled labour. After War was declared there was no need for anybody to go out recruiting as the recruiting offices were overwhelmed by volunteers. Also no promises of any such kind as those detailed above were ever made to anyone during the entire course of the war.

As far as Jom's personal family history goes as far as his life in the UK goes he manages to take "victimhood" to new and never to be surpassed levels - The family motto being - "It always somebody else's fault".

"No new information of any significance has been discovered over that last twenty years - what has happened is that, at the centenary of the war a group of historians have decided to rehabilitate WW1 as well led and acceptable, and have adopted the extremely insulting tactic of suggesting that the British people's knowledge of that war is based on a television sit-com."

So no new information of any significance in the last 20 years:
- Hitherto unknown information from the Russians, Germans, French, Belgians
- Material released and declassified by the British Government
- Foreign material previously untranslated
- The personal records of former WW1 veterans who have died and their diaries have been donated to various museums
- Archeological work carried out across the former battlefields in advance of major infrastructure projects in Belgium and Northern France (Hey Jom it was on one of those within the last two years when it was discovered how it was that the Germans could pop up behind our guys on the first day of the Battle of the Somme - hitherto unknown, is that significant?)
- Major work related to the hundreds of thousands of letters and diaries held by the Imperial War Museum (Guess what Jom? - No mention of Summary Executions, Special Groups of Military Police and no mention at all about being forced over the top at gun point)

Now why would those Historians do that Jom? They would open themselves to ridicule by their peers and lose whatever reputation they had - they would be committing professional suicide. But there has been no ridicule, not a single thing that they have said has been challenged, most certainly nothing such as the disapprobation heaped on the works of the "revisionists" A.J.P. Taylor or Alan Clark when they wrote on the subject of the First World War.

(Note: Just for GUEST & GUEST Dave's benefit:

Those who wrote about the First World War from 1918 to 1929 were generally those who took part in it.

Those who wrote about it between 1929 and 1969 were "The Revisionists" as they disagreed with those who actually fought the War.

Those who wrote about it from 1970 onward armed with far more detailed information than the "Revisionists" generally agree with those who wrote in the period 1918 to 1929 and have discredited and disproved work done by the Revisionists.)

Lastly Jom I do not think at any time discussing this subject have I ever introduced as evidence that something happened the script of a televised drama - YOU HAVE, on more than one occasion - I do not rely on the drama department of either the BBC or ITV to support any statement I make. And Dr Gary Sheffield is not the only historian to lament the fact that most people's perceptions of the Great War far from being based on actual historical fact are based on shows such as "Blackadder Goes Forth" and "Oh What A Lovely War".

I see that the emoji-king still has got absolutely S.F.A. to say - so no surprises there.

Guest Dave - Ian Beckett, any chance of you actually highlighting where he takes the diametrically opposite view from the likes of Dr. Gary Sheffield on anything relating to the First World War? Don't worry I won't hold my breath - Reviews of Beckett's work are hardly recommendations.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:18 AM

Jim, or indeed burning Protestants in the time of Mary I.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:12 AM

"Jim, you have not named "unread" histotians."
"Unread" by Keith - sorry, probably should have made that clearer.
" Do you really think a bunch of historians got to gether to rewrite the past"
No - of course I don't - in the interim period the world moved on from the old excuses as to why so many millions of young men perished in defence of Empire and the world began to question (a) Whether the Empire was worth such a sacrifice and (b) whether a war based on throwing young man at one another until somebody gave up was a correct way to treat human beings.
The Empire died a few decades after WW1 ended and a war of attrition in the way WW1 was fought is no longer a consideration.
Defence of both of these is not a matter of historical fact, it is one of opinion.
We've always known how the war was fought - in the class-divided past it was accepted as the way things were - in retrospect it was as barbaric as it was burning Catholics in Henry VIII's time.
Defending either as "of it's time" is to defend barbarism.
The pomp of the last two years is a political defence of the indefensable (and a chance to profiteer from ceramic poppies, of course).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:08 AM

Thats what Keith does and you seem to find that acceptable

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:03 AM

Dave, are you seriously basing your judgement of historians on Amazon reviews. Have you read these historians at all ? How can you judge based on these reviews ?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM

Keith's claim to have made a lifelong study of WW1was shown to be complete nonsense when he asked me who Lieutenant General Kiggell was, he said he'd never heard of him.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 10:20 AM

Jim, you have not named "unread" histotians..those you mention are widely known. As for Margaret MacMillan, you claim not to have read her but have decided that she does not agree with Keith.
Why would a group of historians make such a desiscion, who are they. I am a bit confused by your logic here.
   Do you really think a bunch of historians got to gether to rewrite the past?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM

"Who are these unread historians , I am very curious!"
Take your pick
Keith claims to have read both Issac Deuscher and Robert Conquest on Stalin.
They contain basic contradictions totally unmissable to anybody who has read them, yet he refuses to commit himself on what that is.
He claims to have made a life's study of World War One yet was totally unaware that it led to nationwide revolution in Germany which was almost successful - he dismissed it as "made-up shit".
He used Max Hastings, a non-qualified tabloid journalist (he insisted on qualified, living, published-in-real-bookshops historians for the rest of us) as a source - having being given a review of Hastings book which shows him somewhat critical of the war and its leaders, he first dismissed it as a rubbish review, then claims the writer wasn't a historian, then claims that Hastings praise of the review was not genuine and finally settles on "Hastings doesn't contradicts my three points" - a sort of fumbling around until he finds an excuse.
That sort of behaviour does not inspire confidence that he has any real knowledge on the subject.
I don't claim to have read these people, but I stumbled on a copy of Margaret McMillan's book a few weeks ago and was able to spot thay as she said herself - the aspects of the war (the ones we are discussion) are incredibly complex and cannot be dealt with in soundbite-sizes responses - much of what I was able to read of her showed her to contradict or at least, only partially back up what Keith is claiming.
It stands to sense that relying on quick trawls of the net is stupid and simply dishonest.
It it utterly ludicrous to suggest that history has a sell-by date and all information has to come from living historians.
No new information of any significance has been discovered over that last twenty years - what has happened is that, at the centenary of the war a group of historians have decided to rehabilitate WW1 as well led and acceptable, and have adopted the extremely insulting tactic of suggesting that the British people's knowledge of that war is based on a television sit-com.
Keith and Terrytoon have both taken to that tactic like ducks to water.
And that's the case for the defense - yer 'onour
"All lies", no doubt!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM

Keith, I am not going to trawl back for the names since you have already said that any who do not agree with your reactionary views are of no value. You havn't answered on Beckett though, no doubt you will find a reason that he does not pass muster. To be honest, the Amazon reviewer of both Beckett and Pennell shows a lot more knowledge than you, and you can get a flavour of the differing perspectives from reading just the reviews. You still have not answered my points.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 09:16 AM

Dave,
Yes Keith, I have given them before I will not give them again.

You have not. Now you are being dishonest.
You have produced two historians who have written nothing on WW1 for fifty years.

Nothing written for at least 30 years agrees with your views except for one far right renegade who supports just one of the three.

That should shake your confidence in your dogma.
No-one with actual knowledge believes that stuff any more.
That is why you can't find anything.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:50 AM

Who are these unread historians , I am very curious!