History and mythology of WW1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:49 AM

"Gongs available for tame historians!"
Beautiful - must remember that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:47 AM

Why is it when you try sitting on a lilo it makes a farting sound?

There is nothing to debate here surely? Those who see UK society through a mixture of Ealing comedies, The Daily Mail and Pathe news are pissed off with us seeing WW1 as it was so have been embarking on a propaganda revision exercise. Gongs available for tame historians.

Of course, it helps to have waited till those present were ga ga first and to ramp it up once Harry had snuffed it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:45 AM

"Mr. Bridge has shown no knowledge of history that I can see but feels free to be critical of others"
Neither has Keith (cut-'n-pasts don't constitute knowledge) but you appear to support him uncritically
I don't recall your ever displaying a knowledge of the subject, but you appear to have appointed yourself to judge others.
In the end, grabbing examples from the net, or pretending to have read books then refusing to respond to problems and contradictions that the cut-'n-pastes raise when put in context, don't amount to a hill of beans - knowledge is acquired over a lifetime - not by scrabbling for quotes to back up preconceived prejudices - and then drawing up a set of rules as to which historian is valid and which is not - "living"- "dead"- "real" -"qualified"- "over the last twenty years", "well-known" - "selling in real bookshops"...... and all the other excuses Keith has used to score points, debases the whole thing.
That type of behaviour destroys decent discussion and makes a fool of the people who resort to such tactics.
None of us are historians as far as know, we all could do with expanding our knowledge, and discussions like these are ideal places to learn something new when they aren't sabotaged by agenda-driven competitors.
Someone who had developed a technique for scoring points by hiding behind unread historians (or "experts" as in other cases), spoils both the pleasure and the value of taking part in these discussions for the rest of it.
If I wanted to try and win competitions I'd enter for the X-Factor or Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:44 AM

In Keith's case most of them. Cut and paste's for sure, book reviews by the dozen, critiques certainly, a whole book. Not a chance.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:18 AM

Mr. Bridge has shown no knowledge of history that I can see but feels free to be critical of others. I did not accuse him of being ignorant because he did not agree with Keith.
Who are these "unread" historians ?

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

`"I simply pointed out that Margaret Macmillan is not a British historian and you accused me of trolling"
No - you arrogantly accused another poster of being ignorant because he didn't agree with Keith - that was clear from my posting:
"Richard, with all "due" respect, you don,t know enough history to make that assessment.""
Who on earth do you think you are to know what Richard, or anybody knows about history - everybody here seems to have a greater grasp of the subject than Keith, who makes a feature of quoting unread historians.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 07:39 AM

Yes Keith, I have given them before I will not give them again. Including of course one historian whose work you linked to yourself.

Actual issues:

1) WWI was an unnecessary war except from the viewpoint of the ruling classes on all sides, who were prepared to sacrifice the lives of millions of those they were supposed to represent in defence of their own territory and ego.

2) Millions joined up either out of desperation at the lack of alternative, or because they were taken in by the propoganda spread about how awful the other side were and would be if the war was lost.

3) The war could have been ended on at least two occasions, at the end of 1914 and at the end of 1916 if the ruling classes on both sides had been prepared to make territorial compromises.

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.

Now, those are the issues, address them please.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 07:38 AM

I simply pointed out that Margaret Macmillan is not a British historian and you accused me of trolling

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 07:32 AM

What exactly has Lilo said that needs response - examples please
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM

"Jim, why not just respond to the actual issues expressed by"
I've responded to everything here - you have responded to none
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM

Dave, disappointed you are also resorting the personal instead of the actual issues.

Are you comfortable arguing against so many historians?
Have you found anything recent that supports you?
No.
Ask yourself why. You can't really believe they are lying for political expediency.
Americans, Canadians,..
Pennel. Read her bio.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:19 AM

Err.. Set your rudder for a 180 deg turn and you might have a point Keith.

Revision has certainly become popular in the last twenty years. Sanitising military blunder and incompetence has been necessary according to the recruiting sergeants.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:11 AM

shallow revision

There was a period of partial revisionism after Haig's death, but that is all swept away now.

Nothing written for at least twenty years supports those shallow revisionist views any more.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:08 AM

Jim, Captain Pugwash was one of my favourite programmes when I was young. Very good analogy.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM

Jim, why not just respond to the actual issues expressed by Hilo and others instead of trying to make it personal?

You have your views on WW1 but they are contradicted the history books.
Anyone who reads history will tell you you have got it wrong.
Get used to it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM

Im the one deflating a lilo, getting the wind and piss out of it.

What is an acolyte then? I notice that those defending shallow revision to suit a view get all agitated and fidgety when they have to read a post rather than prejudge the person writing it.

Reality doesn't need acolytes. Just less fools impressed by jingoism.

Funny that.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 03:50 AM

"No one argues for me."
Nobody should have to argue for anybody, but if you are going to intervene in these hit-'n-run postings you should be prepared to argue for yourself and not snipe away from the undergrowth.
If you don't mind, Lilo seems to suit your behaviour better - an inflatable rubber bed full of air, #rather than Hilo - a large Hawaiian city - or a cappella quartet from my youth.
I seem to remember the times our paths have crossed, you have posted in the same trollish, hit and run manner you have here.
You are entitled to act the way you do, just as I am entitled to respond to you the way I do.
I YOU have anything to say, please say in and stop sniping it from th safety of distance.
At least Keith's and Cap'n Pugwash's inanities are occasionally afoored some entertainment and occasionally require a little checking (when they are not delivered from a position of imagined superiority) - yours do not.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:38 AM

Guest, which of the acolytes might you be?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:28 AM

Funny how lilo dives in supporting any reactionary establishment shit but gets offended when, and Jim above is on the button, he finds his superfluous contribution well and truly sussed.

Teribus meanwhile seems to have packed his satchel and gone back to school.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:59 PM

Jim, it's HiLo. No one argues for me. I have stated my case many times here and I do know a great deal about history and have, on a number occasions, pointed some factual errors made by you. I need no help in recognizing misinformation when I see it.
Whenever I have disagreed with you on matters of factual accuracy you have accused me of being a troll or , God forbid, a Thatcherite! I do contribute facts , you just choose to ignore them . Not my problem, yours Jim!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:37 PM

"Richard, with all "due" respect, you don,t know enough history to make that assessment."
With not a lot of respect, trolls who dodge in and out of discussions without making contributions themselves and allowing others to do thir arguments for them not only know nothing but don't even have the balls even to hang around and learn something - hit-and-run is hit-and-run, o the road and on the page.
C'mon Lilo - throw them a lifebelt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:27 PM

"Bloody hell. He can't even pop out an insult without getting his facts confused, then expects people to take his twaddle seriously"

Come to that he can't even read a compass.

Just a reminder Terribums

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:14 PM

Richard, with all "due" respect, you don,t know enough history to make that assessment.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:15 PM

K the A says (of Ferguson) "He is an imperialist and a far right Thatcherite". But the funny thing is that that is so of both KtheA and Terribilis his main ally.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM

Seem to lost him on Liverpool living in the lap of luxury prior to WW1 (don't need any mythical historians for this - it's my family history)
Never had him for any of the other points
True patriots all
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 12:41 PM

Here Terribulus!

You can tell the difference between Beveridge and Bevan. One wears a red top and the other a red cap 😆😆😆 eehh stoppit. A little bit of wee might escape.

Bloody hell. He can't even pop out an insult without getting his facts confused, then expects people to take his twaddle seriously.

Mind you, just shows how the analogy of an infinite number of monkeys typing can be compared to Terribulus's random key strokes. The best example of Beveridge's welfare state is Bevan's NHS. Anyway, the fools Terribulus doffs his cap to opposed any idea of rights for "the lower orders" and decided shooting them for shell shock was good leadership in 14-18.


🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 12:27 PM

Dick. I don't want you take this the wrong way like.. But you are one fucked up lunatic.

How about a Muslim or a ginger man or a man with one arm longer than the other "impregnating" your lover? Sick puppy.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 12:23 PM

Is Prince Philip racist?was he appaled at the possibilty of a muslim impregnating Diana? was she killed unlawfully?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 12:02 PM

Dave,
Ian F W Beckett, who is a British military historian, doesn't deem to agree with the Keith/Teribus narrative either.

On what grounds do you make that assertion?
None of the reviews of his work suggest any such thing.
Evidence please.

Greg and Dave,
her work, is not very accessible apart from in an academic library,
Thus you can be sure that the Professor has not actually read any of her work.

Many of her articles and essays are available on line, and I have quoted them extensively with links.

Dave,
Hang on, I thought before it was all historians, not just military historians.

That was specifically about the strategy and tactics of the Western front, which is the domain of military historians.

Weasel words again, all territory has been "stolen" time and time again.

So no country is entitled to resist any imperialist army that violates its borders and enslaves and kills its people?
You believe such shit?!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:18 AM

"Your piece on Liverpool was all about setting up a basic welfare system,"
It covers the poverty that made that welfare city necessary, the conditions of employment, including the 'pen' system which made it necessary for men to queue for work each day, then go home when there was none and try again the following day (still alive and kicking in New York when Budd Schulberg wrote On the Waterfront in 1954) - the docks - the Pen system lasted until the end of WW2 in Liverpool with the establishment of the National Dock Labour Board.
The document also deals with th deliberate driving down of wages by employers.
Conditions were appalling in pre-war Liverpool, among the worst in Britain
Have you any actual evidence on how well they were living - no - thought not?
"Belcham merely points to the rapid expansion of the city,"
Not how the people lived then - what's your point in putting it up as a claim that people like Kenny didn't join up out of necessity?
"Quite frankly couldn't care less, but:"
Isn't that obvious - SFA to do with the fact that the Army were recruiting on the basis of offering the unemployed a steady secure job, which you denied - whose fault Northern Ireland, The Falklands, Iraq, and Afghanistan were is nothing more than a smokescreen - though interesting you should defend all of them - oil wars and searched for non existent WMD ad all
A caricature Blimp
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:14 AM

Ian F W Beckett, who is a British military historian, doesn't deem to agree with the Keith/Teribus narrative either.

Actually I find that a book, possibly based on Pennell's PhD thesis, is available on Amazon if you are prepared to shell out for it. There are good reviews of both Pennell's book and one by Beckett, written by the same person on the Amazon website.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:11 AM

Margaret MacMillans work is very accesable. She has written a number of books, two of which have been best sellers. She has also published a book of essays on people in history. She is a widely known and respected historian..and not british.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:06 AM

GUEST - 22 Dec 15 - 06:46 AM

So a television programme now becomes a reliable source of history."

It would certainly appear to when it suits yours or Jom the infallible's purposes.

Certainly a factual historical documentary beats television drama, comedy, and a horrendously misrepresented film script.

GUEST - 22 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM

It was me who called Teribus an ignorant fool. I have never mentioned flamingos in a post. Or aardvarks."

Prove it - Ignorant fool

Ferguson thinks that Great Britain would have been better off economically had it stayed out of the war - In that he is remarkably at odds with the Foreign Secretary at the time Sir Edward Grey. Ferguson is also in error as his conclusion is based on the assumption that things would have gone back to the way they were before, as happened by and large after the end of the Franco-Prussian War - then the Prussians stole Alsace-Lorraine from the French - with a Belgian and French defeat in 1914 Belgium would be annexed, their colonies along with those of the French would have become German and the ports of Ostende, Zeebrugge and Antwerp would provide bases for a powerful German High Seas Fleet only four hours steaming from London.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM

Ooops.

her work, is not very accessible apart from in an academic library,

Thus you can be sure that the Professor has not actually read any of her work.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM

Both have quoted Margaret MacMillan who is Not a British Historian

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:55 AM

And the only serious name he seems to come up with is Catriona Pennell, of the University of Exeter. Unfortunately her work, is nit very accessible apart from in an academic library, so I have not checked whether she really does say what Keith claims, or whether its more cherry picked quotes.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM

GUEST - 22 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM Then that shows you how much you know then - perhaps you should do some reading - I'd suggest actual history not the scripts from a television series or a film.

Jim Carroll - 22 Dec 15 - 06:35 AM All over the place again Jom. Your piece on Liverpool was all about setting up a basic welfare system, Liverpool being only one of the cities where different approaches were compared - That being the subject of the paper - who would be entitled and who would not - OF COURSE IT BLOODY WELL FOCUSES ON THOSE REQUIRING ASSISTANCE AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY LIVED - Belcham merely points to the rapid expansion of the city, the projects underway and the fact that there was work to be had for those that wanted it.

Care to to tell me how Keith A can provide quotes from Paxman to camera yet you cannot Jom?

August to December 1914 1.2 million VOLUNTEERS - none needed to be tricked into joining - none were made false promises regarding what they would get out of it - They VOLUNTEERED in time of war to do their duty to their country, they VOLUNTEERED knowing that they would not only be expanding the Army to face the Germans but also to make good the numbers lost at Mons, Le Cateaux and on the Marne.

"When we used to visit the borders in the 80s and 90s we drank in pubs with beer mats saying "out of a job - join the Army; they didn't mention Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, The Falklands, Iraq... and all those other exotic places where you were expected to go and fly the flag and slaughter the residents."

Quite frankly couldn't care less, but:

1: In Northern Ireland it was Irishmen killing the residents as I recall - check the Sutton Index of deaths for details

2: Afghanistan - What?? In the 1980s and 1990s?? - Don't think so - try 2001 Jom - what were the beer mats saying then? I prefer my information from better and fuller sources.

3: The Falklands?? I am absolutely dying to hear Jom the infallible tell us all about the residents our Task Force slaughtered. I am interested you see as I was under the distinct impression that that Task Force sailed in response to an act of aggression perpetrated by the ruling military Junta in Argentina, who at the time were involved in the disappearance of tens of thousands of their own citizens and who could possibly come up with a similar solution for the British Subjects of the Falkland Islands.

4: Iraq - UN Operation that one Jom again in response to the naked aggression of a despotic ruler who was killing his own countrymen at a rate of somewhere between 154 and 282 per day

None of the above has got anything to do with the subject in hand, neither does your book about why Irishmen joined the British Army. If you can't stick to the point don't waste my time - it's hard enough wading through your appallingly presented meandering rants.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:35 AM

How about social historians?

Hell, how about all the historians in the world besides BRITISH historians, which are all the Professor quotes?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:20 AM

Not that our own ruling classes are just another type of German, or anything like that.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:18 AM

Keith says:

"Military historians are quite clear that nothing else was possible."

Hang on, I thought before it was all historians, not just military historians. How about social historians? I would take their views rather more seriously, military historians after all have a vested interest in their being more wars for them to be historians about.

"The other allies were just trying to liberate the German "territorial gains" stolen from them."

Weasel words again, all territory has been "stolen" time and time again. Including by our own ruling classes from us. If German ruling classes had been trying to "steal" land from our ruling classes, which they had before stolen from us, why should we take sides, especially when to do so means the deaths of millions of us.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM

You've relagated him - he was "the leading" at one time

No. I said that Hastings headed the list (of BBC's leading WW1 historians.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

"No. They all agree on these things anyway."
Wat the **** does that mean?
They all agree on those 3 issues we disagree on.

If you were interested you would be able respond to the list of questions put to you - you haven't and you won't.

I thought I had, but your long rambling posts make it possible I have missed something.
Just put up clearly what you want answering. Just one or two at a time please.

I am interested in what they say which is very different from your carefully selected and edited cut-'n-pastes.
You can not find any, and my quotes are representative and in context, as can be seen by clicking the links.

Try again - how was a war attrition which consisted of sending men to their deaths until one sidee gave up "well led" and not simple butchery?

It did become such a war.
Military historians are quite clear that nothing else was possible.
Britain was not in it for "territorial gains."
That was just the Germans.
The other allies were just trying to liberate the German "territorial gains" stolen from them.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:36 AM

"He is among their "Ten leading WW1 historians" and has written extensively for their history site."
You've relagated him - he was "the leading" at one time - that's fame for you - here today, gone tomorrow
"No. They all agree on these things anyway."
Wat the **** does that mean?
"If you were interested in the truth you would care about the findings of the historians.
If you were interested you would be able respond to the list of questions put to you - you haven't and you won't.
I am interested in what they say which is very different from your carefully selected and edited cut-'n-pastes.
"I am and I have."
Now you are lying
Try again - how was a war attrition which consisted of sending men to their deaths until one sidee gave up "well led" and not simple butchery?
How can sending so many millions of young man to their deaths for territorial gain be justified, especially when one of the protagonists has slaughtered ten million of their colonials?
Will dig up the rest of them when you have answered them - not your mythical "historians"
Won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:27 AM

Is that all you have Guest?
Not much is it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM

So stop saying ALL for ***** sake !!!!!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM

so there is not, as you claim, 100% agreement is there.

I have always acknowledged that Furguson, alone, challenges one of my three points.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:13 AM

Jim,
As I said - his name appeared in the credits.
No it was not.

If I am mistaken, then it calls into question your claim of him being the leading authority on the war.
It does not.
He is among their "Ten leading WW1 historians" and has written extensively for their history site.

These were extremely well, no-expenses-spared, researched programmes by the BBC - it is inconceivable that they should overlook Britain's leading authority on the War.

No. They all agree on these things anyway.
The resources of The Open University" were more than adequate.

Whan will you gety it into your head that nobody gives a tuppenny **** about your claims of which historian said what.

If you were interested in the truth you would care about the findings of the historians.

If you are not prepared to back your claims with personal knowledge by responding to the points made,

I am and I have.

hiding behind unread historians is uninformative, unedifying and downright boring.

Normal, intelligent people learn their history from the history books.
You reject them in favour of discredited political dogma.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:05 AM

so there is not, as you claim, 100% agreement is there.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:02 AM

"I have always acknowledged Ferguson."
Bet he sleeps easier in his bed at night after that
You are every bit as pompous as your mate and just as ignorant
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:57 AM

I have always acknowledged Ferguson.
He does not dispute that the army was competently led, or that British people supported the war.
He tries to make a case that Britain could have kept its Empire if it had allowed Europe to fall to the Germans. He is an imperialist and a far right Thatcherite.
No other historian agrees.

On another matter he expressed the view that Keynes had no stake in Britain's future because he was gay and childless.
That is your only man, and he only disagrees one of the three issues.