History and mythology of WW1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 04:07 AM

Keegan does seem to have been associated with some pretty right wing organisations though, including William Buckley's National Review, and the Daily Telegraph.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 04:03 AM

A good military historian should be eligible to apply for a job in any university which has military history as part of its history degree, or indeed offers a military history degree as several do. You don't need to be pro military to teach military history.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 03:25 AM

Coor! Have I insulted your poster boy Terribulus?

Anyone who appears on a website with a name that stinks of conspiracy theory does tend to get intelligent people suspicious. That he teaches soldiers to respect and trust their leaders just reinforces my point.

He got a gong for doing so too.

As ever, fools confuse collation of evidence with expressing a view. His view, flawed enough that he is used by conspiracy websites, does not tally with his own evidence, let alone the evidence that normal rational people can see for themselves.

All wind and piss, good old Terribulus.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 07:17 PM

is a swan the only bird that gets your knickers in a twist. not really that surprised

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 01:04 PM

None of the links or comments you post seem to have anything to do with your three points, Keith. Are you now adding the dozen or so issues mentioned to your points and saying that all historians agree with all of them?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 12:51 PM

Cor, that'll confuse him.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 12:33 PM

His subject was the fiction of the Great War

So he's not a historian then, Professor?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 12:26 PM

DtG, their are widely believed false versions of WW1 history that have myth status.

E.g. as Catriona Pennell wrote,
" 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."

e.g. Viewpoint: 10 big myths about World War One debunked.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

eg
Margaret Macmillan
Another myth: that the generals on both sides were heartless effete aristocrats who sipped champagne behind the lines while they pondered, unsuccessfully, the challenges of modern industrial war.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/10/first-world-war-centenary-understanding-not-political-point-scoring

eg
Max Boot
World War I continues to be misunderstood by most ordinary people who have not yet caught up with the evolving consensus of historians. Three big myths, in particular, dominate the popular perception. First, that it was an accident, a war nobody wanted — a view immortalized in Barbara Tuchman's beautifully written if factually questionable 1962 book "The Guns of August." Second, that it didn't really matter who won — that there was scant difference between the Central and Entente Powers. And third, that soldiers were needlessly sent to slaughter by unfeeling and cloddish generals — "lions led by donkeys" in the popular parlance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/books/review/catastrophe-1914-by-max-hastings.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 11:22 AM

The truth as ever can be found by looking at the mass graves in France.

Or, in words the village idiot understands, it's a bit like a mass grave in Seaham only containing humans.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 11:05 AM

What game is that then??? The thread is labelled "History and mythology of WW1". I have seen plenty of differing opinions on the history of WW1, all of which have some element of truth and nothing, as yet, about WW1 mythology. What is that all about? Anyone know the rules of this game, or even what the game is?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 10:45 AM

Well, I think we can say pretty conclusively....... that's game, set and match to Mr K and Mr T!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 10:43 AM

So anyway. There I was saying that some historians revised history and sanitised the military in return for a gong and Keith helps somewhat by referring to Keegan, who was employed by the army and got a gong for telling wannabe officers how proud they must be of their reputation over the years.

The only Keegan who I had time for permed his hair and played for Liverpool.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 10:01 AM

Whichever historian you read, there were no mutinies of British soldiers in the front line in WW1.
Every other army, but not ours.

They all say the same whatever their background.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 09:44 AM

Not that John Keegan was likely to be biased or anything, you know just 26 years as a senior lecturer at Sandhurst Royal Military Academy. No not likely to be biased.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 09:18 AM

And, it is not a conspiracy website.
The author did PhD research at Oxford Brookes University. His subject was the fiction of the Great War (That's the fiction they were writing at the time and just after, not modern novels about the war).
PhD awarde 2010.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 09:11 AM

The quote is of historian John Keegan OBE FRSL .In the 2000 New Year Honours, he was knighted "for services to Military History".[14]

In 1996 the Society for Military History awarded him the Samuel Eliot Morison Prize. It recognises not any one specific achievement, but a body of contributions in the field of military history, stretching over time and showing a range of scholarly work contributing significantly to the field.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 08:49 AM

Oh gosh. A conspiracy website called, amazingly enough "greatwarfiction" is being used to inform reality.

A bit like those websites telling you about the government cover ups of the reality of Area 51, Loch Ness Monster, moon landings in Arizona and Jesus.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 08:14 AM

Jim, Macmillan's book does not even address the facts I have put forward, but I have quoted her unequivocally supporting my views in other work.

Historians of all backgrounds do, so your claim about that is proved wrong.
You can find no historian of any background who still holds those old discredited views you cling to!

Sure, but nothing major happened during or as a result of this.

It was still escalating, but in August 1914 there came events that united the whole nation, and the strikes and unrest came to an end.

It is racist to ascribe characteristics to a population, but if you claim that it was some inadequacy in British people that led them to make a stand against a cruel aggressor, I will not argue.

My case is just that they did, and the historians' research and evidence proves me right.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 07:32 AM

"Everything I have claimed is fully endorsed in the works of Margaret Macmillan (Canadian), Catrional Pennel, Max Boot (US) and many others."
When are you going to accept the fact that hit and rung dips into authors does not constitute full endorsement of anything?
It is obvious you haven't read Margaret McMillian, as you claim - how could you have read a book that size when you can't handle a single posting of any length here?
You have never read Catherine Pennell, or Max Boot (or are you now adding them to your claims).
Haven't you learned by your cock-ups over Christine Kenneally, Max Hastings, Gary Sheffield and your spectacular cock-up on the position the left took on WW1... and all the other foot-in- mouths you have displayed by selecting bits and missing the main story?
Not only do you not understand the work of historians, you don't even understand the function of history as a science, as your outrageous 'shelf-life' of dead historians proves beyond doubt.
I read enough of the McMillan book to realise that you have no clue as to what she has really said about the war - it bears no resemblance to your ludicrous claims.
A historian presents a set of facts coupled with his or her conclusion drawn from those facts - the facts should be indisputable, opinion is a matter of the author's own outlook on life.
Take Gary Sheffield's "waste of human lives" - which is, given the number, an indisputable fact.
His statement that is was worthwhile is based on nothing but his own attitude to the war, the Empire and human life in general - yet you present it as divine writ because it suits your own political/philosophical stance to do so.
If the contrary arguments are "lies" then deal with the arguments - your extreme right wing position is no more valid than a left wing one - you are an extremist in the most extreme.
You prove nothing on the basis of your right-wing beliefs only by your dismantling the arguments themselves.
At no time have you put forward your own arguments - just out of context quotes of others as if they are indisputable because of who said them - that is a despicably cowardly way to behave.
"Orthodox military historians tend to disagree."
There you go again - by orthodox, you appear to mean those who agree with your rightist views which includes extreme rightist tabloid journalists.
All historians are human beings who bring a lifetime of political and religious opinions, experiences and ideologies to their work - their facts may (or may not) be accurate; their opinions are - well - a matter of opinion, and no opinion should be disregarded or dismissed because it doesn't coincide with your own (or because the author is dead - still can't get over that one!!).
Now how about putting your own opinions instead of hiding behind the assumed opinions of others - it really is both educational and very satisfying.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 07:32 AM

"Everything I have claimed is fully endorsed in the works of Margaret Macmillan (Canadian), Catrional Pennel, Max Boot (US) and many others."
When are you going to accept the fact that hit and rung dips into authors does not constitute full endorsement of anything?
It is obvious you haven't read Margaret McMillian, as you claim - how could you have read a book that size when you can't handle a single posting of any length here?
You have never read Catherine Pennell, or Max Boot (or are you now adding them to your claims).
Haven't you learned by your cock-ups over Christine Kenneally, Max Hastings, Gary Sheffield and your spectacular cock-up on the position the left took on WW1... and all the other foot-in- mouths you have displayed by selecting bits and missing the main story?
Not only do you not understand the work of historians, you don't even understand the function of history as a science, as your outrageous 'shelf-life' of dead historians proves beyond doubt.
I read enough of the McMillan book to realise that you have no clue as to what she has really said about the war - it bears no resemblance to your ludicrous claims.
A historian presents a set of facts coupled with his or her conclusion drawn from those facts - the facts should be indisputable, opinion is a matter of the author's own outlook on life.
Take Gary Sheffield's "waste of human lives" - which is, given the number, an indisputable fact.
His statement that is was worthwhile is based on nothing but his own attitude to the war, the Empire and human life in general - yet you present it as divine writ because it suits your own political/philosophical stance to do so.
If the contrary arguments are "lies" then deal with the arguments - your extreme right wing position is no more valid than a left wing one - you are an extremist in the most extreme.
You prove nothing on the basis of your right-wing beliefs only by your dismantling the arguments themselves.
At no time have you put forward your own arguments - just out of context quotes of others as if they are indisputable because of who said them - that is a despicably cowardly way to behave.
"Orthodox military historians tend to disagree."
There you go again - by orthodox, you appear to mean those who agree with your rightist views which includes extreme rightist tabloid journalists.
All historians are human beings who bring a lifetime of political and religious opinions, experiences and ideologies to their work - their facts may (or may not) be accurate; their opinions are - well - a matter of opinion, and no opinion should be disregarded or dismissed because it doesn't coincide with your own (or because the author is dead - still can't get over that one!!).
Now how about putting your own opinions instead of hiding behind the assumed opinions of others - it really is both educational and very satisfying.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 07:27 AM

The WEA is hardly an extreme political group.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 07:23 AM

"But it was the inspiring strike action of the organised working class, in many cases in defiance of their national leaders, that had the potential to transform political and social relations in Britain."

"Had the potential to". Not did. Things just went back to the way they were. The government got involved in a war, made a big song and dance about how beastly the foreigners were, and when it was over all had been forgotten. An oft repeated tactic, it worked again in 1982.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 07:19 AM

"It was the breadth and spontaneity of the action throughout 1911 and 1912 that shook the political establishment to the core, and took the trade union leaders unawares. Combining concession with coercion, the government was forced to intervene directly in negotiations while deploying troops against striking workers."

Sure, but nothing major happened during or as a result of this. In other countries, this deployment of troops would have been the beginning of the end for the regime. But in Britain, the workers went back under their rocks. Compare St. Petersburg 1917.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 06:45 AM

Étaples seemed to be a shining example of mass revolt.
Orthodox military historians tend to disagree. By and large the morale of the British Army stood up to four years of punishing war better than that of other nations. The British was the only major Army not to suffer from widespread mutiny. The Étaples mutiny was small-scale, highly localised, and a (largely justified) response to bad management on the part of the officers in charge of the camp. John Keegan has written:

The Étaples 'mutinies' amounted to no more than a few days of disorder, a little disrespect to officers and some loudly-voiced demands for human treatment. The army reacted briskly. It restored discipline by bringing in unaffected troops. It removed the cause of discontent by replacing the worst of the staff with wise men. That is about all there was to the British Army 'mutinies' of the 1914 – 1918 war."
https://greatwarfiction.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/2670/

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 06:29 AM

You have based much of your arguments on a WW1 on a historian in the employ of Britain's military establishment

Everything I have claimed is fully endorsed in the works of Margaret Macmillan (Canadian), Catrional Pennel, Max Boot (US) and many others.
They all say the same on those issues Jim, directly contradicting the lies fed to you by extreme political groups.

Dave,
The British, or more specifically the English, have always been a subservient nation, at least as far back as the 11th century.

Your ignorance of history is astonishing!

"100 years ago the working class responded to the terrible conditions imposed on them by taking mass industrial action in what became known as the 'great unrest'. The Liberal government was already beset with a political and social crisis, including looming civil war in Ireland and mutiny at the top of the armed forces over Home Rule.

The civil unrest of the women's suffrage movement added to the government's woes. But it was the inspiring strike action of the organised working class, in many cases in defiance of their national leaders, that had the potential to transform political and social relations in Britain.

It was the breadth and spontaneity of the action throughout 1911 and 1912 that shook the political establishment to the core, and took the trade union leaders unawares. Combining concession with coercion, the government was forced to intervene directly in negotiations while deploying troops against striking workers. The union leaders struggled to regain authority and control over unofficial action as workers rejected their attempts to reach shoddy agreements with the employers.

There were 872 different strikes in 1911. There were 18 separate disputes in Lancashire alone"
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/11183

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 06:04 AM

"its an interesting question,"
Not true anyway; as well as mutinies in Calais and lE Havre, military disturbances took place in Southwick, Folkestone, Dover, Osterley Park, Shortlands, Westerham Hill, Felixstowe, Grove Park, Shoreham, Briston, Aldershot, Kempton Park, Southampton, Maidstone, Blackpool, Park Royal, Chatham, Fairlop and Biggin Hill, as well as at several London railway stations where troops refused to embark for Russia and France.
Don't be taken in by this clown's dishonesty Dave - he makes it up as he goes along.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 05:53 AM

"Jim, I said that you people learned what you think you know from political propaganda not history."
You are wrong and your arrogance is underlined by the fact that you have no idea whatever where I learned what I know, whose lectures I attended or what books I have read.
You have based much of your arguments on a WW1 on a historian in the employ of Britain's military establishment and a tabloid journalist who worked for a newspaper that openly published articles is support of Hitler.
Considering that fact, how ****** dare you suggest that I learned from propaganda?   
You have my points, answer them and stop lyingly claiming that you already have.
Neither you or your greasy cook have ever attempted to do so start now - and have the balls to put them up as your ideas and not some historian's you haven't read - that is spineless cowardice.
Don't know about 'The Moral Maze" - you are a total moral mess.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 05:32 AM

"Partially correct but oddly enough none of the above occurred in Great Britain - wonder why that was Jom?"

Leaving aside the name calling, its an interesting question, and one which a sociologist might answer. You were very careful to write Great Britain, because it clearly did happen in Ireland. So why not in Great Britain. The British, or more specifically the English, have always been a subservient nation, at least as far back as the 11th century. With the one brief interregnum of the civil war and the commonwealth, they have accepted the status quo, and their own position of subservience. Why then, when the Russians and the Irish were throwing off the shackles, did they not do the same?

At least part of the answer is in the manipulation of public opinion, which contrary to some views did not begin in the 1980s. The elites successfully used their stranglehold on the media of the day, which was newspapers to portray first the Germans, then the Russians, as a greater enemy than themselves. But thats not the whole answer, as to why the public of the time fell for it, a Sociologist's or Psychologist's opinion is called for.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 04:47 AM

Jim, I said that you people learned what you think you know from political propaganda not history.
How right I was, but in that massive cut and paste you have just dumped on the thread there is nothing that challenges anything I have said.

What was your point in posting all that stuff?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 04:44 AM

"I learn history from the history books."
You keep saying that Keith and you keep getting it wrong - Hastings, Christine Kennealy, Sheffield, Margaret McMillan, The Famine, Historical revisionism now the left's attitude to the war.
Your half-arsed abuse of historians sets your foot firmly in your mouth over and over again.
You have yet to prove you have ever read a book - you persistently whinge about postings being too long - remind me, how many pages has Hastings 'Catastrophe' got, or McMillan's doorstep of a book, or Isaac Deuscher's and Robert Conquest's tomes on Stalin - all of which you claim to have read? Give us a break Keith - how thick do you think we are, not to notice such anomalies.
You lied about reading Deuscher/Conquest - you can't even answer a basic question on them
You make super-crass statements about dead historians being irrelevant - proof positive that you don't even understand the disciplines of history, let alone the detail.
You are more interested in proving yourself right than you are actually understand what your historian#s are saying, so you pick out the bits that suit the moment
"I am trying to imagine a history course that requires students to attend lectures on WW1 for ten years!"
We were discussing left politics Keith - not WW1
I told you a long time ago thaty my interest was European political and social history.
For over ten years I was part of a political historical debating group that dealt with the subject - they held regular talks and weekend seminars, produced reading lists and brought together people with similar interests - it was a left-political organisation.
The Workers Education, of whom my Grandfather was an instigator of the seaman's se
ction, did similar things.
"Nothing written for at least twenty years supports the old myths that you still cling to."
Yo have yet to prove you know what has been written in the last twenty years
I've told you - I see it pointless to swap historians with you - the fact that you confine your arguments to the last twenty years yet are unable to give one single example of new evidence having been found in that period, really does make you a total waste of space as far as debating is concerned - your supreme ignorance on every subject you have ever argued underlines that fact.
"Start your own thread on it Jom"
Why should I bother Cookie - your failure to respond to one single point I have made tells me everything I need to know. As for what support I would get - do you really claim you have support for your right-wing extremism here - little evidence of it if you have - just a squalid little bunch of Homophobes, Islamophobes and downright racists who nip in and out to give you assistance when you are blowing for tugs.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 04:07 AM

Dave, to know what people thought about the war, you have to research what they said about it at the time.
Overwhelmingly the people supported it, and not because they were lied to or duped.

Jim, I am trying to imagine a history course that requires students to attend lectures on WW1 for ten years!
Who gave those lectures Jim?

I learn history from the history books.
Nothing written for at least twenty years supports the old myths that you still cling to.
Why is that Jim?
Dave?
All liars?
All deluded?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 03:55 AM

"Now once again - how about showing us that my description of right wing policies is an " idiotic little rant"? "

Start your own thread on it Jom - See how many takers you get, but I for one am not going to fall for your little diversion. The thread topic is "History and mythology of WW1" - stick to that.

GUEST HiLo referred to MacMillan interviews in them when discussing how and why war was not inevitable in the summer of 1914 she mentions the massive material improvement of all classes since the end of last large European War (1815) - all except of course in Liverpool eh Jom? - Always somebody else's fault - now that could be the title of your little song.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 03:48 AM

1929... Rather specific date you put out there Terribulus. I wonder why?

Oh. I get it now. Sorry. I thought we were discussing history itself, rather than your selective cherry picking of sources.

Nothing to see here. zzzzzz
😴

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 07:48 PM

"John Riddell - Marxist apologist - former leader of the Revolutionary Workers League "
The article contains transcripts of the discussions around whether the left should support the war - unlike you pair, it is not opinion but a documented study of those discussions.
Who should we believe - a pair of extremists like you - Thatcher (the lady who described Pinochet as "a democrat") supporters, people who try to glorify a bloodbath, or to tell us to "get on our bikes" after the tories have destroyed British industry, or who describe that industry as "crap" and say we have to buy from abroad - British skills aren't good enough
Might as well go to the BNP to ask about the contribution blacks make to Britain
You are a pair of screaming right winger extremists.
If you care to look at further documented evidence, I suggest you follow the other articles on on the site
A reminder of what it means to be right wing
"Your right wing shit gave us the Holocaust, a King who supported Hitler, and a Royal Family teaching their sprogs to give the Nazi salute, not to mention a Depression, an ongoing series of recessions, mass unemployment, a divided Britain, permanent high employment, an increasing gap between rich and poor, mass homelessness, a non-industrial Britain - and to top it all, a Prime Minister who exposed herself as a fascist by announcing that Pinochet's mass-murdering policies was her idea of democracy.... need I go on?   
Wouldn't be too proud about being right wing, with your political record. "
"wonder why that was Jom?"
That you have to ask that question defines what you pair are - as about divorced from the real life of ordinary people as you can get.
I really am not interested in your (unqualified as usual) minutia nitpicking of the article - what it does is make total shit of Keith's claim that the left supported the war.
Of course we all know that you know far more that someone who has studied and written as many books and articles on the subject, that's why we don't need any evidence to your crass claims of a classless army and a prosperous pre-war North of England and Democracy at the time workers were being shipped to Australia for farming unions or before half the population got the vote - you just6 have to state it and - whoosh - it's a fact!!
Now once again - how about showing us that my description of right wing policies is an " idiotic little rant"? - No - thought we'd have to take your word for it again.
You pair really are a joke
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 07:12 PM

Ehmmm No Academic Dave those who wrote about the war between 1914 and 1929 based their work on THEIR experiences, The Revisionists who wrote between 1929 and 1969 basically rubbished what had been written before often to further their own agendas. Historians who have written about the First World War basically rubbish the conclusions of the Revisionists and back up much or what was written between 1914 and 1929.

Tell me Jom what say did all those Soviet Trades Unionists have in the democide perpetrated by Lenin and Stalin that murdered roughly 38 million Soviet citizens?

In detailing your "Empires" Jom you missed one out didn't you. The Russian Empire did not disappear did it - all those nice communists took it over in it's entirety - it finally collapsed in 1990 - bankrupt, corrupt and incapable of feeding itself all thanks to Uncle Joe Stalin.

"Austria-Hungary reacted with an ultimatum to the Serbian government that would have virtually destroyed Serbian independence.

Serbia rejected these demands, and Austria declared war on July 28."

Not true Jom - best tell your pal Riddell that, Serbia agreed to all but one of the terms detailed by the Austrians, The German Kaiser pushed for Serbia's total capitulation.

"A German invasion brought Belgium into the war."

He's wrong again here too Jom - The German mobilisation plan depended upon immediate invasions of both Luxembourg and Belgium - Belgium was invaded and the invading forces were opposed by the Belgian Army the invasion of Belgium brought Great Britain into the war (Great Britain at this time had no formal military alliance with either France or Russia)

"The United States entered the war in 1917, giving the Entente a marked material superiority."

More ill-informed crap Jom - The US Army arriving in France had nothing to fight with, they were totally equipped by Great Britain and France.

"FOR THE peoples in Europe's warring countries, the conflict brought untold suffering and death. As the war progressed, working people responded with strikes, protests, mutinies and uprisings."

Partially correct but oddly enough none of the above occurred in Great Britain - wonder why that was Jom?

John Riddell - Marxist apologist - former leader of the Revolutionary Workers League - how objective could the man be FFS He couldn't possibly have any ulterior agenda now would he?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:56 PM

Hang on, I though that historians who were there couldn't be trusted and it was only ones writing in that last 20 years that we should believe!
For **** sake, don't confuse him with facts Daave
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:48 PM

"Who are you to rubbish them? They were there and they knew a lot more about it than you do."
Somebody who spent a solid ten years attending lectures on the subject - that's ******* who
Who are you to think you could grasp something with a few cut'n- pastes that it took me most of my life to understand and coome to terms with - feckin' arrogant eejit?
These subjects have been a part of my life for most of my life, cince my late childhood at least - not explanations from the back of matchboxes a beer-mats
If I wanted to know about history I wouldn't go to someone who claims to have read history books than its totally unable to anwser a basically simple question on two he has claimed to read - especially someone who whines about postings to this thread being too long
""Jim, if you post screenfuls of text in one posts it becomes impossible to reply with anything short enough to be readable by any normal person""
What kind of morons do you take us for Keith - you have neither the initiative to come up with your own opinions nor the balls to stand behind your claims - you now persistently crouch behing "historians" and "experts".
You want to know how the left respoded to the war - read on - sorry it's so long - maybe you can persuade the BBC to put it in cartoon form for you.
And don't you dare whinge that it's from the "leftie" Socialist Worker - I'm not one of their supporters by any means, but it's one of the most conicise analyses of the position of the left at the time you are likely to find - I'd rather take their summary that a ultra-right conservative who hates Muslims and wants all refugees to be sent home.
Jim Carroll   

Capitalism's world war and the battle against it
July 28, 2014
John Riddell is the author and editor of numerous books, including, most recently, Toward the United Front: Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, 1922. Here, he explains how the First World War broke out 100 years ago, how the socialist movement reacted, and how a revolutionary antiwar opposition emerged.

Trench warfare between French and German troops during the First World War
Trench warfare between French and German troops during the First World War
ONE HUNDRED years ago, fighting broke out among the great powers of Europe, launching what has become known as the First World War. The brutal conflict, which lasted more than four years, proved to a decisive turning point for humankind and for its socialist movement, and its effects are strongly felt even today.
The run-up to war began on June 28, 1914, when Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Hapsburg throne of the Austro-Hungarian empire, was assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian nationalist. Four weeks later, Austria-Hungary reacted with an ultimatum to the Serbian government that would have virtually destroyed Serbian independence.

Serbia rejected these demands, and Austria declared war on July 28. Over the next seven days, the great powers of Europe joined the conflict: Russia, France and Great Britain on the Serbian side; Germany in alliance with Austria-Hungary. A German invasion brought Belgium into the war.

The initial shock of battle was inconclusive, and the war settled into a murderous and extremely destructive stalemate. The list of belligerents grew, including Ottoman Turkey on the German side (called the Central Powers); Italy with the British and French (the "Entente").

Both sides imposed naval blockades, the Germans utilizing submarines. Both utilized aviation, newly invented, as a weapon of war. Fighting spread to overseas colonies, with Japan seizing several German possessions in the Far East.

The United States entered the war in 1917, giving the Entente a marked material superiority.

FOR THE peoples in Europe's warring countries, the conflict brought untold suffering and death. As the war progressed, working people responded with strikes, protests, mutinies and uprisings. The 1917 revolution in Russia took the country out of the war in March of the following year.
Starting in August 1918, the Entente armies began a sustained advance on all fronts. A tide of revolution swept the Central Powers; the uprising of German workers and soldiers brought the war to an abrupt end on November 11, 1918.
An estimated 10 million armed personnel were killed, along with 7 million civilians. Production in the warring countries fell by about a third, afflicting millions of workers with hunger and destitution. Nor did the guns fall silent in 1918: armed attacks continued against the Russian Soviet republic; rebellious workers in Germany, Hungary and other countries; and insurgent colonial peoples.
At the war's end, a workers' and peasants' republic had been established in Russia, which thus broke free from world imperialism. Meanwhile, the victorious powers seized many pieces of land in Europe and the colonies. Several new capitalist states were set up in Eastern Europe.
The victors formed a continuing alliance, the League of Nations, supposedly to keep the peace, but imperialist rivalries continued as before, and within 20 years, Europe and the world were plunged into an even more destructive conflict.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE SOCIALIST movement before 1914, which enjoyed mass support across all Europe, foresaw the oncoming conflict and joined in an effort to head off the war threat.
A conference of the Socialist International in 1907 pledged to "exert every effort to prevent [war's] outbreak." If war broke out regardless, socialists would "intervene for its speedy termination" and "strive with all their power to utilize the economic and political crisis created by the war to rouse the masses and thereby hasten the downfall of capitalist class rule."
The quoted passage was proposed by Rosa Luxemburg, a leader of the International's left wing. Although cautiously worded, it contained an unmistakable commitment to respond to war by efforts toward a workers' revolution. The pledge was repeated by the International's congresses in 1910 and 1912, and many strong antiwar actions took place, including in 1914.
When war arrived in August 1914, the rulers in each country utilized their control of newspapers and dominant social institutions to impose their interpretation of the war as purely an act of self-defense. Some in the socialist ranks were influenced by this barrage. Socialist movements faced a threat: Resistance to the war would drive them into illegality, sacrificing their impressive administrative and publishing apparatus, and subjecting them to severe repression.
Party leaderships in Britain, France, Belgium and Germany crumpled before this prospect. On August 4, 1914, the parliamentary representatives of the International's strongest component, the German Social-Democratic Party (SPD), voted unanimously to finance the German war effort, a blatant repudiation of socialist principle. British, French and Belgian leaders did likewise, and the Socialist International collapsed. Only in Russia and Serbia did Socialists stand by their pledge to oppose the war.
Lenin, the central leader of the Bolshevik wing of Russian socialism, was then living across the border in Austria-Hungary.
The local authorities arrested him on August 8. Austrian socialists secured his release, and he made his way to neutral Switzerland, arriving in Bern on September 5. During the next three days, he met in conference with other Bolshevik leaders. They adopted the first major statement on the war by its socialist opponents.
The war was "bourgeois, imperialist, and dynastic" in character, the Bolsheviks stated, continuing:
A struggle for markets and for freedom to loot foreign countries, a striving to suppress the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and democracy in the individual countries, a desire to deceive, disunite, and slaughter the proletarians of all countries by setting the wage slaves of one nation against those of another so as to benefit the bourgeoisie--these are the only real content and significance of the war.
The Bolsheviks declared that support of the war by major socialist parties signified "the ideological and political bankruptcy of the [Socialist] International." Neither of the warring blocs was in any way superior to the other, they said.
Soldiers and workers needed to "use weapons, not against their brothers, the wage slaves in other countries, but against the reactionary and bourgeois governments of all countries," the Bolsheviks stated. They stood for "a revolution in Russia" and "liberation of and self-determination for nationalities oppressed by Russia."
The statement faithfully applied the International's prewar stand and also accurately predicted the course actually taken by Russian workers and soldiers in the 1917 revolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DURING THE six months that followed, the revolutionary wing of German socialism raised its banner, setting in motion the organization of antiwar socialists internationally.
In early August 1914, in response to the SPD's approval of war spending, a few left-wing opponents of that decision met in Rosa Luxemburg's apartment and decided to send 300 telegrams to left-wing party officials, inviting them to discuss a collective response to the August 4 betrayal. Only one clearly positive answer was received, from Clara Zetkin.
However, opposition stirred in some local SPD organizations. For example, a meeting of SPD leaders in Stuttgart, where Zetkin was based, condemned the war credits vote by 81 to three.
On September 21, Karl Liebknecht, a parliamentary deputy and prewar leader of the SPD's antiwar campaign, met in Stuttgart with a group of prominent party leaders there. They berated him for his failure to break party discipline and vote against war spending on August 4. "You are quite right in criticizing me," Liebknecht responded. "Even if alone, I should have called out my 'no.'"
In November, Luxemburg's local party branch sent out an underground message calling for underground work and a new party. "Had the Social Democratic fraction done its duty on August 4," the circular stated, "the external form of the organization would probably have been destroyed, but the spirit would have remained...."
On December 2, the minority view in the SPD broke through the censorship with a dramatic action. Liebknecht voted in parliament against war spending, "in protest against the war; against those who launched it and those who direct it; against the capitalist policies that brought it about; against the capitalist objectives for which it is waged...." Liebknecht's bold stand resounded across Europe.
On March 26–28, 1915, Zetkin convened the first wartime international Socialist conference in Bern: a conference of the Socialist Women's Movement with 29 delegates from seven countries. "Only the united determination of the people can stop the slaughter," the conference declared. "Down with capitalism.... Down with the war! Onward to socialism!"
The following month, delegates representing socialist youth leagues in nine countries, with tens of thousands of members, held a similar conference in Bern.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN SEPTEMBER 1915, 42 delegates from 11 countries gathered nearby, in Zimmerwald, Switzerland. A left wing in the conference, led by the Bolsheviks, stressed the need for a clean break with pro-war socialists and a struggle to overthrow capitalism; other forces emphasized the need to struggle for peace.
All currents at the conference, however, united in calling on workers to fight for peace, without annexations or indemnities. The struggle for peace is also a struggle for freedom, reconciliation of peoples and socialism, the conference stated.
The Zimmerwald manifesto, drafted mostly by Leon Trotsky, circulated illegally in the warring countries and became a banner for revolutionary workers. The war lasted for three more horrific years. By its end, the slogans of Zimmerwald were being voiced up by millions of workers and soldiers across Europe. In 1917 and 1918, they carried out revolutions in Russia, Germany, and several neighboring countries.
The manifesto reads, in part:
The war has lasted more than a year. Millions of corpses cover the battlefields....The most savage barbarism is today celebrating its triumph over all that hitherto constituted the price of humanity....
[T]he war that has produced this chaos is the product of imperialism, of the attempt on the part of the capitalist classes of every nation to feed their greed for profit by the exploitation of human labor and of the natural resources of the entire globe....
[We] call upon the working class to come to its senses and to fight for peace. This struggle is the struggle for freedom, for the reconciliation of peoples, for socialism....
Proletarians!...[Y]ou must stand up for your own cause, for the sacred aims of socialism, for the emancipation of the oppressed nations as well as of the enslaved classes...No sacrifice is too great, no burden too heavy in order to achieve this goal: peace among the peoples....
Beyond all borders, beyond the reeking battlefields, beyond the devastated cities and villages: Proletarians of all countries, unite.
A century after the First World War, the spirit of Zimmerwald still resounds in our global struggle against war and oppression.
WHAT ELSE TO READ
This is part of a series of articles and reprints compiled by John Riddell documenting the developing socialist response to the First World War 100 years ago. Other installments include:
John Riddell

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,DAve
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:46 PM

"Who are you to rubbish them? They were there and they knew a lot more about it than you do."

Hang on, I though that historians who were there couldn't be trusted and it was only ones writing in that last 20 years that we should believe!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:23 PM

"From reading Historians Keith not selected cut'-n-pastes"

Not true. That is why you can never quote one. You resorted to quoting Sheffield who unequivocally believes my points and says so.

"By the way - I've read more history than you've lied about."

Tell us what then!

Jim, of course mistakes were made and lives wasted.
Every historian would acknowledge that and so do I.
They also say that British generals learned quickly, exploited new technologies and developed new tactics that were successful and led to victory.
Generally good and competent leadership.

Jim, if it was OK for the Belgian Socialists to make a stand against the imperialist invaders, why was it wrong for us to help them, especially since we had promised that we would defend their neutrality and when there was every prospect of us being next?
We were acting in self interest and self defence, and the people including trades unionists and the left overwhelmingly agreed.

Who are you to rubbish them? They were there and they knew a lot more about it than you do.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 12:18 PM

Incidentally
Your Belgian claim is - as usual - distorted.
The Socialist groups opposed the war ,font color=red>UNTIL WAR WAS DEACLERED AND IT WAS A FAIT ACCOMPLI after which they had no alternative and it would have been insane as elected groups to do otherwise - it would also have been a capital act of treason.
At no time did the vast majority of them ever support going into the war - it was an Imperialist war, an antithesis to everything they stood for - there was no support for the objectives of the war.
Stop making things up and distorting things with half-truths.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 11:47 AM

"Read some objective history and learn the truth."
By the way - I've read more history than you've lied about.
As I said, I don't need anybody, historians or otherwise to distinguish right from wrong - you obviously do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 11:31 AM

"Where do you get this shit from?"
From reading Historians Keith not selected cut'-n-pastes
You really don't get it do you.
It doesn't matter of The Pope, Lenin and Mother Theresa supported this war - the fact that so many young lives were "wasted" to quote Gary Sheffield, in order that Britain, France, Belgium, Germany.... could continue exploiting the colonies (it was an Imperial war and was named an Imperial war) makes it evil and total unacceptable to all but the most inhuman right wingers among us
I really don't need anybody to tell me that the sending of wave after wave of young men to their deaths to win yards of territory at a time was an inhuman thing to do - my upbringing and everything I have taken in since tells me it was evil - apparently yours does not - and you have the added burden of being a self-proclaimed Christian.
If you want to prove it wasn't for political and economic gain - show it wasn't.
If you want to show that it wasn't carried out in the way I've described, show it wasn't.
If you want to show it was against tyranny - show how a ruler from the same family as the Queen was any worse or more of a threat to what the British people endured before the war, and specially between the two wars.
Your hiding behind historians you haven't read is morally spineless - if you support this appalling "waste" (Sheffield again)of human life say you do.
Your "historians" defence is really no different than your describing all Muslims as potentiality perverts "because somebody else said they were".   
It wasn't true then and it isn't true now - they were just cover-ups of your appallingly inhuman outlook on life.
Have the balls to defend them on your own behalf and stop hiding behind "historians" and "experts".
Why do you support this obscene "waste" of life -0 I don't give a **** why anybody else does.
No "historian" is qualified to say such expenditure of human life is just - that's the domain of moralists and clergyman.
Jim Carroll
'The Socialist Party of Belgium' stood by and allowed the massacre of ten million Congolese without uttering a word of protest, by the way.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 11:27 AM

Italics not working today.

Jim,
"Tyranny had nothing to do with anything Keith - that is wartime propaganda bullshit."

Not according to the Socialist Party of Belgium.
Not according to the editorial staff of The Manchester Guardian.
I believe them not you.
Where do you get this shit from?
Not history, just far left politics.

"From day one the Left opposed the war as being Imperialist, which was exactly what it was."

You have been lied to Jim. It was not about imperialism, and the Left SUPPORTED it from day one!

"The Great Unrest 1910-1914: When the Working Class Shook Britain's Capitalist Foundations"

They did until Belgium was invaded, and then the nation was united against the real tyrant and the real threat.

Dave,
"The people had no say in the matter. The decisions were taken by the likes of Sir Edward Grey. "

You can argue how much "say" the people have in a democracy, but as the people were overwhelmingly in support of the decisions it hardly matters.

"When there is no evidence that the German tyrants would have been any different in practice from our own."

The people of the time believed that it was worth fighting and even dying to keep the tyrant away, so what is your opinion worth?
They were not duped and they were not lied to.
You have been duped and lied to.
You believe lies.
Read some objective history and learn the truth.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:58 AM

Jim,
Tyranny had nothing to do with anything Keith - that is wartime propaganda bullshit.

Not according to the Socialist Party of Belgium.
Not according to the editorial staff of The Manchester Guardian.
I believe them not you.
Where do you get this shit from?
Not history, just far left politics.

From day one the Left opposed the war as being Imperialist, which was exactly what it was.

You have been lied to Jim. It was not about imperialism, and the Left SUPPORTED it from day one!

"The Great Unrest 1910-1914: When the Working Class Shook Britain's Capitalist Foundations"

They did until Belgium was invaded, and then the nation was united against the real tyrant and the real threat.

Dave,
The people had no say in the matter. The decisions were taken by the likes of Sir Edward Grey.

You can argue how much "say" the people have in a democracy, but as the people were overwhelmingly in support of the decisions it hardly matters.

When there is no evidence that the German tyrants would have been any different in practice from our own.

The people of the time believed that it was worth fighting and even dying to keep the tyrant away, so what is your opinion worth?
They were not duped and they were not lied to.
You have been duped and lied to.
You believe lies.
Read some objective history and learn the truth.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:30 AM

"Just to be perfectly clear on this Academic Dave - AT NO TIME AT ALL did communism EVER put ANY power into the hands of the working people"
Just to be perfectly clear
Communism was never more than an aim, as was Socialism - the first thing was to move Russia from Tsarist semi-feudalism, build up an industrial base and feed and house as many people as possible.
This was done by a democratically government consisting of grass-roots representatives - plenty of accounts of how this was done - Sidney and Beatrice Webb's 'Soviet Communism', the Reverend Hewlett Johnson's 'Socialist Sixth of the World'.
For over twenty years, despite the Civil War, The Soviet people had more say in their own affairs than we did in the West - even in the mid 60s, when I visited there, Trades Unions still had representatives to the Russian Parliament
Your ludicrous description of how things were comes straight out of 'Bulldog Drummond.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:25 AM

When Teribus has run out of breath, the fact remains that 17million deaths, many completely avoidable even in the heat of battle does not constitute well led men on any side.

Their welfare was not even considered as the policy of sending waves of men over the top to results that had been predicted was carried out. The law surrounding Court Martial proceedings were ignored for expediency sake, sanctioned by Whitehall.

Don't believe me, believe the fucking historians who concur all the above.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM

"Calm down Teribus, we get that you don't like communism very much. Sure it wasn't the answer to everything, but it did put some power into the hands of the working people"

Just to be perfectly clear on this Academic Dave - AT NO TIME AT ALL did communism EVER put ANY power into the hands of the working people - THAT IT DID was one of the BIGGEST MYTHS of the twentieth century - A myth, or should that be yet another myth that you have swallowed hook line and sinker. A Troika ruled Russia from the revolution in 1917 until the collapse of communism - The Security Apparatus of the State, The Communist Party and The Commanders of the RED Army - the people featured NOWHERE in any of that - Again documented FACT.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:09 AM

"You have been trivialising those deaths for the whole of this thread."

Really Academic Dave? So is there any reason why it is you cannot find one single example of ME doing that?

"The price in blood may be high, but appeasing a tyrant will lead to more human misery not less."

Now in what does Keith's statement trivialise the deaths that resulted from the German Kaiser's drive for war in July and August 1914?

NOBODY has trivialised those deaths.

"When there is no evidence that the German tyrants would have been any different in practice from our own."

What tyrants of our own? A democratically (For the timne) elected Government with a Constitutional Monarch as Head of State - what tyrany? The democratically (For the timne) elected Government of Germany at the time had no say in foreign policy and no say whatsoever on military matters.

As for evidence of aims and ambitions:

1: Was it Great Britain who stood to honour it's Treaty Obligations to defend Belgium's neutrality, or was it France or Germany?

2: Was it Great Britain who threatened to annex Belgium and take over it's colonies should the Belgian Army put up any resistance to an invasion by foreign troops? No I don't believe that it was, it was Germany who issued those threats

3: In fact Academic Dave did Great Britain threaten to invade or take over anyone's territory in July or in August 1914? Examples of this please that can be verified.

4: Here are the German terms dictated to the Russians at Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 tell us Academic Dave if you find those terms reasonable:


Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

In July 1914 the German Emperor embarked on a course of action geared at securing German domination of Europe with the added bonus of acquiring "Germany's place in the sun" by stripping Belgium and France of their overseas possessions and colonies - ALL STATED AIMS Academic Dave so no conjecture required on my part.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:07 AM

"Who compiled the lists that defined who THE PEOPLE were? How long did that take?"
The people did in the from the elected representatives of workers, peasants and soldiers , at a series of mass meetings held at The Winter Palace in October, 1917 - all beautifully covered in minute detail in John Reed's 'Ten Days the Shook the World' with lists of deputies, elected officers and proposals.
The conclusions of that meeting were summed up in it's list of objectives; 'BREAD, PEACE and LAND'.
If that's too difficult for you - the book was very much condensed in Warren Beattie's 1981 film, 'Reds', made for the hard of thinking, so even you should be able to manage it.
All this stuff is readily available for anybody with the nouse to look for it.
Are we to assume that all the points I made in my "little rant' are to be shelved along with all the others you have responded to with only abuse?
You have as little self-respect as has Keith - little wonder you a so full of bullshit in an attempt to cover your ignorance up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:02 AM

Calm down Teribus, we get that you don't like communism very much. Sure it wasn't the answer to everything, but it did put some power into the hands of the working people, even if it didn't stay there.