History and mythology of WW1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 02:07 PM

I see that the discussion has come down to accusations that some believe that deaths don't matter. They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 01:59 PM

All supposition.

No.
No-one could have an opinion that deaths do not matter!
That is so obvious that no-one would think to say it.

Why would anyone suspect that some agenda driven shit stirrer would accuse you of not caring about deaths, just because you fail to say that you do?

Have you anything to say on the issues Dave, or are you just going to make scurrilous, offensive personal attacks on those who just state the actual history?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:35 AM

he did not feel the need to actually state the obvious.

All supposition. The fact is that only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE was the statement made and that is a fact. Only one thing = It is only this. Of any importance = nothing else is important. Tell us how it can possibly mean anything else.

We all have family who fought in various wars. No one else is saying that there is only one thing that matters.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 11:04 AM

Because the need to conserve your men as far as possible is a given.
It goes without saying.
You are trying to make something out of nothing because you have nothing.

T's son served in Afghanistan.
He has often posted in support of that war.
He never stated that deaths matter, but only someone with an nasty agenda and no scruples would claim that he did not care how many of our people died there just because he did not feel the need to actually state the obvious.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 09:26 AM

OK - I missed that. I mentioned that I believe that this thread denigrates the dead. In my opinion it still does. There is no 'disgusting lie'.

There is no inference in teribums statement. He says unequivocally If you are involved in a war there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE.

Not the main thing. Not the most important thing. But the only thing of importance. Rules of warfare are not important. Why it happened is not important. Human life is not important. Lets say it again in case you missed it. only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE How on earth can that be interpreted as anything else by anyone but you?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM

Jim says it was a quabble not a squabble. Thats like a squabble, except over something more trivial and with more deaths.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 08:40 AM

DtG,
I did not say anything about denigrating the dead
You did.

Ake,
Why on earth would you want jeri to close this thread while others like "Peeing in a onesie" are left on the board?

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:33 PM
Because the peeing in a onesie thread is mildly amusing and does not denigrate the deaths of 17 million people?

If that does not demonstrate that you consider the loss of life unimportant I don't know what does.

You do not know much then Dave.
He does not say any such thing, you just pretend to infer that because you can not challenge anything actually said.

He has consistently said that the ONLY important thing in a conflict is winning.

It goes without saying that losses are a bad thing silly.
Of course they wanted to win with the minimum of loss. All armies do and always have, if only because soldiers are limited asset.

Jim,
obscene number of young man who were sacrificed in a world-wide quabble over colonies.

It was not a "squabble over colonies." Britain did not intend to be in the war until Belgium was invaded.

The fact ids that everything you have said has been challenged -

Yes it has, even though I only say what the historians have established.
Your challenges are just from your empty heads. No historian believes those myths you cling to.

Or have you found one yet?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 07:18 AM

Hey - I had bacon and eggs this morning and I am putting my wellies on in a few minutes! :-)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:22 AM

The more I read from ignorant savages such as Teribus, the more I see why extremist political thugs manage to crowd up their rallies.

Dear God....

The Daily Mail, The Aryan Torch.. I expect such twisting and misrepresentation on those extreme websites if I were sick enough to log on, not a folk forum where, let's face it, most on here eat meusli and wear sandals.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:15 AM

"the fact that you consider human life unimportant" - yet another baseless accusation thrown out - care to give an example

Yes

From: Teribus - PM
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 11:37 PM
...
If you are involved in a war there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE.
...

If that does not demonstrate that you consider the loss of life unimportant I don't know what does. No matter how you try to wheedle your way out of it, it is what you said for all to see.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:09 AM

"the fact that you consider human life unimportant" - yet another baseless accusation thrown out - care to give an example - Not a FACT at all Gnome just your opinion which is basically worth S.F.A., made as it is on absolutely no knowledge at all.

"He has consistently said that the ONLY important thing in a conflict is winning. Only is an exclusive term meaning nothing else."

Dancing on the head of your pin again my bespectacled, rotund, balding little pedant. Unfortunately you seemed to have missed something and lost touch with one of the realities of war (Maybe GwegF will get on your case about that but I think not). When nations go to war with one another it normally results in death, or has your experience been different to that Gnome? As Keith A has said with regard to the First World War WE declared war on Germany and WE were instrumental in the ultimate defeat of Germany yet WE suffered the least number of dead, and as the number of dead seems to be your most important metric by which you appear to judge the conduct of that conflict then suffering the the least number of dead of the powers who were in it from start to finish is a very good indicator of just how generally well led our troops were.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:02 AM

I don't understand what I would be letting myself in for if I took up knitting or sky diving. But that doesn't make me stupid. I think I know what knitting and sky diving mean but I'm sure once I did them, my understanding and perspective would alter.

Please Mr Hertford, don't purposely confuse perception with understanding or commenting with opinion. It doesn't do you any favours, especially when you are trying to put forward an absurd narrative of history.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 06:00 AM

So, no answer to my post of 17 Jan 16 - 04:48 AM then Keith? I did not say anything about denigrating the dead and it was no attack to say you should seek forgiveness for attempting to twist the words of others. Does not 'the only thing that is important' mean that nothing else is important or not?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:51 AM

"It does not need to be said that winning should be done with the minimum of loss."
Not the "minumum loss" in question but the obscene number of young man who were sacrificed in a world-wide quabble over colonies.
"The fact is that you can not challenge anything we say,"
The fact ids that everything you have said has been challenged - cock-ups, cannon fodder mentality, poor leadership by miltatry and politicians who were at each others throats while young man were dying in the mud in their hundreds of thousands, the lying and misrepresentation that conned young man into joining, the veterans own descriptions of their experiences..... you have responded to none of it (except the veterans bit, which you described as "lies and gullibility")
Your jingoism has been rammed up your arses over and over again - you have yet to notice it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:50 AM

"The Professor (and TerraByte as well) forgets quite a few things as a matter of course and especially when those things (like reality) contradict what he has to say."

And it always never ceases to amaze me GwegF that for some reason that you can never actually put your finger on, or give any examples of any of those things - After all clown you've now had over two years to do that.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 05:14 AM

It does not need to be said that winning should be done with the minimum of loss.
The fact is that you can not challenge anything we say, so you attack us personally with the disgusting lie that we denigrate the dead.
That is point scoring of the most despicable kind.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 04:48 AM

the fact that you consider human life unimportant ?

He has said nothing to justify that slur.

He has consistently said that the ONLY important thing in a conflict is winning. Only is an exclusive term meaning nothing else. Or is this another one of your infamous changes of meaning? Probably time you went to church to pray for forgiveness, Keith.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 16 - 04:22 AM

the fact that you consider human life unimportant ?

He has said nothing to justify that slur.
It goes without saying that you should try to win with the minimum of loss, and Britain did that better than any other army in the field.

of those respecting the dead, he forgot to mention the two Daves, Raggytash, Musket, Jim Carroll and others, hopefully even myself.

It is not respectful in the least to accuse them of being so stupid that they were unable to understand the cause for which they fought, especially when there is hard historical evidence that they did, and that they believed the cause worth fighting for to the end of the war and after.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 06:56 PM

Yes, thought so, teribums. No answer to the fact that you consider human life unimportant so you resort to abuse. Not that you are any good at that but at least it shows your true colours. If that is what you consider winning it is little wonder that you think of those who lead thousands to their deaths so good at their jobs.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 03:30 PM

Perhaps when Keith A of Hertford says the names of those respecting the dead, he forgot to mention

The Professor (and TerraByte as well) forgets quite a few things as a matter of course and especially when those things (like reality) contradict what he has to say.

It has been ever thus.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 03:08 PM

Perhaps when Keith A of Hertford says the names of those respecting the dead, he forgot to mention the two Daves, Raggytash, Musket, Jim Carroll and others, hopefully even myself.

That alone states the reason for his confusing posts. Perhaps he might enlighten us all how to score points in their game?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 02:39 PM

Gnome you are a 24 carat idiot.

The topic under "discussion" (At least by one side) happens to be the "History and mythology of WW1" - Not a case of point scoring or winning.

"you and your pals have not put up one single argument that withstands even the most cursory examination"

Simple statement of fact with regard to what has been put up so far.

And YES Gnome if you find yourself in any conflict from a fist fight to a full scale global war the only important thing is that you win - otherwise, you clown, you should not have got yourself into the fight in the first place.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 12:24 PM

From Keith

The appalling cost in lives is understood by all, and is a given.

From teribums

If you are involved in a war there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE.

So human life is not important.

Need I say more?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 11:10 AM

The appalling cost in lives is understood by all, and is a given.

No-one is "denigrating" the dead, except those who call them dupes with no understanding of why they fought. Teribus, Hilo and I respect them for their belief in a just cause and their willingness to make a stand against an imperialist, militarist, cruel invader.

The "petty point scoring " is all done by the comrades.
What we do is put the actual history before them, which they feel qualified to reject even though they can find no historian who supports their baseless beliefs.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 09:34 AM

you and your pals have not put up one single argument that withstands even the most cursory examination

The main point of my argument is that this petty point scoring exercise is of very little significance compared to 17 million lives. You seem to consider that of little importance.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 09:06 AM

"they seem to think they are winning something"

Not at all Gnome - what we are and have been doing for quite sometime now has been knocking all those "Revisionist Myths" on the head and you and your pals have not put up one single argument that withstands even the most cursory examination.

"I think one of them was that the war had to be fought, and we see from Adonis and many others that it did not. It was avoidable, and once started it could have been ended early. All of those lives could have been saved." - Academic Dave

Adonis was not alive at the time Grey and those who supported him were - The decision of the British Government OF THE DAY is the only thing that counts

It could not have been ended early in any manner that would have been acceptable to the people of France or of Belgium.

As for saving lives? The following lives would not have been saved.

The war on the eastern front would have been fought with it's consequent loss of life.

The war in Luxembourg, Belgium and France would have been fought with it's consequent loss of life.

And as YOU are allowed to state what WOULD HAVE BEEN then please afford me the same opportunity.

Europe would have been plundered and impoverished in the decades following the peace imposed by Germany. The Germans would NOT have to have facilitated Lenin's trip to Moscow to knock Russia out of the war, the terms and conditions of the peace treaty dictated to the defeated Russians would have brought about the revolution and the loss of land would have made it's effects that much harder on the population of Russia. Any destabilisation on Germany's newly established eastern border would have led to further incursions and loss of Russian territory.

With former French and Belgian colonies to use as bases the Germans would have fomented trouble throughout the world damaging Britain's trade and interests.

Germany would ultimately take on the British with an Army ten times that of Great Britain's and Great Britain fighting without a single ally would have lost that war.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 08:37 AM

NINE out of TEN of them did GUEST,R Sole - 16 Jan 16 - 02:48 AM

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 06:24 AM

I also quoted Macmillan, Pennel, Snow, Boot, Sheffield and others stating the same view.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 06:22 AM

quoting Paxman of all people,

Paxman was just the presenter. The history was provided by the OU History Faculty.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 05:22 AM

Yes it does Keith, you have repeatedly stated that the war "had to be fought" (quoting Paxman of all people, but you have supported that view).

I acknowledged that there was a strong antiwar movement in Britain, but that was prior to the invasion of Belgium.

I have expressed no view of events, politics or diplomacy before the invasion.

After the invasion the government believed that war had to be fought and so did the people.
Current historians do too, with the exception of Ferguson and possibly Adonis.

Does any historian agree with you opinion that the war "could have been ended early."
Is that just a whim or is it based on any actual knowledge?
How could the Germans have agreed to withdraw to their borders, and how could France and Belgium have accepted anything less?

DtG, I think the comrades are desperate for their political arguments to win out over the findings of historians.
All T and I are doing is putting forward the actual history which happens to contradict their politically inspired but baseless views.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 04:23 AM

"politicians could have avoided it but did not do so" - from Academic Dave

Tell us how "politicians could have avoided it" especially British politicians in the rapidly deteriorating situation involving the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia and their respective allies. I think previously you were of the opinion that it could have been avoided by simply giving in to the aggressors demands (Serbia by the 25th July had already agreed to nine out the ten of the Austrian demands - Germany pushed the Austro-Hungarians into demanding full capitulation - now where exactly did Great Britain feature in this loop?).

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 03:58 AM

Whoops! Premature submit button. Damn you tablet!

...contest? Ake, seemingly. Well, I would be worried if I had ake cheering from the sidelines for me. Still, from a certain stand point they cannot fail to win. No one else knows the rules. And of course they are suffering fewer losses than those poor blokes in the trenches.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 03:54 AM

Teribus,

I think we have lost what Keith's three points were, but I think one of them was that the war had to be fought, and we see from Adonis and many others that it did not. It was avoidable, and once started it could have been ended early. All of those lives could have been saved. The blame falls solely on the politicians of the day, on all sides but ours certainly bear their fair share of the blame.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 03:49 AM

What makes me laugh most about the terrible two's postings is the way they seem to think they are winning something. Who is the arbiter of this contest

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 03:46 AM

Yes it does Keith, you have repeatedly stated that the war "had to be fought" (quoting Paxman of all people, but you have supported that view).

It did not have to be fought, politicians could have avoided it but did not do so. It was the fault of those politicians, and 17 million deaths can be laid at their door.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 16 Jan 16 - 02:48 AM

So we have a professor and a sanitary towel on the thread?

No wonder the poor soldiers are still dead. If we can prove they were well led, they might all come back to life and start singing.

🎤All the girls in France bought a ticket to a dance
Singing Nelly rub your belly close to mine.


Poor sods never stood a chance.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 04:30 PM

Oh, grow up Raggytash......sheesh!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 01:08 PM

I believe Territowelling is used for making Nappies is it not?

Could I suggest you go and change yours before commenting again?

The reason for saying that will be obvious to anyone with a degree of intelligence.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 01:02 PM

"Guest Dave, you will find that Terrichocolates has no regard for educational status. Possibly because he has little education to speak of himself."

Obviously sufficient education, reasoning power, logic and perspective to be able to run circles round you in any discussion related to this, or any other historical topic Raggy. In support of that statement I quote the following written by you Raggy;

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 12:54 PM

Oh Terrieschocolates what a surprise to find you responded as you did.

You really have a problem with people who have taken advantage of a good formal education don't you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 12:52 PM

I have no idea what could have given rise to the rather aggressive "actually Shaw" remark. And when people called me "Shaw" at school I refused to respond. Call me Steve if you don't mind, Woodcock. Everybody else can manage to hate me just about little enough to achieve it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 12:50 PM

Very true GUEST - 15 Jan 16 - 10:01 AM

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 10:01 AM

Never confuse intelligence with education.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 10:00 AM

"It is vitally important to every man, woman and child irrespective of their colour, creed or kind, no matter what course they follow in life."

I am sure that Pélé discovered that it was the schooling and the degrees he never obtained or studied for that were vitally important in making him the success he was (Actually Shaw it was playing indoor football - taught him to be quicker and think quicker on his feet), exactly the same as a host of many other great sportsmen and women, entertainers, artists, artisans and craftsmen across a whole variety of walks of life.

In stating what you have said all you do is demonstrate once again that you can only think of people in terms of tired old cliches and stereotypes that comply with the "socialist" mould.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 09:46 AM

"The phrase "I studied at the university of life" is often on their lips. What a trite, inane, uneducated comment to make."

I am sure Andrew Carnegie would agree with you concerning his "alma mater".

Likewise Shaw I've worked with some brilliant engineers who did not have one once of commonsense when it came to putting their ideas and solutions into practice.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 08:20 AM

Heheh. When I was a student working on Radcliffe Parks in my holidays I had to team up with a Scottish bloke to look after Ainsworth bowling green. They got rid of him after a couple of weeks because he couldn't keep the mower straight and there was a near- insurrection by the home team. He also had a habit of not turning up for the afternoon as he was enjoying his liquid lunches a little too much. Told me every day in a very aggressive manner, he did, that my studenthood was a bloody waste of time, that he possessed what no student ever had - common sense. Six months later I heard that his alcoholism had killed him.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 08:03 AM

I have often found that people who do not have a good education are often the same people who aver it is not vital.

It is vitally important to every man, woman and child irrespective of their colour, creed or kind, no matter what course they follow in life.

It's strange but most of the people who do not agree with this sentiment are more often than not ill educated and/or are jealous of those with a good education.

The phrase "I studied at the university of life" is often on their lips. What a trite, inane, uneducated comment to make.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 07:44 AM

Raggy is Keith A a "Professor"? If he is not then please do not refer to him as such if discussing education.

"you should be saying that a good education is vital in whichever field you choose to follow.you should be saying that a good education is vital in whichever field you choose to follow."

Why should he be saying that Raggy? Examples in the real world show us often enough that while education may be considered as being important it has never ever been considered as being a vital requirement in order to succeed in many walks of life.

Neither the Duke of Wellington, or Horatio Nelson were celebrated academics (Unlike GUEST, Dave) of any note yet both carved out astonishingly successful careers as military commanders. In the Duke of Wellington's case fox hunting and commonsense taught him more about being able to "read" a landscape than any book learning, it almost gave him a sixth sense when it came to being able to predict what lay on the "other side of the hill".

Keep up the good work boys, over two years yet and you have still not been able to counter a single point put in support of the three points originally detailed by Keith A - One more year to go and had you really applied yourselves to the task you could all have earned a degree in History - only trouble is that would have definitely exploded all those myths you cling to so dearly.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 05:49 AM

Frankly Keith I find your response astonishing. Surely as someone who taught for their career you, of all people, should be extolling the virtue of a good education, you should be saying that a good education is vital in whichever field you choose to follow. You as an educator, as someone to whom people trust the education of their children, should be shouting from the rooftops the need for a good education. The fact that you excuse Haig for being academically lacking is nothing short of breathe taking.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 04:04 AM

Dave, none of that contradicts anything I have claimed about WW1.
Rag, what great generals were also diligent schoolboys and students?
Musket, it was never his nickname. It was coined by revisionist long after his death.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Jan 16 - 03:04 AM

Levels of culpability equate to levels of leadership displayed.

Haig was either a crap leader or a culpable criminal, using the logic displayed by some on here, Tertibulus and Keith making up the "some" if I must be specific.

Nice to see people arguing over his nickname again. Perhaps Chef of the Chateau behind the lines may be preferable to butcher of The Somme then?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 03:33 PM

First things first Keith, Andrew Adonis expresses a view that politicians, one politician in particular, were culpable for their conduct in not avoiding war in the first place. Thats my main focus, not the tactics of military commanders. Grey and Asquith, and Churchill and LLoyd George whom you yourself have accused of lying to cover up their own errors. Compared with those four I would regard Haig's culpability as minor.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 03:09 PM

I would have thought that you professor of all people, as one who states they have worked and still works within educational sector, would laud the benefit of education more than most.

But there again.........................

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 02:55 PM

Re Andrew Adonis.
Has he written anything on the conduct of the war?
I have read his views on the conduct of politicians prior to the invasion of Belgium, but I have expressed no views about that.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 02:43 PM

Rag, why do you think Haig's school and college days are relevant?
His only dream was to be a cavalry man. Such adventurous youths do not make good scholars.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 02:39 PM

referred to by historians as the butcher of The Somme
Numerous have referred to him as such since his death, haven't they Terribums?

No. Only one I think and now discredited.

But I have used Gary Mead as a source and Gary Mead is a historian. So is Gary Mead basing his writing on myth?

Mead concludes that Haig was a good general, and so do all the others.
Why would anyone think they know more about it?
Why do you?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 02:35 PM

"The only people who can actually state whether a war is justified or not are those who actually did have to decide that "

So we take Adolf's view on Operation Barbarossa then?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 02:10 PM

" military history is irrelevant when making comments about whether a war was justified or not, military history only studies the minutiae of the conduct of the war, not the overarching social and moral themes."

The only people who can actually state whether a war is justified or not are those who actually did have to decide that - not people with no knowledge of event 100 years later armed with second hand disproven myths and 20 x 20 hindsight. The historians who research and study the period and the events examine the decisions reached and recorded by all parties involved to arrive at conclusions that either support or reject whether in their opinion the war was justified or not.

"Numerous have referred to him as such since his death, haven't they Terribums?"

Yes they did Raggytash, they waited because they knew they dare not say it to his face, they waited until he was dead before attempting to blacken his name. Lloyd George and Churchill did it to cover up and divert attention from their complicity in those errors and the errors they made off their own bat. I will detail those if you dou

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 02:05 PM

Guest Dave, you will find that Terrichocolates has no regard for educational status. Possibly because he has little education to speak of himself. A bit like his hero in that regard to quote Mead again:

"Haig was never intent on academic prowess at Oxford, he always cherished the deepest contempt for examination as a test of ability, possibly because he did not shine at such tests. As someone whose relationship with books was generally adversarial rather than amiable Haig embarked on one of least strenuous routes up the academic mountain"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 01:53 PM

Sole - 14 Jan 16 - 11:51 AM "Haig, referred to by historians as the butcher of The Somme"
R Sole give me one instance of anyone, let alone a historian, or biographer referring to Haig as "The Butcher of the Somme" in his lifetime (You will not find ONE)

Please note the qualification required by Terrytowelling "IN HIS LIFETIME" Numerous have referred to him as such since his death, haven't they Terribums?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 01:49 PM

You have not got the hang of this yet, Dave. Sorry. You will soon realise that the only historians you are allowed to mention are those who agree with what Keith and teribums say. Just mention someone like living, published historian Neil Faulkner and watch the sparks fly ;-)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 01:33 PM

Teribus, any mug can write a book, and the prizes you list are generally handed out by other bookwriters, so no great shakes. Andrew Adonis on the other hand passed finals in Modern History, and wrote a PhD thesis which was subjected to rigorous examination, and judged to be worthy of that degree.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 01:29 PM

Teribus, you misunderstand again, military history is irrelevant when making comments about whether a war was justified or not, military history only studies the minutiae of the conduct of the war, not the overarching social and moral themes.

"Was the war necessary? - Yes it was to protect Great Britain's national interests and to honour Great Britain's Treaty obligations."

Which were and are utterly inconsequential when compared with 17 million deaths.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 12:54 PM

GUEST,R Sole - 14 Jan 16 - 11:51 AM

"Haig, referred to by historians as the butcher of The Somme"

R Sole give me one instance of anyone, let alone a historian, or biographer referring to Haig as "The Butcher of the Somme" in his lifetime (You will not find ONE)

The "Revisionist" historians and writers came out with that smear only AFTER Haig had died in the years 1929 and 1969. Subsequently as a great deal more information has come to light modern day historians have discredited most of the conclusions drawn by the "Revisionists".

I don't think we'll hear a squeak on this for Aresehole? Any takers?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 12:46 PM

"Historians can research the events of the time, and find out what Haig's grotesque errors were, and what the death toll was, and write it down. It is not for them to then say Haig was a good leader, or the war was worthwhile. They need to wind their necks in, to use an Australianism. Those judgements will be made on moral grounds and by others." - None other than GUEST,Dave

Haig's record speaks for itself, his troops never once mutinied in field, and it was his tactics and innovations accepted and adopted by him that finally defeated the enemy, of course he made errors, everyone does EVEN YOU GUEST Dave - but Haig's successes by far outweighed his errors (Or are you one of those mean spirited individuals who are incapable of giving credit where credit is due).

Of course it is part and parcel of any historical work to present the author's conclusions and reasons for them. According to you it should be done by people who know S.F.A. about the subject and as for this:

"It is not for them to then say Haig was a good leader, or the war was worthwhile. They need to wind their necks in, to use an Australianism. Those judgements will be made on moral grounds and by others."

What OTHERS? What "moral" compass? I have never such drivel in my life. To make a sensible and meaningful judgement on anything you have to have some understanding of what you are passing judgement on. People and events of the past can only be judged on the morals and mores of THEIR times NOT OURS, and in that vein:

Was the war necessary? - Yes it was to protect Great Britain's national interests and to honour Great Britain's Treaty obligations.

Did the people of the British Isles realise and accept the reasons for the action taken by the Government? - Yes they did fully and unstintingly from start to finish.

In comparison to the armies of other combatant nations were the Armies of Great Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire well led? - Yes I think they were when all things are considered and oddly enough many others think the same.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 12:39 PM

Is Gary Mead alive?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 12:20 PM

ANdrew Adonis:

Books
- Andrew Adonis (Editor), Keith Thomas (Editor) (2004). Roy Jenkins: A Retrospective.
- Andrew Adonis, Stephen Pollard (1997). A Class Act: Myth of Britain's Classless Society.
- David Butler, Andrew Adonis & Tony Travers (1994). Failure in British government : the politics of the poll tax.
- Andrew Adonis (1993). Making Aristocracy Work: The Peerage and the Political System in Britain,.
- Andrew Adonis (Editor), Andrew Tyrie (Editor) (1989). Subsidiarity: no panacea.
- Andrew Adonis (Editor), Tim Hames (Editor) (1994). The Thatcher-Reagan Decade in Perspective.
- Andrew Adonis (2012). Education Education Education: Reforming England's Schools.
- Adonis, Andrew (2013). 5 Days in May: The Coalition and Beyond. Biteback Publishing. ISBN 978-1849545662.

Articles
- Ben Pimlott The Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth II – book review, 1996, Andrew Adonis
- Our progressives only look dead (prospects for a revival of progressivism in the United Kingdom), 1996, Andrew Adonis
- Christopher Booker and Richard North The Castle of Lies: Why Britain Must Get Out of Europe – book review, 1996, Andrew Adonis
- Anthony Barnett This Time: Our Constitutional Revolution – book review, 1996, Andrew Adonis
- Shirley Williams Climbing the Bookshelves: the Autobiography – book review, 2009, Andrew Adonis
- Roy Hattersley David Lloyd George: the Great Outsider – book review, 2010, Andrew Adonis
- David Laws 22 Days in May: The Birth of the Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition – book review, 2010, Andrew Adonis
- Chris Bowers Nick Clegg: the Biography – book review, 2011, Andrew Adonis.

Not really much there about the First World War or military history there is there.

Max Hastings:

Books
- America, 1968: The Fire This Time (Gollancz, 1969) ISBN 0-575-00234-4
- Ulster 1969: The Fight for Civil Rights in Northern Ireland (Gollancz, 1970) ISBN 0-575-00482-7
- Montrose: The King's Champion (Gollancz, 1977) ISBN 0-575-02226-4
- Bomber Command (Michael Joseph, 1979) ISBN 0-7181-1603-8
- Battle of Britain by Len Deighton, Max Hastings (Jonathan Cape, 1980) ISBN 0-224-01826-4
- Yoni — Hero of Entebbe: Life of Yonathan Netanyahu (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980) ISBN 0-297-77565-0
- Das Reich: Resistance and the March of the Second SS Panzer Division Through France, June 1944 (Michael Joseph, 1981) ISBN 0-7181-2074-4
- Das Reich: March of the Second SS Panzer Division Through France (Henry Holt & Co, 1982) ISBN 0-03-057059-X
- The Battle for the Falklands by Max Hastings, Simon Jenkins (W W Norton, 1983) ISBN 0-393-01761-3, (Michael Joseph, 1983) ISBN 0-7181-2228-3
- Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy (Simon & Schuster, 1984) ISBN 0-671-46029-3
- The Oxford Book of Military Anecdotes (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 1985) ISBN 0-19-214107-4
- Victory in Europe (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985) ISBN 0-297-78650-4
- The Korean War (Michael Joseph, 1987) ISBN 0-7181-2068-X, (Simon & Schuster, 1987) ISBN 0-671-52823-8
- Outside Days (Michael Joseph, 1989) ISBN 0-7181-3330-7
- Victory in Europe: D-Day to V-E Day (Little Brown & C, 1992) ISBN 0-316-81334-6
- Scattered Shots (Macmillan, 1999) ISBN 0-333-77103-6
- Going to the Wars (Macmillan, 2000) ISBN 0-333-77104-4
- Editor: A Memoir (Macmillan, 2002) ISBN 0-333-90837-6
- Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944–45 (Macmillan, 2004) ISBN 0-333-90836-8
- Warriors: Exceptional Tales from the Battlefield (HarperPress [UK], 2005) ISBN 978-0-00-719756-9
- Country Fair (HarperCollins, October 2005) ISBN 0-00-719886-8. 288 pp
- Nemesis: The Battle for Japan, 1944–45 (HarperPress [UK], October 2007) ISBN 0-00-721982-2 (re-titled Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944–45 for US release Knopf ISBN 978-0-307-26351-3)
- Finest Years: Churchill as Warlord, 1940–45. London, HarperPress, 2009. ISBN 978-0-00-726367-7 (re-titled Winston's War: Churchill, 1940–1945 for US release by Knopf, 2010, ISBN 978-0-307-26839-6)
- Did You Really Shoot the Television?: A Family Fable. London, HarperPress, 2010. ISBN 978-0-00-727171-9
- All Hell Let Loose: The World At War, 1939–1945. London, HarperPress, 29 September 2011. ISBN 978-0-00-733809-2 (re-titled Inferno: The World At War, 1939–1945 for US release by Knopf, 1 November 2011, ISBN 978-0-307-27359-8. 729 pp)
- Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War. London, Knopf Press, Release Date 24 September 2013, ISBN 978-0307597052, 640 pp.
- The Secret War: Spies, Codes And Guerrillas, 1939-45. London: William Collins, 2015. ISBN 9780007503742

One work specifically on the First World War and all the rest on military history.

Winner of:
- The Somerset Maugham Award for non-fiction in 1980 for "Bomber Command"
- Overlord and The Battle for the Falklands won the Yorkshire Post Book of the Year prize.
- The Royal United Services Institute's Westminster Medal for his "lifelong contribution to military literature"
- The Edgar Wallace Award from the London Press Club.
- The Pritzker Military Library Literature Award, a lifetime achievement award for military writing
- A Fellow of the Rooyal Historical Society.

Now, logically, when it comes to someone writing about military matters who am I going to pay attention to, a review by someone who obviously has no experience in the field? Or someone who has?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 12:18 PM

I'm a bit confused Keith tells me that my beliefs are a myth based on politics and not history. But I have used Gary Mead as a source and Gary Mead is a historian. So is Gary Mead basing his writing on myth?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 11:51 AM

If a General makes the odd mistake it is because he is more or less human.

However, there is a difference between accidentally putting sugar in the Field Marshall's tea and sending waves of men over the top.

If Haig, referred to by historians as the butcher of The Somme only made three mistakes, he certainly made sure they were big ones. I'm sure the grieving widows and mothers would be grateful to find its only three.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 11:42 AM

because (some) historians say so.

I should think that the outcome of the war would have some bearing on his reputation as a leader, no? Or are you one of those who would have wanted a different outcome?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 11:35 AM

And there we have the problem Fred. Haig was a good general despite making grotesque errors of judgement, because (some) historians say so.

WWI was a good war and had to be fought despite it resulting in the deaths of 17 million people, because (some) historians say so. They don't all, despite what I said earlier about Andrew Adonis not being an historian, he has a degree and a PhD in modern history, whereas Max Hastings appears not to have completed even his first degree. Adonis is far more of a historian than Hastings.

Historians can research the events of the time, and find out what Haig's grotesque errors were, and what the death toll was, and write it down. It is not for them to then say Haig was a good leader, or the war was worthwhile. They need to wind their necks in, to use an Australianism. Those judgements will be made on moral grounds and by others.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 10:51 AM

Gary Mead wrote a balanced biography of Haig.
He acknowledged his failures but is overwhelmingly positive about his career and achievements in WW1.

It is dishonest to pick out only the few negatives to give a false impression of the book which is overwhelmingly positive.
Read it Fred, or are you really Rag?


Mead's book supports my view that generally the army was well and competently led.
You will find nothing written for at least twenty years by any historian that disputes that, so why do you?

Your beliefs are just myths based on politics not history.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 10:30 AM

Take it up with Gary Mead, he's the one who says Haig made three grotesque errors.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 10:22 AM

Ahhh - OK. No need, Keith. I have found it.

The one where I said, about half a dozen posts in

Subject: RE: BS: Why a veteran is not wearing a poppy
From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 05 Nov 15 - 09:22 AM

Guest. Exactly who is it that is in good company?

Keith. I am not even going there. This thread is not about you.

So, that one was not about the history of WW1 and the Jingoism thread was not about the history of WW1. Exactly who is that that keeps turning these threads round to that subject I wonder...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 10:14 AM

The Jingo thread followed one about veterans wearing poppies, which you started Dave.

Did it and did I? How odd of me. Post a link so we can see if that was about WW1 then. I very much doubt it was seeing as I do not really do history.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 10:07 AM

GUEST,Fred - 14 Jan 16 - 06:31 AM

"This is true even if we acknowledge that his ambition for the battles he managed was inappropriately large for the tools at hand leading him into GROTESQUE ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT at Loos (1915, The Somme (1916) and the Third Ypres at Passchendaele (1917).........."

Shall we take them in turn GUEST Fred:

1: Loos 1915 - had Sir John French held the reserves closer and released them to exploit Haig's attack immediately then the "breakthrough" sought would have been achieved. It was the second occasion in 1915 that Haig had given the Germans a real fright - from that point on whenever the Germans faced British troops in the line they reinforced defences, increased their defence in depth and increased their manpower, none of these factors were known about until German documents were studied and translated after 1972

2: Somme 1916 - A battle, the location and timing of which, British politicians and French Generals foisted on Haig. While the first day of the battle resulted in the greatest casualty rate ever experienced by the British Army the end result when the Somme campaign ended in November 1916 was that the Germans retreated and relinquished the largest area of territory to the "Entente Powers" since their retreat from the Marne in 1914. The deliberate adoption of attrition employed by the Germans at Verdun and on the Somme backfired on them, Great Britain and France could make good their losses the Germans fighting on two fronts could not make good theirs. After Verdun and the Somme the Germans knew that they would not be able to defeat either the French or the British in the west until they had defeated the Russians taken them out of the war. They tried to sue for peace but their terms were totally unacceptable to the French and the Belgians. The Germans dismissed their Commander, the French replaced theirs, the British retained theirs.

Passchendaele 1917 - Another battle (Timing and location) that Haig was forced to fight by David Lloyd George and by the French. From the German perspective it came very close to destroying them, by the end of the battle they were exhausted, the tactics used forged the blueprint for combined integrated all arms attacks that proved successful in 1918

"In a German General Staff publication, it was written that "Germany had been brought near to certain destruction (sicheren Untergang) by the Flanders battle of 1917". In his Memoirs of 1938, Lloyd George wrote, "Passchendaele was indeed one of the greatest disasters of the war ... No soldier of any intelligence now defends this senseless campaign ...". In 1939, G. C. Wynne wrote that the British had eventually reached Passchendaele Ridge and captured Flandern I; beyond them was Flandern II and Flandern III, which was nearly complete. The German submarine bases on the coast had not been captured but the objective of diverting the Germans from the French further south, while they recovered from the Nivelle Offensive in April had succeeded.

In 1997, Griffith wrote that the bite and hold system kept moving until November, because the BEF had developed a workable system of offensive tactics, against which the Germans ultimately had no answer. A decade later, Sheldon wrote that relative casualty figures were irrelevant, because the German army could not afford great numbers of losses or to lose the initiative, by being compelled to fight another defensive battle on ground of the Allies' choosing. The Third Battle of Ypres pinned the German army to Flanders and caused unsustainable casualties. At a conference on 13 October, a scheme of the Third Army for an attack in mid-November was discussed. Byng wanted the operations at Ypres to continue, to hold German troops in Flanders. The Battle of Cambrai began on 20 November, when the British breached the first two parts of the Hindenburg Line, in the first successful mass use of tanks in a combined arms operation."

By the way Cambrai and the Somme was where Haig actually did want to attack in 1917 - the ground and conditions suited the tanks better.

The attack at Passchendaele should have gone in immediately after the successful attack at Messines - Government prevarication delayed the start of the campaign.

It should be remembered that Haig was NOT the supreme commander of Entente forces in France - David Lloyd George insisted that he operate under French command.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 08:33 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 08:29 AM

Yes and yes.
There is no general in history who never made a mistake, and no historian could deny that mistakes were made, and nor would I.

Mead says he had "precisely the qualities necessary in a general." and spoke of "His dedicated professionalism "

He said "Haig was a good soldier" and even entitled the biography "The GOOD SOLDIER." because he assiduously devoted himself to improving the professional competence of an army which, when he joined it, had been guided by a spirit of corrosive amateurism."

His view is positive. "The popular view of Haig is still irredeemably-and mistakenly- negative.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 08:04 AM

Qu.1 Did Gary Mead state that Haig made "Grotesque errors of judgement" at Loos (1915, the Somme (1916) and the Third Ypres at Passchendaele (1917)

A simple yes or no answer please.

Qu.2 If a general made not one but three grotesque errors of judgement in 1915, 1916 and 1917 did he lead the men well.

A simple yes or no answer please.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 07:57 AM

"Rag's book is especially positive about Haig"
Really?

Yes really.
he says, "The popular view of Haig is still irredeemably-and mistakenly- negative." so his view of Haig must be "positive."
As I said.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 07:52 AM

Rsole, you would not be able to find better history books.
You would find no history book that disagrees.

Fred, the bit of the quote that Rag tried to conceal,
"Yet Haig's great virtues - gritty determination and a refusal to indulge in melodramatics - were and are precisely the qualities necessary in a general. This is true even if we acknowledge..."

More quotes,

"His dedicated professionalism preceding the Great War and his unpaid devotion to the welfare of ex-servicemen afterwards are both now largely forgotten."

"Haig was a good soldier because he assiduously devoted himself to improving the professional competence of an army which, when he joined it, had been guided by a spirit of corrosive amateurism."

"The popular view of Haig is still irredeemably-and mistakenly- negative.

" It is irrational to criticise him for being incapable of bringing that conflict to a swifter ending, for that was beyond the capacity of any individual."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,R Sole
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 07:36 AM

well led?

Clearly not. I'd find better history books if I were Teribus or Keith A of Hertford.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 06:31 AM

Firstly can I point out it is not Rag's book it is a biography of Douglas Haig by Gary Mead.

"Rag's book is especially positive about Haig"

Really?

"This is true even if we acknowledge that his ambition for the battles he managed was inappropriately large for the tools at hand leading him into GROTESQUE ERRORS OF JUDGEMENT at Loos (1915, The Somme (1916) and the Third Ypres at Passchendaele (1917).........."

"Grotesque errors of judgement" is especially positive is it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 06:14 AM

So every history book for at least twenty years is propaganda, and every historian a liar.

Or perhaps it is just that you comrades have got it wrong.
Your beliefs are just myths based on politics not history.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 05:50 AM

It says "Andrews Liver Salts" on the side of buses but they don't stop at every shit house.

I look forward to adding a grave next to the "countless" ones in a French field and burying the "well led" propaganda books alongside the "well led" fallen.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 05:06 AM

Musket, the historians all say the army was well led.
Rag's book is especially positive about Haig.
What is your opinion worth against all of theirs?

Guest Dave,
Keith, they (historians) have been listed repeatedly and I am not going to repeat.

Completely untrue Dave.
You have found nothing written for at least twenty years that does not dismiss your beliefs as myths.

Andrew Adonis may not be an historian,.....

You can find a non-historian to say anything you want.
What you can not find is a single historian who believes that stuff you cling to in the defiance of every history book!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 04:56 AM

DtG,
So, The last thread was the Jingoism thread then was it? Funny that. Did it start off as anything to do with WW1?

The Jingo thread followed one about veterans wearing poppies, which you started Dave.

It has been a consistent comment from me that the people arguing against the historians have not read any of their work, hence empty heads.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Jan 16 - 03:09 AM

I doubt anything could incriminate. Diminished responsibility every time.

Meanwhile, whilst the children and irrelevant creatures stand shouting for their team like lumpy cheerleaders, not noticing nobody else is on the pitch, those of us questioning still want to know how;

The men were well led? (given the wholesale slaughter)

Knew what they were letting themselves in for? ( Given the jingoistic propaganda and pandering to a repugnant concept called patriotism.)

That'll do for now. Can't confuse the dozy buggers too much.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 08:15 PM

"THICK, MISTAKEN AND LIARS"
Top of the World Ma!!
HERE
Got any further on a classless army or democracy before the enclosures or the Tolpuddle Martyrs or nearly a century before women got the vote, or wealthy Liverpulians in 1915...... or any of the other displays of thickness, mistakes and downright lies or are you still saying silent o the grounds that it might incriminate you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 08:08 PM

Fine. You say that, but you will. You'll see!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 07:21 PM

I am not debating with you Steve, no point. As for World War 1. I have nothing more to say about that. It is not my job to rescue people from stupidity.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 07:02 PM

That's a very poor response, unfortunately, HiLo, full of scattergun nonsense. You're a bit of a debating lightweight. I suggest you wait for your opportunity on a thread that isn't about WW1. Why don't you start one?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 06:33 PM

GUEST,Musket - 13 Jan 16 - 02:26 PM Ask a grown up to read and explain it to you Pilot Officer - I would suggest that you do not ask any of your pals on this forum as they appear to know S.F.A about anything and also happen to be - how was it you put it again? - Oh yes THICK, MISTAKEN AND LIARS

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 06:30 PM

you are are not a stupid man SteveBut you can,t have it both ways! You seem to want to accuse me of being Islamophobic because I disagree with you . that is
Plain bullshit ! I have never called you Jew hater but I do think that your comments onIsrael are delusional and reek of bigotry , which is what you are quick to call others who suggest that there are Islamic terrorists . What is galling is your self righteous double standard ! As for the people who start these odious threads then have nothing constructive to say ... They are doing nothing more than winding people up, and you jump in every time. calling people names is a poor and and not very smart tactic. get over yourself, nobody is intimidated by that rubbish!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 04:43 PM

one group is giving us the history of WWI and the other is giving us the mythology.

Ah yes ... but which is which?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 03:58 PM

It can be said that the thread is living up to it's title - one group is giving us the history of WWI and the other is giving us the mythology. Well done lads.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 03:08 PM

No Teribus, we are being ruled by Cameron and co. Hobson's choice really.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 02:49 PM

He has not really got the hang of this insult business has he Musket? I don't think he has come up with one that has not made me laugh out loud yet. Yet we can seem to insult him just by being here. Bonus! :-)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 02:22 PM

"Two conflagrations and a lot of deaths less to end up in the situation that we find ourselves in now anyway."

Really??? We are being ruled by a German military autocracy are we Guest Dave? Just exactly what planet are you living on?

"Why would I want to be associated with your repugnant, pro-imperialist, death denying views?"

The fact that Great Britain had an Empire in 1914 is a historical reality and a fact and please provide any example of me denying death? On the otherhand GUEST Dave I can supply an example of your death denying views - i.e. There would have been 17 million less deathys if Great Britain had not gone to war in 1914.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 02:19 PM

I did not and do not resort to "personal vilification."

I said "you pontificate from your empty little heads"

Absolute classic, Keith. I did not or do not resort to personal vilification when I called you a tosser. I was complimenting you on how well you could throw things...

So, The last thread was the Jingoism thread then was it? Funny that. Did it start off as anything to do with WW1? Anything to say on why you feel you need to justify yourself to people you consider are empty headed? You really have lost it in a big way, Keith. Surely you can spend your time more constructively than this?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 02:08 PM

DtG,
Who started that one?

It was the Jingoism thread, 1235 posts, started by Rag.
The second post was yours Dave.

Steve, I did not and do not resort to "personal vilification."

I said "you pontificate from your empty little heads" referring to the fact that they have read no history written for at least twenty years, yet still feel qualified to pontificate about the period, contradicting every historian's research, work and conclusions on the period.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 01:35 PM

Teribus,

"Oh dear the usual suspects now have resort to stealing names now do they."

I typed it in the wrong box, and I had before your post posted asking the mods to remove it. Why would I want to steal your name? Why would I want to be associated with your repugnant, pro-imperialist, death denying views?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 01:29 PM

"With Belgium annexed what do you think the chances would have been for an independent Netherlands or an independent Denmark?"

They probably would have been assimilated into a German dominated Europe. As might we. Two conflagrations and a lot of deaths less to end up in the situation that we find ourselves in now anyway.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 01:27 PM

This thread was just continuing a thread closed by the mods.

Who started that one? And the one before? And the one before that?

but the comrades just carried on putting points to me to respond to

But you say that they should be ignored as they do not know anything. Why do you keep responding if they know nothing? Why do you feel you have to justify yourself to people you obviously have no respect for?

I had a week off and the thread was still going strong with no input from me

It did indeed. With only half the rancour that occurs when you are here.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 01:19 PM

.... and, I had a week off and the thread was still going strong with no input from me!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 01:03 PM

Dave,
Keith, they have been listed repeatedly and I am not going to repeat.

Completely untrue.
You have found nothing written in the last twenty years that in any way supports the myths you cling to.

Your cherished beliefs are dismissed as myths by them all.

Guest Fred, that quote had been edited by Rag to conceal Mead's view.
Read my post giving the bits he edited out.

DtG,
1.
This thread was just continuing a thread closed by the mods.
I wanted to acknowledge an agreement and to refute an accusation of lying. See OP.
2.
I did think there was nothing more to say, but the comrades just carried on putting points to me to respond to.
Have a word with them.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 12:35 PM

"The German army could have been marching down the Mall, and the High Seas fleet steaming up the Medway, but even that would be better than 17 million dead."

Are you really trying to suggest that if Great Britain had not entered the war Guest Dave that the Great War would never have happened???

If you are in any doubt at all GUEST Dave the following conflicts would still have gone ahead in 1914:

1: The War in the East against Serbia and Russia - How many died there GUEST Dave?

2: The invasion of Belgium - How many died there GUEST Dave?

3: The war against France - How many died there GUEST Dave?

With Belgium annexed what do you think the chances would have been for an independent Netherlands or an independent Denmark?

As the nineteenth century drew to a close the German Kaiser tried to make things difficult for the British in South Africa by supporting the Boers and supplying them with arms. How much trouble do you think they could have caused with an army of 4.5 million and the springboard of former Belgian and French possessions to operate from?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 11:14 AM

Nobody has a pop at the people of Israel. Rational people merely criticise what goes on in their name.

I'd ask braidedbeardedbruce to "go figure" but a) I'm not a foreigner so wouldn't use such terms and b) I have little confidence in his ability to do so judging by his subjective output.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 11:12 AM

Anyway, now that Guest-coward has flown in, let's get back to not not mentioning the war. There's an Israel thread for anyone who wants to mire themselves in the substantive. Give me Teribus any day.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 11:09 AM

What a load of rubbish, HiLo. I for one do not "pour scorn." Disagreeing with you about Israel is not pouring scorn. As for your recipe, well I've just been for a walk round Bude Canal wearing my Source Gobi sandals, made in Israel, and I've knowingly been buying that brand for at least ten years. Hard to get now, unfortunately. I've always expressed sympathy for Israeli citizens under fire and always been careful to criticise the regime, not Israelis or Jews, and I never say "Jewish lobby." (I note that you're happy to align yourself with an anonymous Guest who calls us "Jew haters" - you OK with that? Or don't you notice?) The points I made in that thread were anything but scornfully expressed. What you said in that post, and in another as it happens, was precisely nothing except to call us names (delusional bigots) and pour out some of your own scorn, without making any debating points. I've been guilty of some not nice behaviour here at times myself but I can take it if anyone wants to have it back. It seems like you can't do that.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 11:02 AM

On Shaw's Islamophobe fixation; Supporting Israel that makes one an Islamophobe. Being critical of Islam, even though he himself is critical of all religion, makes one an Islamophobe. Go figure (although that's not too hard to do).

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 10:42 AM

Teribus,

The German army could have been marching down the Mall, and the High Seas fleet steaming up the Medway, but even that would be better than 17 million dead. And "reputation"? What "reputation". Reputation as a former imperial power? As an active participant in the slave trade? Our reputation was already ruined and nothing would have changed that.

That post should have been from me. Mods please delete the near identical one above which says it is from GUEST, Teribus.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 10:41 AM

I am not in any camp. And not regarding Israel as a terrorist state does not make me or anyone else an islamophobe.. The delusional bigots I was refereeing to come here time and time again and pour scorn on the state of Israel. You could not put a recipe for Israelie cous cous up here , the sane old lot would be off on the usual rant. For Gods sake (Oh that will set you off on another rant) sake Steve, grow up.
I do not claim that Israel is perfect, what country is. But you and few others go way over the top and that seems to me to be far more than mere criticism.
Stop going from thread to thread calling people names and being an arse.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 10:32 AM

DtG, I am happy to go on pointing out that the comrades' beliefs are contradicted by the historians as long as they keep posting them.
Why not suggest that they stop?

Keith. Two points on that.

1. Who started this fucking thread in the first place? And

2. I refer you to the fourth post in the thread where I state that there is no point in continuing and mention others by name. You agreed that there was no point continuing two or three posts after. Yet here were are over 800 posts later. Something is seriously wrong...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 10:29 AM

The German army could have been marching down the Mall, and the High Seas fleet steaming up the Medway, but even that would be better than 17 million dead. And "reputation"? What "reputation". Reputation as a former imperial power? As an active participant in the slave trade? Our reputation was already ruined and nothing would have changed that.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 10:05 AM

"Hilo, they resort to personal vilification because they have no answer to what is actually said."

Same post:

"The historians dismiss your beliefs as myths, yet you pontificate from your empty little heads as if your dogma had some interest or value."

:-)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 10:04 AM

Tell us all Guest Dave - In order to stop a war that both Austria and Germany wanted what had Great Britain to offer that might have given the Austrians and Germans the idea that their goals would be achieved without having to go to war. I mean by the 28th July 1914 the Serbians had conceded and agreed to all but one of the Austrian demands, oddly enough some in Austria thought they could find accommodation on the last remaining point but the German Kaiser pressed them to hold out for Serbia's total capitulation - tell us GUEST Dave what Great Britain had to offer?

Great Britain had no formal allies in Europe at this time, but they did have existing treaties that they were solemnly bound to honour and they had "understandings" with the French. Great Britain asked for assurances from both France and Germany that Belgium's neutrality would NOT be violated. France gave such an assurance the Germans did not. Perhaps GUEST Dave, Great Britain could have left the Belgians hung out to dry, but then Great Britain's reputation would have been completely shot along with any trust in anything she'd put her name to. Great Britain would end up finding herself with an Army of 4.5 million men parked on her doorstep and the German High Seas Fleet within 4 hours steaming of London - OH Happy Days eh Dave.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 09:57 AM

"Islamophobic hate fest trolls.....I see that I have been included in that group by Steve Shaw, I am neither a troll nor islamophobic . Not on any thread havi I ever made any negative comment about Islam, ever."

The usual delusional bigots are all on your side Greg. Guess what, every thread you start ain't always gonna go your way !

The "delusional bigots" you refer to were criticising the Israeli regime's actions with regard to the theft of Palestinian land. This post was just one of several along similar lines. It's absolutely clear which of the two camps you were in in the earlier part of that thread. You cheerfully sided with MGM and the Guest-coward against Greg, Musket and myself. I'll take your word for it that you're not an Islamophobe, but, in order to avoid confusion, I'd advise you to stop acting like one. Incidentally, a feature of Islamophobia is turning a blind eye to atrocities against Muslims, shatteringly amazing as you claim that you actually lived in Israel. I mean, what on earth were you seeing? As for trolling, you made a post with no content except for an inflammatory remark, see above. In fact, the one quoted isn't the only one you made in that thread of that nature. As I said, on that score you're bang to rights.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Fred
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 09:43 AM

"As adjectives go thoroughness and plodding do not set the heart racing. Yet Haig's great virtues - gritty determination and a refusal to indulge in melodramatics - were and are precisely the qualities necessary in a general. This is true even if we acknowledge..."

"Selectively quoting and editing IS LYING Rag"

"This is true even if we acknowledge that his ambition for the battles he managed was inappropriately large for the tools at hand leading him into grotesque errors of judgement at Loos (1915, The Somme (1916) and the Third Ypres at Passchendaele (1917).........."

Hoist by his own petard.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 09:39 AM

Keith, they have been listed repeatedly and I am not going to repeat. Andrew Adonis may not be an historian, but he seems to have an insight and judgement lacking in many (not all as has been repeatedly pointed out) modern historians. This is not an argument about history, it is an argument about morals. Grey had none, and modern historians who defend him show the same lack.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 09:36 AM

I'm not cherrypicking, Teribus. I'm focussing on the one part of the war that, owing to the digging my mum wants me to do about her uncle, I'm actually getting to know quite a bit about. Digging into other bits can come later. Judging from the unedifying stuff I'm finding out about the Gallipoli campaign, I'm predicting that I won't find much sweetness and light elsewhere either, but we'll see and I won't prejudge that. As for Uncle Jimmy's molecules in the Med (just 19 when he was killed, by the way), well the way planetary recycling and circulation works is that a good few molecules derived from your poo will also be in the Med, but I'll keep eating the fish if it's OK with you. I'll just about cope in spite of that thought.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 09:30 AM

Hilo, they resort to personal vilification because they have no answer to what is actually said.

Dave,
but also the apologist school of historians so beloved by Keith and Teribus.

Can you name a single historian not of that "school?"
No. There are none.

The historians dismiss your beliefs as myths, yet you pontificate from your empty little heads as if your dogma had some interest or value.

Knowledge has advanced.
You have been left behind.

DtG, I am happy to go on pointing out that the comrades' beliefs are contradicted by the historians as long as they keep posting them.
Why not suggest that they stop?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 08:20 AM

Went to a fascinating talk at or local history society last night on recruiting in WW1 - stunning
It was based on dozens of documentation from the Glynn Family of Kilrush, who organised the recruiting campaign in County Clare.
On display were posters of women saying "Must we go in your place - be a man?" and "Shame on you".
The reasons given for signing-up were, Abject rural poverty, Romance and adventure, Promise of a pension, relief from rural boredom, pressure from landlords and employs - included were duty and commitment, but interestingly, not to Britain or he war but to the Glynn family who were influential landowners, businesspeople and employers in the area.
The campaign was launched with a dinner for the English War Department minister and good and the great of Kilrush - on the menu (displayed for us on screen) were, bisque, quails eggs and pheasant (so much for wartime rationing), the minister donated a line of trees for the main street of the town in return for the lives of the young men.
The early enthusiasm for the war turned sour in 1916, as shown by written accounts in family documents - letters were heavily censored and were the soldiers journals.
The 1916 uprising virtually turned the situation around.
The clergy, of course, did their bit in encouraging young mrn to go to their deaths for King and Empire.
All fascinating stuff.
I came away with a copy of 'To Fight Alongside Friends' - The Fist World War Diaries of Charlie May, edited by Gerry Harrisnon, with a foreword by David Crane - something to look forward to!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 08:15 AM

He does not get to me. I was simply stating that I am in no way Islamophobic. I do recognize his tactics, and you are quite right, he does do this frequently.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 08:07 AM

Don't let him get to you HiLo, he has been doing this kind of shit for ever, it's the pathetic tactic he uses to quell debate when his ideologically held position is countered with logic and facts. It's the only response he's left with and he uses it frequently.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 07:24 AM

Islamophobic hate fest trolls.....I see that I have been included in that group by Steve Shaw, I am neither a troll nor islamophobic . Not on any thread havi I ever made any negative comment about Islam, ever. I also have always used the same user name. I am growing a bit weary of this tactic of labelling people in this hateful way simply because they do not agree with your view of the world.
I do not think you need to be inflamed into inappropriate responses Steve, they seem to come easily to you, without any prompting!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 07:05 AM

I have little opinion on Haig, he was just a tool of the politicians. But the fact remains that 17 million died, and people on here bang on about having "won", as if that matters. Most culpable probably was Sir Edward Grey, and although I posted a link earlier, I will quote what Andrew Adonis has to say about him:


"Because Sir Edward Grey was such a nice man, historians have followed his contemporaries in excusing the reality that he was such a disastrous minister: arguably the most incompetent foreign secretary of all time for his responsibility in taking Britain into the First World War, having failed in July 1914 to do all within his power to stop the conflagration."

Which sums up not only Sir Edward Grey, but also the apologist school of historians so beloved by Keith and Teribus.

Except that his "niceness" is blown out of the water by both his Oxford career (he seems basically to have bought a degree), and his "Lights are going out" quote. He knew what the consequences of his actions were, but he went ahead anyway. Thats not nice.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 06:39 AM

"Next time I paddle in the Med I might reflect on the thought that some molecules of Uncle Jimmy may be sloshing around my ankles. That's a nice thought and that's as much glory as he'll ever get from now on."

Next time you are vacationing on the shores of the Med, I take it that you will be on a strictly non-seafood diet for pretty obvious reasons then Steve.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 06:01 AM

"How many thousands of posts do you think there has been on this subject, Keith?"

This and Israel. He's at it again now on the latest terrorism thread. That one was almost immediately taken over by a bunch of Islamophobe hatefest trolls, including an anonymous Guest, HiLo and MGM (one feature of trolls is that they try to inflame people into inappropriate responses, all three bang to rights there - go and have a look) in spite of its attempting to shine a slightly different light on what is happening in Israel. But it's now just the same tired old. Can't speak with certainty for Greg, whose thread it was, but we both decided days ago that the game was not worth the candle. Any further interventions by me on this one will be confined to what I know about the shameful events at Gallipoli in which my great uncle, and another of my ancestors, was blown to pieces (they didn't know each other). No bodies, no graves, brave lads led to their doom by ineptitude so egregious that's it's scarcely believable when you look into it. One of the tacticians behind that rotten endeavour is now lauded as the greatest war leader of all time. Sure. It may not make comfortable reading for the "well-led" brigade, if and when I can muster the energy to get round to it. And try not to insult me in advance if you can possibly manage it, Teribus.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 03:11 AM

Against that, why should anyone care what you think?

And yet you continue to go on and on (and on and on and on) about it to the extent of creating new threads every time that your old one gets closed. How many thousands of posts do you think there has been on this subject, Keith? With, what, a good 25% of them belonging to you? You say no one cares about opinions that differ to yours yet you carry on discussing them. You are even dafter than I thought.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 02:45 AM

My pals are too busy making good music or drinking good beer. The only Flamingo I've ever known was pretty. (Oh, and learned to drink in a pub by that name.)

I think you'll find, my little spunk bubble on the prick of reality, that some of those who thought it fashionable to agree with your gung Ho assessment of tragedy have either gone quiet, started spinning on the spot or wedded to a theory without being able to question it. (A bit like God botherers, if you will.)

Do carry on. People wonder why I occasionally pick up my phone, look at it and start chuckling.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jan 16 - 01:59 AM

Rag,
To my mind he was incompetent,....

Yes, but what does your mind know?
No historian agrees with you, and certainly not Mead, so why did you lie to us about his opinion of Haig?

If you had any kind of case you would not have to lie.
The history books describe the views of you and the comrades as "myths."
Against that, why should anyone care what you think?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:42 PM

"This hopefully will be my last post on the subject,"

Oh come on Raggy, you know that won't happen either under the title of GUEST Raggytash, or de-clutched, as yet another "Nameless GUEST". You will still continue to peddle those disproven myths and ill-informed cliches that support your ideological stance irrespective of what evidence is produced to show that they are all simply wrong.

"The rest of us know a tad more about the truth of the times."

Now who are The rest of us Raggy - That your usual pals who have continually stated that they know little about the period or the history of the conflict - Nice smoke screen to retreat behind when you have been caught out but it sort of also blows the bit about you lot knowing a tad more about the truth of the times. doesn't it??

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:36 PM

Let's assume Terribulus is right. I know, I know but bear with me.

For that to be so, all the other posters saying otherwise, of which there are quite a few, would have to be thick, mistaken or liars.

Occams Razor assists us in this.

You're talking bollocks, you revved up old fool.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:01 PM

If he is your idea of a "hero" good luck to you. To my mind he was incompetent, directly responsible through HIS ineptitude for the death of hundreds of thousands of men.

If that is acceptable to you, so be it. You, I and the professor have nothing more to say to each other.

This hopefully will be my last post on the subject, you, the Ape and the Professor can carry on with your fantasy about how well the forces were organised to your little hearts content.

The rest of us know a tad more about the truth of the times.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 06:19 PM

"Mead stated frequently that Haig lacked intelligence, he stated frequently that he had to have extra tuition to get through school and university. He stated frequently that he "grassed up" his superior officers. He stated frequently that Haig pulled strings, or had strings pulled for him, to achieve higher ranks. He states frequently that Haig used his connections with royalty to get his own way. He states frequently that Haig made woeful decisions regarding battle plans." - Raggytash

Now I am sure that Mead goes on to mention Haig's accomplishments

1914 - Helped in delaying the German advance and keeping the BEF intact as a fighting force even although outnumbered by the enemy by 3:1 at times most commonly never less than by 2:1 in terms of men and artillery. Helped in tempting the Germans into over-extending their lines which allowed them to be attacked by the combined armies of the British and the French on the Marne in 1914. The subsequent German defeat ended their dreams of a quick victory on the Western Front.

1915 - First a Neuve-Chapelle and again at Loos Haig's Division came within a whisker of actually achieving the desired break-through, the only thing that prevented that break-through happening was the poor and over-cautious handling of the reserves required to effect the break-through by the General Commanding the BEF at the time Sir John French. In both those battles Haig's planning and preparation were damn near immaculate, even the Germans admitted that - but your Revisionist Historians would never know anything about that - as that information only came to light after 1972. At the end of 1915 Haig was made Commander of British, Commonwealth and Empire troops fighting in France an appointment he continued to hold until the end of the war.

Between 1916 and the end of the war the British Army under Haig went from strength to strength - to such an extent that by August 1918 that contemptible little army took on and defeated the most professional and highly trained military force in Europe.

So Raggy it looks like all lack of intelligence coupled with all that extra tuition, along with all that other stuff which got him command in France paid off.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 05:50 PM

"They have to be myths because Teritowelling tells us men are never struck by senior ranks."

Ehmmm NO Raggy - again putting words into my mouth. But just to humour me and substantiate your claim quoted above - look up the post and give us chapter and verse where I told everybody that men were never struck by senior ranks.

What I did state quite clearly was that under the terms of the Army Act it is an offence for any senior rate or officer to strike a subordinate - You at the time I believe were either trying to convince us or support someone else telling us that summary execution of troops in the field was permitted and condoned by senior commanders. My contention and counter argument was that if it was an offence just to strike a subordinate how the hell could it be credible that those who command the army would sanction summary executions - still not one single name of any British Soldier who suffered one of those summary executions, wonder why?

Another case of a baseless accusation being thrown without any substantiation - boringly predictable and totally pathetic.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 03:16 PM

Selectively quoting and editing IS LYING Rag.

You cut this quote short.
"...who's main professional skill was an ability to supervise and administer the work of others, could mount to the summit of the British Army. Haig's moment in the harsh spotlight of history - the Great War - required him to bring to bear, when most needed, the perhaps minor but nevertheless vital virtues of stability, determination, dedication and personal authority. It is irrational to criticise him for being incapable of bringing that conflict to a swifter ending, for that was beyond the capacity of any individual."

Mead endorses Haig.
You can not produce a single quote against him.
You lied and you still lie Rag.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 03:12 PM

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM

Your two quotes are really one quote. You have just dishonestly edited out Mead's opinon which you have deceitfully and dishonestly misrepresented.

"As adjectives go thoroughness and plodding do not set the heart racing. Yet Haig's great virtues - gritty determination and a refusal to indulge in melodramatics - were and are precisely the qualities necessary in a general. This is true even if we acknowledge..."

So you have dishonestly tried to deceive us that Mead has formed a negative view of Haig.

You lied to us Rag. You can not produce a single quote that supports your lies about Mead's view of Haig as expressed in his biography, "The Good Soldier."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 02:39 PM

No lies there Professor.

ALL taken from the book you said you have read. There are of course PLENTY more.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 02:37 PM

"Haigs life reveals how a man lacking exceptional innate talent, possessing a substantial private income, fortunate enough to become noticed and favoured by monarchy and who's main professional skill was an ability to supervise and administer the work of others, could mount to the summit of the British Army"

"Fortunately for Douglas Haig, a gritty slogger rather than a gifted intellect, the aspiring middles classes prised hard graft above genius"

"..............was a comfort to those who, like Douglas Haig, lacked the spark of exceptional mental agility"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 02:31 PM

"And still you lie Rag."
And still you do Keith
" except for the obvious fact that the allies did win.""
Then you are saying that all that "appalling waste of human life" was worth it?
You just claimed that no historian has ever said it "I can not find anyone saying anything about winning,"- make up your tiny mind laddie - having your cake and eating it again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 02:05 PM

"Even on his death, the leader writer of the Times struggled to construct a an appropriate elegy, the best that could be mustered being Haigs great characteristic was thoroughness. A more recent historian described Haigs methods as plodding professionalism. As adjectives go thoroughness and plodding do not set the heart racing"..........

"This is true even if we acknowledge that his ambition for the battles he managed was inappropriately large for the tools at hand leading him into grotesque errors of judgement at Loos (1915, The Somme (1916) and the Third Ypres at Passchendaele (1917)..........

And he's still your hero......... amazing. There are plenty more were they came from.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 01:48 PM

If, as you claim, you have actually read the book go and find the quotes yourself. There are plenty to choose from.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 01:39 PM

And still you lie Rag.
The only quote you have yet given from the book was of Montgomery, and you chose not to give Mead's view of that quote!

Here are some quotes of Mead himself.

"His dedicated professionalism preceding the Great War and his unpaid devotion to the welfare of ex-servicemen afterwards are both now largely forgotten."

"Haig was a good soldier because he assiduously devoted himself to improving the professional competence of an army which, when he joined it, had been guided by a spirit of corrosive amateurism."

"The popular view of Haig is still irredeemably-and mistakenly- negative.

I can find no quote that supports any of the lies you have told Rag.
Produce one now, why don't you?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 01:26 PM

So, there you have it Keith. In war only winning is important. Human life is not. Do you now believe that someone said it?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 01:25 PM

I have read it Greg. I have had little else to do this past week.
Rag tried to deceive us by completely misrepresenting Mead's views on Haig as expressed in his book.

Do you approve of such behaviour Greg?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 01:22 PM

Mead stated frequently that Haig lacked intelligence, he stated frequently that he had to have extra tuition to get through school and university. He stated frequently that he "grassed up" his superior officers. He stated frequently that Haig pulled strings, or had strings pulled for him, to achieve higher ranks. He states frequently that Haig used his connections with royalty to get his own way. He states frequently that Haig made woeful decisions regarding battle plans. If Haig is still a hero to you after reading the book try reading it again with an open mind instead of only reading those parts which agree with your preconceived notions.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 01:22 PM

Here we go...

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Thick Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Cunt Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

That's better.

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴
🔫🔫🔫💥💥🌚

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 01:14 PM

Rag, you blatantly and shockingly lied about Mead's book...

Which you, Professor, have never read.

Pathetic, really.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 12:59 PM

Rag, you blatantly and shockingly lied about Mead's book, believing you would not be found out and exposed.
You have been.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 12:55 PM

I think The IWM is right Keith...

So do I Musket. I do not think they agree with you.

Jim,
Then you are saying that all that "appalling waste of human life" was worth it?

No. What I am saying is that the people who fought it DID think it was worth it, and apart from Ferguson every historian of the period agrees.

I give more weight to their opinion than yours, based as it is on just political dogma and not actual historical knowledge at all.
(Or have you now read a history book written this century?)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 12:53 PM

Of course British troops would never partake in barbarity, just like the events at Deepcut are a myth. They have to be myths because Teritowelling tells us men are never struck by senior ranks.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 10:57 AM

I think The IWM is right Keith...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 10:53 AM

"" except for the obvious fact that the allies did win.""
Then you are saying that all that "appalling waste of human life" was worth it?
You just claimed that no historian has ever said it "I can not find anyone saying anything about winning,"- make up your tiny mind laddie - having your cake and eating it again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 10:23 AM

It is indeed significant, Keith. But I consider the life more important the the outcome. Some do not. The exact phrase used was "If you are involved in a war there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE." Human life seems to be secondary to some...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 09:59 AM

Jim,
" except for the obvious fact that the allies did win."

DtG,

1.
See above. In discussion of the history of any war, obviously the outcome is significant. What was your point?

2.
It was addressed to all those contributors who commented on that issue while I was away. I did not even notice that you had. Sorry.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 08:32 AM

"I can not find anyone saying anything about winning, except for the obvious fact that the allies did win."
One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. ......... The victory in 1918 was the payoff.
GARY SHEFFIELD
Read your own ****** historians - you claim to have read them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:55 AM

1. You did not look very hard then Keith. There has been a number of times where it has been stated that winning was the most important thing.

2. Glad to hear it. Who was it addressed to?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:44 AM

I suggest you look up who said it and in what context as you will not believe it unless you do.

I can not find anyone saying anything about winning, except for the obvious fact that the allies did win.
Explain what you meant please.

My post about "over by Christmas" was not particularly directed at you Dave.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:37 AM

It is the IWM relying on their research, not I, that said one of the most popular sayings of 1914 was "It will be over by Christmas". Follow the link I posted. I have never argued that it was a promise made by anyone. Just a popular expectation. Take it up with them.

What has winning to do with anything in this context?

It is not me that has suggested that winning the war justified all the deaths. I suggest you look up who said it and in what context as you will not believe it unless you do.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:17 AM

Stuart Hallifax
Queen's College Oxford
Article 'Over by Christmas': British popular opinion and the short war in 1914"
published in First World War Studies
Vol.1, No. 2, October 2010 103-121
Published By: Routledge
Print ISSN: 1947-5020
Online ISSN: 1947-5039
Queen's College, Oxford

Stuart Hallifax | A Forlorn Hope
aforlornhope.wordpress.com/stuart-hallifax/‎
After 3 years at the Queen's College, Oxford, I had my DPhil viva in March 2011 (passed, with minor corrections). My thesis is on Essex in the First World War, ...

John Horne (Hrsg.): A Companion to World War I. Oxford 2010. - H ...
hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2010-4-095‎
8 Nov 2010 - Stuart Hallifax über: Horne, John (Hrsg.): A Companion to World War I. Oxford ... under stewardship of eminent Great War historian John Horne.

Jessica Meyer (Hrsg.): British Popular Culture and the First World ...
hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2009-4-050‎
16 Oct 2009 - Stuart Hallifax über: Meyer, Jessica (Hrsg.): British Popular Culture and the First World War. ... Stuart Hallifax, Queens College, Oxford ... The experience of the First World War and its cultural legacy are two areas of its history ...

A Kingdom United: Popular Responses to the Outbreak of the First ...
ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/09/05/ehr.cet244.full
by S Hallifax - ‎2013

6 Sep 2013 - stuarthallifax{at}gmail.com. The way in which historians have depicted British responses to the outbreak of the First World War has changed ...
Patriotism and Propaganda in First World War Britain: The National ...
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1846318300

David Monger - 2012 - ‎History
Evidence, History and the Great War, Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2003, 67-85. ... Hallifax, Stuart, "'Over by Christmas": British Popular Opinion and the Short War in ...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 07:12 AM

This by an Oxford historian makes clear that "over by Christmas was never a promise.

Here is the conclusion.
"The words and actions of civilians and leaders do not suggest that expectations of peace by Christmas were widespread, and they certainly did not spur the recruiting boom of late summer 1914.

Soldiers more frequently predicted peace by Christmas, some hoping to play some part in the war and fearing a quick peace; once soldiers had seen action, they, like civilians, began to long for peace and their return home. The desire on the part of both soldiers and civilians for the war to end soon (but victoriously) and the particular appeal of Christmas as a religious and familial occasion made predictions of a return by Christmas a very desirable notion in 1914 and afterwards. What could be closer to the hearts of soldiers, and particularly the citizens-in-uniform of Britain's world war armies, than wanting to be at home for Christmas?

As part of the image of a nation unprepared for war, 'over by Christmas' is an iconic phrase that has become accepted as ubiquitous in and singular to 1914. It was neither. "
http://www.forumeerstewereldoorlog.nl/viewtopic.php?t=24650

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 06:57 AM

Thanks DtG, but no idea what your mean by that last sentence.
No-one, least of all me, disputes that both world wars were catastrophic human disasters.

What has winning to do with anything in this context?

Re "trawling through old posts" this is my first opportunity to respond to your false statement about that post of mine. Sorry I could not at the time.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 06:40 AM

Good man Keith. Glad to see you back on form and trawling through old posts. Still doesn't change the fact that 17 million people died but winning is all that matters...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 06:35 AM

Thanks Musket.
I think you are wrong about those letters.

DtG,

I'll let other people make up their own mind. Keith. Like before, I sure as hell am not going to go back through all that crap to see what went on a week ago.

Allow me.
Here is the post you referred to.
Each describes denials of my 3 points as "myths."


DtG, their(sic, sorry) 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. (Dan Snow)
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: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 06:22 AM

Of course from your point of view there is no need - you and your pals are only good at throwing out baseless accusations then running for cover. And that has proved to be the case on this occasion - as I said boringly predictable.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 05:31 AM

Hi Keith. Good to see you back.

On a serious note regarding your post, the idea of home by Xmas came from somewhere, origin not accurately known. The point some on here were making was that regardless, nobody "above" issued reality checks to quash the idea, encouraging recruitment based on the idea, which is widely recorded, especially in letters held by IWM.

Look, that was boring. Can't we revert to throwing shit at one another? Far more fun and in the final analysis, as likely to reach a consensus.

Anyway, Terribulus is my hero now. He knows how to growl and become indignant. Far easier to get him "researching" too. 😇

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 05:01 AM

I'll let other people make up their own mind. Keith. Like before, I sure as hell am not going to go back through all that crap to see what went on a week ago.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 04:15 AM

Rag,
You lied about Mead's book.
It is more supportive of Haig than even Sheffield's!

"Oh ! ! Dilemma ! ! Who should I believe the review of Gary Mead the noted Historian or the professor Keith A of Hertford."

No dilemma Rag. Believe both.

The idea that the war would be won by Christmas came from below not above.
It did not survive the British defeat and retreat from Mons just four weeks into the war.
Any victory was clearly years away and imminent defeat much more likely.
That brought a massive surge in recruiting, the volunteers in full knowledge that they faced a desperate and seemingly hopeless fight.

DtG,
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.

They were precisely about my three points Dave!
Each point refutes what the historians quoted referred to as "myths."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Jan 16 - 02:49 AM

No need. You can't help yourself.

Mind you, if you do back pedal and mean it, sinners are allowed to repent, according to the sky pixie. So who am I to complain?

Just stop making out the planning and execution was good, the leadership fit for purpose, the men were fully aware of what they were letting themselves in for and the Court Martial system wasn't abused for expediency and scaring others.

All of which run a thread through your own tattered threads.

Coincidence. I have got involved in some public health work recently. Just been reading a paper about nutrition monitoring in the community. The preface mentions how shocked the army were over the poor health and nutrition scores of recruits in WW1. Their solution wasn't to reject or a program of building up through better diet to go with the exercise in training. No, they just lowered the bar.

The principle was still there over fifty years later, (The Black Report.)

Fascinating.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM

Most of your posts say it, you old fool.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM

Ehmmm NO Gnome - The myth perpetuated by Jim Carroll was that the Government deliberately spread the lie that the war would be over by Christmas - I responded to that by stating that the "Over by Christmas" myth had no official sanction or origin

OK. My mistake. I apologise. If you say you did not say it I will believe you. I am not going to wade back through all that crap to see what was actually said. Life is too short.

Ever heard of editing Gnome?

Yes I have thanks. Which is why I said I have no doubt that what you say was what you said and what I said were both correct. What I object to is, and I don't have to wade though anything here because I know exactly where it is, is the intimation that I had left something out on purpose -

From: Teribus - PM
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 07:10 AM
...
Wonder why you, or the person who edited the text in the link you provided, left out the bit in bold there Gnome?

In context it matters not one jot to Joe Armstrong's mates anyway.

By the way Gnome, in the workhouse Joseph Armstrong scrubbed floors.

So, you tell us where he learned about the Franco-Prussian wars. Mine was only a guess.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 02:17 PM

Fly the flags! Rejoice!

Terribulus said something accurate!

He said I would only give him abuse.

Too right, my little armchair hero. Not much point in arguing against patent bollocks.

Perhaps the worm might describe what he means by opponents? It isn't a game you snivelling little cretin. It about standing up to revision and refusing to let the establishment you are the first to complain about get away with making privilege a desirable job attribute. It's about those with no concept of anything outside of their sheltered lives become the automatic leaders on the basis of which King fucked their great great granny. It's pointing out that their incompetence in the field exacerbated the conflict. As Dave said, what happened happened. It's the rationale and how they came to cover all sides in defeat, even those who reckoned they'd won. Counting graves is not a game of winners and losers but diplomatic defeat all round.

Now yer Terribulus says that never happened and that the huge numbers of deaths were planned but worthwhile as a tactic. Although the confused old sod reckons trenches weren't.

If you actually read things instead of cheering on anybody who happens to try and refute those who see you for what you are, you'll see that Terribulus is showing support here for what you whinge on about most.

Here. If your Grandfather thought so much of Haig and fighting for King and Empire, what would he have made of one of his descendants voting to destroy what the Kaiser and Hitler failed to breach?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 01:38 PM

No, ake, it is nothing to do with diversions or anyone being gullible. Teriums mad the point that no one believed it would be over by Christmas. The link I provided from the Imperial War Museum stated unequivocally that 'over by Christmas' was one of the most popular expressions of 1914. The only argument teribums has against this is that it did not come from any official source. My point is that it did not matter where it came from; people still believed it.

The next point was that he accused me of removing a line from my quote of Joe Armstrong's words. Again, it was undeniably proven that the line he was so insistent was there, was not there in either the text or the sound clip of the link. Furthermore I believe that, even if the line was there, of which I have no doubt it was in what teribums saw, it would not matter. Joe Armstrong's comrades would still be dead. Which brings me on to my final point.

All this talk of whether Britain should have entered the war, whether it's troops were well led or whether the population at large supported it is completely insignificant when compared to the 17 million people that died. It is my opinion that most people on here are not arguing against the historical facts, I certainly am not, but against the trivialisation of such a global catastrophe into a senseless, point-scoring debate.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 12:16 PM

Dave, I don't know if you're doing it intentionally as a tactic, but it should be obvious to everyone who has been following this discussion what point Teribus was making....and it was a valid one.

Those who volunteered in 1914(including my grandfather) were neither stupid, naïve or gullible.
My grandfather was a very intelligent man, who after the war retained a great respect for Douglas Haig.

I don't contribute much here as I do not have the historical knowledge required....perhaps some of Mt T and Keiths opponents would do well to follow my example.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 10:37 AM

I am happy to answer the only question in there which, as far as I can see, is simply "could you possibly explain how Joseph Armstrong raised for much of his young life in the Morecombe Workhouse knew about the Franco-Prussian War let alone positions occupied by Prussian Artillery? I would doubt very much if you'd get 1 in 10 in the UK today that has ever even heard of the Franco-Prussian War let alone tell you when it happened."

I think it is probably because he was taught history in the workhouse. But I suspect no one will ever really know.

So, I have answered your question, despite your abuse and bluster. You have never addressed the point of what difference it made to the men who died. As usual, when faced with an uncomfortable truth, you try to change the subject.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 08:51 AM

Probably a good idea to bring the workhouse back then. I am sure that would resolve a lot of your issues teribums.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 05:06 AM

"In the same way it would not have made a ha'pence worth of difference whether they were there with another regiment and where their orders came from. They would have still been dead."

Very true that those from The Loyal Lancashire Regiment would all still be dead - the ha'pence of difference depends what the orders were and how many from any accompanying regiments completed the move and to what end.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 05:03 AM

Percy Toplis
"First World War
In August 1914, after release from prison he joined the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC) and served with 'B' section, 39 field ambulance at Torquay until 17 June 1915 when they became part of the force sent to Gallipoli. Overall conditions were horrific, particularly during the major August offensives and although wounded and badly effected by dysentery, Toplis along with many others was not evacuated until the end of that ill-fated campaign
After UK hospitalisation he was given light work in a munitions factory at Gretna before being posted to trooping duties in Salonika and Egypt where he developed malaria possibly a result of Gallipoli and had to be shipped home. September 1917 saw him seconded to the troop-ship Orantes en-route for India, where he remained in Bombay for several months. Back in the UK he went to RAMC Blackpool, from which he deserted shortly after the death of his father in August 1918. Subsequent fraud offences resulted in Nottingham Assizes imposing a second term of imprisonment in November 1918. Following release in 1920, and though still a deserter (the end of the Great War seems to have waned Army interest in such matters) he joined the Royal Army Service Corps (RASC) and, as part of No. 2 Depot Motor Transport (Bulford), became heavily involved in the black market sale of Army petrol."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 04:25 AM

True. In the same way it would not have made a ha'pence worth of difference whether they were there with another regiment and where their orders came from. They would have still been dead.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 04:19 AM

Don't quite think Jos said they were killed whilst cleaning their buttons Gnome. And as Lighter pointed out whether their buttons were shiny or not would not have made a ha'pence worth of difference to the artillerymen firing at them from thousands of yards away, nor would it have made any difference whether they were on a plateau in a valley or in a wood had the troops been spotted and reported artillery fire would certainly have been called in, to prevent them moving from whatever point A to whatever point B.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 02:53 AM

Could you explain to us what the officers orders were Gnome. Could you explain what the Regiments, Brigade or the Divisions orders were?

No I cannot. Could you explain what difference it would have made to those on that plateau who were killed while cleaning their buttons?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Jan 16 - 02:33 AM

It takes the human touch to demonstrate how out of touch and indeed reality Terribulus really is. Mind you, when something even as subjective as Wikipedia blows his little theories out, he back pedals so fast the chain comes off.

Steve's family story is sadly very typical. Got one or two of our own in fact. As I said before many times on this and other threads, the people of Europe have a very different history to relate than that of the sanitising revisionists and their sycophants.

Spontaneous unplanned trenches. He he.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,SHTF
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 09:28 PM

Your welcome Steve Shaw

Good night, Chesty Puller, wherever you are!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 08:18 PM

Thank you for that. A masterpiece, and balm to the soul. I recommend the Tallis Scholars with Alison Stamp singing the high bits. Sublime.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,SHTF
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 07:55 PM

 

Miserere mei Deus: secundum magnam misericordiam tuam. 
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum: dele iniquitatem meam

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 07:31 PM

Well I've been in tears all bloody evening trying to find out about my great uncle Jimmy for my mum. Somewhere in panels 158 to 170 on a war memorial in Turkey is his name, Pte James Curliss, along with 21000 others. I haven't found a pic of it yet but there'll be one somewhere. He has no grave of his own, as nothing identifiable could be found of him. All for king and country, your bits smeared all over a foreign beach, your name carved on a couple of slabs, all that's left of you. Next time I paddle in the Med I might reflect on the thought that some molecules of Uncle Jimmy may be sloshing around my ankles. That's a nice thought and that's as much glory as he'll ever get from now on. You earned a legacy for someone else who might have been "running things" from several hundred yards behind the line, quite likely with a few bottles of champagne to hand, but your name isn't mentioned in their biographies. Times seven mIllion. But they were all so well led. My mum told me. Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori, eh? Sometimes, when you talk about war you have to bring it all back down to human scale, otherwise you might go insane. I'd rather go a bit soppy over Uncle Jimmy than go insane, thanks.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 06:45 PM

Well, when I was a young man, I carried me pack
And I lived the free life of a rover............

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 06:08 PM

"he was still the only one left due to an officers imbecilic mistake."

Could you explain to us what the officers orders were Gnome. Could you explain what the Regiments, Brigade or the Divisions orders were?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 05:35 PM

" I was prompted to have a look on wiki at Gallipoli. It doesn't make nice reading for the "they were well-led" brigade."

Couldn't agree more Steve and I have stated so before on this thread - however if you wish to examine the worst case and example of bad leadership in the British Army go no further than Townshend in Mesopotamia But taking your example Gallipoli - it actually came very, very close to being a complete and utter success once during the naval assault on the Dardanelles and second when the British landed at Suvla, had the British troops had an aggressive and energetic Commander the Turks would have been cut off with no hope of relief or supply in 24 hours.

But those examples do not reflect the prevailing capabilities and performance of British, Commonwealth and Empire forces commanders from 1915 onward so the point now agreed upon by modern historians and described by Keith A as follows still holds good:

In general compared to the armies of other combatant powers the British Army was well led

Douglas from becoming Commander of the 1st Army in 1915 consistently gave his German enemy severe problems and that they acknowledged that with their dispositions when facing British troops.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 03:55 PM

Well led, eh? Well my old mum told me just today that her uncle, my great uncle Jimmy Curliss, was blown to pieces at Gallipoli on August 7 1915. His name's on a plaque in Salford Cathedral, though I'm not sure that his surname isn't slightly misspelled. I was prompted to have a look on wiki at Gallipoli. It doesn't make nice reading for the "they were well-led" brigade.

The Allied campaign was plagued by ill-defined goals, poor planning, insufficient artillery, inexperienced troops, inaccurate maps and intelligence, overconfidence, inadequate equipment and logistics, and tactical deficiencies at all levels.[199][200] Geography also proved a significant factor. While the Allied forces possessed inaccurate maps and intelligence and proved unable to exploit the terrain to their advantage, the Ottoman commanders were able to utilise the high ground around the Allied landing beaches to position well-sited defences that limited the Allied forces' ability to penetrate inland, confining them to narrow beaches.[66] The campaign's necessity remains the subject of debate,[85] and the recriminations that followed were significant, highlighting the schism that had developed between military strategists who felt the Allies should focus on fighting on the Western Front and those that favoured trying to end the war by attacking Germany's "soft underbelly", its allies in the east.[201]

There's tons more of that. What I quoted is just a snippet. Maybe wiki isn't all written by recent historians. But there are plenty of references to look up. Well led at Gallipoli? Prove it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 03:21 PM

An appreciation of Sir Edward Grey, by Andrew Adonis:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/reviewed-edwardian-requiem-life-sir-edward-grey-michael-waterhouse

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 01:39 PM

I have no doubt about the veracity of what you put, teribums. I not believe for one minute you made it up. You do not have the imagination. What does surprise me is that you did not check the link I posted, both the sound clip and the transcript, before you accused me of removing part of a statement. As it happens, it makes not the slightest bit of difference to Joe as, whether other regiments were there or not, he was still the only one left due to an officers imbecilic mistake.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 11:50 AM

Wow. Mile after mile of trenches appeared from nowhere. No planning, no policy and by weird coincidence, facing spontaneous German trenches.

Oh, and when people are ill, that they have shell shock, a condition noted and recognised from the time of the Boer War, you act in the interest of patients, not tie them to a post and shoot the fuckers. That's whose interest, you ignorant twat.

You can believe what you want. Men join the army voluntarily for many reasons, getting away from a small town, alternative to starving, better chance of getting laid, escaping the law, read too many adventure books..

You do talk bollocks.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 07:06 AM

I reckon that's the least question you have for them Terribulus!

Ask them how so many men presumably went willingly to their deaths for a cause they fully understood. Ask them if the policy of trench warfare coupled with sending waves of men into the path of enemy fire was an example of good leadership. Ask them if treating soldiers who couldn't hack it on the front as being criminals was in their best interest. Ask them if there actually was a threat from one cousin towards another. Ask them if the government tried to play down the "home by Xmas" belief.

🐮💩

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 06:26 AM

"I don't know which Regiment got there first but..."

Waiting to hear back from the Imperial War Museum on that Gnome.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 06:09 AM

I'm with you there, Musket. There is trivial abuse such as you and I dish out in no small order :-) And there is the sort of abuse that does matter because it incites hatred towards other people. I think we may not always agree on the level that cuts in at but one thing we do agree on is that painting whole swathes of people with the same broad brush is simply wrong.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 06:02 AM

Something or other rhyming with virtue? I'm with you on that one Dave, but as seen on other threads, it isn't the comments towards other Mudcat members that pisses me off, we can tell it to piss off. It's the lies and hatred towards people different to the creature. My anger is towards Mudcat moderation, who don't cut out hatred, calling it free speech, but then get all pissy when others confront it.

It takes all sorts to widen a debate. Sadly it also takes all sorts to narrow it down to the narrow minded.

I sit in anticipation of an actual contribution to the thread by the Scottish creature. Sorry, I can't afford him the decency of seeing him as human. His attitude towards anybody different to him precludes such respect. His sort make me feel ill.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 05:20 AM

Thanks, ake.

I have said before and am sure to do so again that such posts are a complete nonsense. Everyone knows they are and should treat them as such. I have been called and accused of all sorts of things that are not true. Because it is blatantly obvious that they are not true I have come to realise that they simply do not matter.

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 05:12 AM

Sorry Dave, 8th Jan 3:29 am

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 04:54 AM

"Why do you compromise your credibility by associating with them?"
Can't speak for the th others - I know none of "the others"
Why do you associate with a tiny minority of extremist right wingers who consistently lie and distort what others say (and history) in support of a system and an establishment you claim to be opposed to.
It is you and they who are out of step on this forum - have you really not worked out why (sorry, missed out Brucie the Troll )?
As the song says:
"You can tell the man who boozes by the company he chooses"
As Dave has just said - if you agree with these people - why not join in the argument with your own thoughts instead of sniping from afar?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 04:53 AM

see 8th Jan 3:45 pm

There are no posts on the 8th of January between 3:29PM and 5:02PM. I think you are seeing things, ake. Pretty much like teribums made up "I don't know which Regiment got there first but..."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 04:22 AM

"Yet you have no compunction in joining the baying pack in attacking those that do have the expertise. "

But when we did, on the other, now closed, thread, have an actual academic historian with actual expertise (called GUEST, Modette), that person was driven away by abuse such as "where did your degree come from, back of a cornflakes packet". I can't remember now whether the abuse came from Teribus or Keith or Akenaton, I suspect the first of those.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Jan 16 - 03:32 AM

No, be buggered if I can find it. There's something about a knobhead but I reckon that was fair comment and accurately aimed.

Keith, quite politely actually, wished this thread to explore the history vs the mythology of WW1. Sadly, I reckon his take was 180 deg from reality judging by his posts, which is not surprising when Tertibulus props up any thought he had with scriptive diarrhoea.

The input from a confused sewer pit of hatred, on the basis of following people around who dismiss his bigotry does little to help. I have not read a single actual contribution to this thread from him. Presumably because he can't weave in his usual views on British citizens of Pakistani origin, gay men, travellers, women or anyone he sees as liberal. (No idea what he means as liberal. I doubt he does. Let's settle for anyone offended by his pollution of a respectable website.)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 07:11 PM

Hmmm, sadly Akenaton that coming from you, in particular, is not a ringing endorsement.

Question for you. Have you ever added anything of a historical nature to this or any other thread about WW1.

IF I am wrong I will apologise.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 06:33 PM

Dave, you really are a couple of rungs above these people...that is my honest opinion.
You had the grace to agree about the status of the Musket creature who follows me around (see 8th Jan 3:45 pm)

Why do you compromise your credibility by associating with them?
This is my sincere view, they are here to wreck the place they have no real interest in history only in shutting down threads or insulting people who challenge them.
You have a sense of humour and can be one of the stars here...friendly advise.....ditch them.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 05:22 PM

No idea why, but I'd just like to say;

Fuck off

That feels better

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 08:28 AM

a couple of moron jingoists

this pair of eejits


Q.E.D.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 08:16 AM

"Yet some are compelled to offer their opinions on subjects of which they are ignorant simply to attack those with whom they disagree on the basis of ideology."
If that's the case, these geniuses should be ably to destroy any opposition with one flash of their magnificent intellects - instead, one hides behind hitorians he hasn't read, the othr bullies and blusters, runs away from questions he cannot answer - both of them habitually lie - not thee sign of true genius.
As for you - you just troll from the undergrowth of anonymity.
If you knew enough to know who are the experts, you are perfectly free to join in - instead O Bearded One - you troll.
Let's have your ideas instead of your sycophantic support for a couple of moron jingoists.
Gi' us a break - you are as extremisat right as this pair of eejits.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 08:08 AM

nobody knows everything

Yet some are compelled to offer their opinions on subjects of which they are ignorant simply to attack those with whom they disagree on the basis of ideology.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 07:50 AM

"Unlike you I defer to those who know what they're talking about."
Then you will remain ignorant - nobody knows everything
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 07:21 AM

That sounds very much like I know sweet FA and am not prepared to learn. The likes of Teribus & Keith are only forwarding one side of the discussion (such as it is). To many it is a very blinkered view, making excuses for the carnage of WW1.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 07:07 AM

witjhout even trying to put forward an argument of your own

Unlike you I defer to those who know what they're talking about.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 06:39 AM

"Yet you have no compunction in joining the baying pack in attacking those that do have the expertise. "
Any you have no compunction in trolling thread after thread witjhout even trying to put forward an argument of your own Brucie (your literary skills betray you).
There has been very little expertise here - though some of us are willing to learn
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 04:47 AM

Yet you have no compunction in joining the baying pack in attacking those that do have the expertise.

If either you, imbecilic gusset, or ake have that expertise then, yes, guilty as charged. But I have never attacked anyone for their expertise, only their attitudes, and coming out with such moronic invention only shows you for the sad stalker you are.

I suppose I should be flattered that you take the time and trouble to follow me round various threads, sniping from the sidelines, but it does you no favours.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Jan 16 - 03:37 AM

Still..   17 million dead eh? Some bugger somewhere didn't lead troops well. Someone sonewhere was incompetent and callous.

Seems to me that the likes of Terribulus have become victims of legislated nostalgia. That there Douglas Coupland hits the nail bang on the head.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 08:03 PM

"they do fulfil all the criteria."
As do you.
I am aware who he was referring to - just astounded that someone who behaves as he does should accuse anybody of being either a bully or a coward.
He constantly sneers down at people and does a runner when his pronouncements are challenged - which is often.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 07:07 PM

Who gave Keith the key for the asylum

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 06:55 PM

I have always readily admitted that I do not know much about history silly gusset

Yet you have no compunction in joining the baying pack in attacking those that do have the expertise. Not that we mind though, we are entertained by the spectacle of you being made fools.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 06:09 PM

I have always readily admitted that I do not know much about history silly gusset. I do know people though and I am not sure I would even class you as one of the same race.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 05:46 PM

Bloody hell. One in every village? Bloody commune of them (the same idiot really) on here.

Of course the problem is, with their sanitising of military incompetence and blunder, they are making a mockery of the millions who died.

"We who are following this thread". I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find some wanking material on the internet instead.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 05:02 PM

It just makes you look a complete knobhead.

You and the pack are so caught up in your circle jerk that you don't recognize that we who are following this thread know who the real knobheads here are. All you combined have not one iota of the knowledge and expertise on this subject that Teribus does. You really come off as a gang of prats offering little of substance but a lot of opinion, mostly based on a long discredited, failed ideology. Do keep it up though, we enjoy laughing at you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket of the team variety it appears
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 03:29 PM

He LOOKS like a knob head too????
😳😳😳😳

What's all this about the "team?"

Hang on, I'll find out.

Ring Ring

"Hi Alex, I've got a question"

"Sorry, I'm driving."

"You were driving before when others tried asking you a question."

"I know. I've got to get to Seaham and back before it gets light"

"What! again?"

🐶🔨👻

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 02:58 PM

Ake, I think that most people are aware that you follow teribums round like a lapdog yapping with glee whenever you think he has done something good. You may think it puts you in good stead. It doesn't. It just makes you look a complete knobhead.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 02:48 PM

Jim, I think most people are aware that Mr T is referring to "Team Musket" and their followers......they do fulfil all the criteria.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 01:57 PM

"I tend to dislike hypocrites almost as I dislike bullies and cowards."
Self hatred - surely not!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 01:50 PM

No mirrors in your sheltered accommodation I take it?

No idea about saluting. I recall being saluted by a sailor or three when we went up to a "taceval" at Lossiemouth. Hated it, having to acknowledge it when my mind was elsewhere. At least at Locking no bugger bothered.

In case anyone wonders what he is on about by the way. Military police were known as either red caps or red tops. Unfortunately he has only heard of the former so reckoned I'd made it up. (Interestingly The Monocled Mutineer used both names.)

Fool

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 11:25 AM

Very pleased to hear that no such invitation will ever be forthcoming - I tend to dislike hypocrites almost as I dislike bullies and cowards.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 11:25 AM

"Any examples of employers saying to their fully trained and experienced employees who the employer must have relied upon to do whatever it was they did in order to generate profit "
Stop making things up - what I wrote was:
" a threat of dismissal by employers" - no "fully trained, no "immediate dismissal"
Again, Covered by Paxman's programme 1.
This touches on it - Paxman was more definite of it being a compulsory condition of permanent employment.
The Government encouraged the "realease" of men in order that they should enlist - coupled with the white feathers and the emotional blackmail -it was virtually impossible not to join.
POSTERS
Jim Carroll
"The British had about 5.5 million men of military age, with another 500,000 reaching 18 each year.[4] The initial call for 100,000 volunteers was far exceeded, almost half a million men enlisted in two months (see the graph). Naturally thereafter there were fewer, though volunteering was still ardently promoted by the most effective recruiting poster ever drawn (pictured above), newspaper reports of German barbarities that were supported later by eminent historians,[5] pressure from employers who promised to keep jobs open, some Poor Law Guardians who refused to support fit military-aged men, and orations by politicians and public figures. They built on Kipling's questions, " What stands if Freedom fall? Who dies if England live?".

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 11:14 AM

If I had any regard for you Teritowelling I might even have invited you to share of my collection of single malt whisky and Whiskey, numbering at least 49 different single malts. But I can't see that ever happening.

I do have the odd bottle of blends that kind but unknowing people have given me. Have I ever bought a blend, not for at least 40 years.

I would think that everyone on here who has commented so far understands the difference between a blend, a single malt and single cask.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 11:00 AM

"Waffling on about officer lectures that you have no idea of"

Attended them at University; BRNC Dartmouth; RMA Sandhurst; RUSI; IISS. Not surprisingly I found them fascinating - which obviously shows in the exchanges on this subject - Now for someone who claims to have served albeit for less than a dog-watch tell everybody about those REDTOPS again.

On the other thing:

Blended whisky v Single malt whisky

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 10:57 AM

And Midleton Single Malt is still a single malt, not that anyone could expect an apology from Teribus.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 10:44 AM

Err. It was Pilot Officer actually Terribulus. I know you wish matters to be accurate. I did get Queen's Commission after basic training but this was, or at least used to be, suspended until after a period of role training, in my case at Locking. My "character on discharge certainly gave rank, even though I never really saw myself as anything other than an officer cadet. The spit and polish was boring, drill a pain in the arse and the only bits I really enjoyed were cross country and when they put us a CS chamber and made us change gas mask cartridges. No sinus problems for months after that fucker.

It really pisses you off doesn't it? Waffling on about officer lectures that you have no idea of and then finding at least one person here, maybe others, were the sort whose uniform you'd have to salute. Don't worry, I thought it old fashioned bollocks. I was there for the engineering not the handlebar moustache.

A blend of malts is still a blend, you old fool.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 10:42 AM

Any further word on where Joe Armstrong said "I don't know which Regiment got there first but" by any chance?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 10:36 AM

...and all three are far better than talking about WW1.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 10:35 AM

Any examples of employers saying to their fully trained and experienced employees who the employer must have relied upon to do whatever it was they did in order to generate profit - "Join up now, leave my employment immediately or I will sack you" - I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 10:34 AM

Blended is a blend of malt and grain whiskeys

Blended malt is a blend of malt whiskeys from different distilleries

Single malt is the produce of a single distillery

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM

"there is none."
There are numerous soldiers accounts of why they joined up, but of course, they're all liars.
I reckong Paxman dedicated at least ten minutes to Bottomly's 'show' and threats of being sacked were included in that.
The various inducements listed, emotional blackmail and White Feathers particularly, are still available on line in the form of posters from the time.
None so blind... as the saying goes.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 10:09 AM

GUEST Colin springs up next.

Any evidence - the only way such a "promise" or "inducement" could have been made would have left some trace of it's existence - there is none.

As Lighter says between August 1914 and December 1914 1.2 million men volunteered which means that as they left their homes, work, offices, colleges, universities to go down to the recruitment centres - they had already decided to join the army - they did not need any promise or inducement.

But there again Colin that sort of reasoning relies on commonsense and logic.

Listen to Margaret MacMillan on Von Moltke the Elder who in 1890 stated that while wars between nation states and their governments always had a distinct objective and could be controlled by governments what he saw as wars of the people once started could not be controlled and would last until they had run their course - anything up to seven years in length - his other prediction came horribly true - "Woe betide whoever starts a European conflict" - The German Kaiser was the person who pressed for got his European War to set Germany on it's path to greatness as the dominant power in Europe with an instantly acquired foreign Empire carved from the åpossessions of France and Belgium.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 10:02 AM

A single Malt

Or more to the point a single malt from Midleton

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 09:21 AM

"Men went to recruiting offices because they were eager to enlist. "
Yes they were - for a whole bunch of reasons - adventure, the uniform, regular meals, a job, emotional blackmail, a threat of dismissal by employers, per pressure, the idea that it would be an easy ride....and a landslide of propaganda which had little to do with reality.
Horatio Bottomley, English financier, journalist, editor, newspaper proprietor, swindler, and Member of Parliament, was one of the main recruiters in the early days - he became a millionaire from persuading young men to go to their deaths on the basis that the war would be quick and easy - he was later jailed for issuing frauduleny 'Victory Bonds' - so countless young man were sent to their deaths by a crook.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Colin
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 07:10 AM

That is not evidence to support the statement. That is supposition on your part Lighter.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 07:03 AM

Men went to recruiting offices because they were eager to enlist.

By the time they were there, any empty promise of a quick victory would have made little difference to the vast majority of them.

They wanted to fight.

Besides, the idea of a war "over by Christmas" was already in circulation. Hearing it again from some recruiting sergeant would mean nothing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Colin
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 05:36 AM

Certainly NOT an impression given by the Government of the day OR AT ANY RECRUITING OFFICE. Any evidence for the highlighted part of that statement?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 04:44 AM

Two things there, teribums.

1. As I said earlier it does not matter where it came from. The point is that some people believed it and

2. You say you believe that it was well down the priority list. Do you have any evidence of that?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 04:31 AM

"Certainly NOT an impression given by the Government of the day or at any recruiting office"
An impression deliberately given by those getting the men to sign on the dotted line, such as and an impression accepted by those issuing documents on agriculture, but most importantly, one that was accepted by those joining up - which brings us back to the nonsense that they did so because the believed in the war - some may have done, but that doesn't stop it from having been the family quabble over political power and territory that it really was.
More unqualified pronouncements - do you believe this stuff you spout without backing evidence?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 04:03 AM

"People signed up under the false impression that there would not be a protracted conflict."

Certainly NOT an impression given by the Government of the day or at any recruiting office. And the duration of the conflict I believe came way down the priorities of those men who volunteered and what they believed to be important at the time.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 04:02 AM

It was self evident but I suppose I must point it out.

The logistical situation Terribulus refers to merely indicates two things;

1. It was irresponsible and wrong to suck men in on the understanding it might be over by Xmas.

2. In making the claim and not correcting themselves they were either lying to attract recruits or inept enough to believe they might achieve such an aim.

So we have the wonderful spectacle of Terribulus pointing out the military top brass either lulled men in to join up under false pretence or they believed they could pull something off that even an armchair fool such as Terribully knows to be impossible.

At no time did anybody set out to scotch the rumour or belief it would be over by Xmas. Indeed, even the eminent alive modern Gove approved historians all agree with Mudcat contributors 😆

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 03:00 AM

Yes, I understand all that teribums, but the end result is the same regardless of where the 'home for Christmas' rumour started. People signed up under the false impression that there would not be a protracted conflict.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jan 16 - 02:54 AM

A blend is malt. You are thinking of a single malt.

Bloody hell Terribulus. Even when you try to make people look idiots, it backfires you old fool. 😂😂😂

I'd keep to WW1 if I were you. Your view, repugnant and illogical as it may be, at least cannot be emphatically challenged at every level, other than the certainty you attach to it. You see, there were a few good decisions made to mitigate the bad decisions. There were officers uncomfortable with the theatre of war and tactics employed. Some men did weigh up the situation from a position of knowledge and still sign up.

But your insistence that only the bits that make the inept military leadership look otherwise happen to be true just shows everybody what an arse you are.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 05:47 PM

"it still resulted in many people volunteering on the false impression that they would not be there long."

The over or home by Christmas line was NOT spread by Government.

Looking at it logically:

1: Between August 1914 and December 1914 1.2 million young men volunteered to join the Army

2: The British Army of the day was at full strength including reserves was roughly 440,000 men

3: For there to be any credibility in the over by Christmas how were the 1.2 million going to be trained? Who was going to train them? Where were they going to be trained? Impossible in that time frame.

4: For there to be any credibility in the over by Christmas how were the 1.2 million going to be clothed and armed? Impossible in that time frame.

5: British Army roughly 440,000 with an additional 1.2 million waiting in the wings (Harry Patch conscripted in October 1916 was not deployed to France until June 1917 - by the time Harry was conscripted the training barracks, the equipment available the supply train was all in place - it wasn't in 1914) was up against a fully mobilised German Army of 4.5 million. Now I know the British might have had a slighly over-inflated opinion of their capabilities but I do not think that that would stretch to them defeating the largest and best trained army in the world inside 5 months whilst being outnumbered 10:1 - Simply impossible that it could ever be over by Christmas.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 05:25 PM

Midleton is a rare blend NOT a Malt

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 03:38 PM

I presume you refer to that stuff named Midleton. Personally I wouldn't even use it for cooking.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 03:03 PM

"Whiskey I do like the Irish malts"
The only Irish malt I like weighs in at £149
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 02:44 PM

Bottle of Port and some ripe Stilton perhaps?






Only expressing personal preference ........... after half a bottle of Whisky (or Whiskey I do like the Irish malts)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 01:20 PM

We'll just chew the fat over the whisky mate.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 01:09 PM

I missed the s off parts so I will join you in the study with the revolver. Or is it in the dining room with the lead pipe? What is the consensus?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 12:53 PM

Thank you Triplane. I shall take a gun and bottle of whisky into the study. I may be some time.

Here Dave, are you saying Terribulus is changing what was said and adding a bit?

Are you sure?

You see, I didnt think the old bugger capable. His limit seems to be typing "Ahhh {name of whoever pisses on his bonfire} followed by selective cuts and pastes from that Internet thingy.

Lighter makes an excellent point. However, our resident jingo jangles would point out that anything that fits with their rosy view of the establishment must be verbatim.

Curiously, all the historians they love quoting stress the subjectiveness of their findings before giving their personal view. Point this out and they scoff, presumably on the basis of being confused by people intellectually capable of independent rationalism.

Dave, I've got a rhyme to end your limerick.

💩

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 12:19 PM

There was a young man from Herts
Who knew his historical part
Of points he had three
Which everyone could see
But all that we smelled was...

Couldn't think of the last bit :-)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Triplane
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 11:54 AM

Tut Tut Muskie
A limerick is a type of humorous verse of five lines with an AABBA rhyme scheme: the poem's connection with the city is obscure, but the name is generally taken to be a reference to Limerick city or County Limerick,[32][33] sometimes particularly to the Maigue Poets, and may derive from an earlier form of nonsense verse parlour game that traditionally included a refrain that included "Will [or won't] you come (up) to Limerick?"[

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 11:35 AM

"was a deliberate lie"
Unlik your claims about #Tommy Keny, it was not a "deliberate lie"
It was a belief of many that it would be a short war - Kitchener was actually criticised by fellow military and by politicians for his "pessimism" in suggesting otherwise.
What is deliberate is your refusal to even acknowledge the fact that the idea of a short war was one held by government official;s, so if it was 'a myth' it was one encouraged by them in charge to get mn to enlist.
The only people here who tell deliberate lies are you and your mate - still denying your disgusting denigration of war veterans.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 11:26 AM

"Essentially they did. It was an expression of strained optimism, not propaganda."
Not entirely - the idea of 'a short war did appear on official documents such as the one on agriculture, cited above, and it became part of Horatio Bottomley's 'easie-peasie pantomime' shows, as shown in the first Paxman programme.
If it was wishful thinking, it was not discouraged by the recruiters.
From a Wiki entry on the economics of the war
"All of the powers in 1914 expected a short war; none had made any economic preparations for a long war, such as stockpiling food or critical raw materials. The longer the war went on, the more the advantages went to the Allies, with their larger, deeper, more versatile economies and better access to global supplies. As Broadberry and Harrison conclude, once stalemate set in late in 1914:"   
Wiki again:
"Over by Christmas
When the war began both sides believed, and publicly stated, that the war would end soon."
Ambivalence rules OK, it would appear
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 10:42 AM

Thanks, Lighter. Sensible reply. I do not have enough knowledge to comment on whether it is right or wrong so am more than happy to accept your view. What I would say though was that whether it was 'strained optimism' or propaganda it still resulted in many people volunteering on the false impression that they would not be there long.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 10:26 AM

> or did everyone make it up?

Essentially they did. It was an expression of strained optimism, not propaganda.

And it was partly based on the expectation - made vivid by the Second Balkan War of 1913, which had resulted in 160,000 casualties - that a general war would soon become unendurable for both sides.

The war in the Balkans, widely reported in the papers, had lasted less than six weeks.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 10:01 AM

But that still does not answer why 'it will be over by Christmas' was such a popular expression. It must have come from somewhere or did everyone make it up?

As to which version Joe's words is correct, I suggest you listen to the clip, in his own voice, and tell us where he said I don't know which Regiment got there first but as you report.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 09:41 AM

As to which version is correct the IWM's or The Long, long, trail's

There was a reason I left the Joseph Armstrong © IWM at the end of the cut-n-paste.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 09:39 AM

It may well have been one of the most popular sayings of the time Gnome - that is not the point. What Jom the infallible said was that "It'll all be over by Christmas" was a deliberate lie told to those volunteering by the government, at one point he told us all that it was a Government "promise" although exactly how he could have ever come up with that I have no idea.

As to which version is correct the IWM's or The Long, long

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 09:09 AM

Missed a bit
"What a confused, bitter and hate-filled little anglophobe you are Jom."
Anglophobe - it isn't me defending the decimation of British youth - or perhaps you only count the upper echelons of British society as being worthy of the description 'British'
And again - 'tisn't me who described British industry as "crap" and was glad to see the back of it, leaving Britain totally reliant of foreign imports.
You, like your late mate Thatcher, have a strange concept of the meaning of 'Britishness'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 08:29 AM

h Jom so you cannot find any direct quote from me stating that - "No Tommy Kenny from Liverpool ever enlisted in WW1" - why not just admit it Jom?"
Why did you claim o soldier of they name came from Liverpool and continue to question his war service?
Yor defencre of this disgusting bloodbath of a war has reached gutter - level between you - hit and run accusations of racism, attacks on veterans reputations 'liars', 'gullible' 'rumour mongers, made up history - and at total refusal to respond to both your behaviour and your crass re-writing of history.
You are fine examples of the jingoist field of historical research, as your bullying is a fine example of the behaviour that has put your rightist Tory Party in the spoltlight.
Answer the ***** points - both of you
Jim Carroll


,

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 07:57 AM

Wonder why you, or the person who edited the text in the link you provided, left out the bit in bold there Gnome?

I left out nothing, teribums. I C&P'd directly from the transcript. I have also listened to the clip and the bit you put in, in bold, does not exist. The transcript is identical to what Joe Armstrong actually says. Now why would the IWM, or you, put words into the mouth of an old soldier?

I am still puzzled as to why 'It will be over by Christmas' was one of the most popular sayings of 1914 (source Imperial War Museum site) when you say there was no such view at the time. Who is right? You or the Imperial War Museum?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 07:30 AM

Ah Jom so you cannot find any direct quote from me stating that - "No Tommy Kenny from Liverpool ever enlisted in WW1" - why not just admit it Jom?

And this one is a deliberate lie of yours:

"in your spiteful diatribe was an attempt to pass doubt on Tommy's war service, including claiming that no soldier of that name appeared in military records"

Go back and examine the exchanges and you will find that I found not only one soldier of that name I found SIX of them.

What a confused, bitter and hate-filled little anglophobe you are Jom.

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

Nor would the far-away German artillerists have cared whether the buttons were shined or not.

In broad daylight no German infantry would have cared either.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 16 - 07:22 AM

What point are you trying to make Teribus?

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

2123 ACPL. J. ARMSTRONG. L.N.LAN.R

The IWM copy:

One day we were in reserve trenches and an officer thought he'd give us a bit of exercise. To get to this here village where he was taking us, we had to go over a plateau. I don't know which Regiment got there first but we, my regiment, were right on the top of this plateau – which was probably about 200 yards across – when all hell let loose. The Germans had retired to positions that they'd held in 1870 during the French war, and they had all their artillery on this position so they knew the range to an inch.

Before we set off, the officer made us clean our buttons – you know, brass buttons – we had to clean them. So in that sunshine we must have been a beautiful target, mustn't we? They were laughing and singing and joking, all the lot of them. And in the twinkle of an eye, I was the only one left alive out of 400. I was the only one left alive out of 400. Dead and dying all round me. I dived into a shell hole and stopped there for an hour and a half… – Joseph Armstrong © IWM

Wonder why you, or the person who edited the text in the link you provided, left out the bit in bold there Gnome?

The date of the incident would be around the time of the Battle of the Aisnes late summer 1914 because Joe Armstrong was taken prisoner in October 1914 and spent the remainder of the War as a POW.

Reading the story critically (No doubt at all that this happened) but:

1: This just wasn't done on the whim of one officer - Joe mentions that there was more than one Regiment involved.

2: Franco-Prussian War - Prussian positions on the Aisnes? - Their attacks were all well to the east, during the Franco-Prussian War the Prussians honoured the neutrality of Belgium.

3: Range can be deduced from maps and invariably nearly always is - The best and most accurate maps of the UK are the Ordnance Survey Maps - the purpose for them being made was for use by the artillery (Ordnance) so that they knew ranges.

4: So opening months of the First World War - the button cleaning? Possibly to kill time and occupy the attention of raw troops before a possible engagement - According to Joe's own story of the engagement in which he was captured they had got over button cleaning by October.

What Junior Officers ordered at Regimental level in 1914 in no way at all reflects how the Army was led - nice try but no cigar Gnome.

Strange that he didn't mention summary executions or special squads of military police - doubly so seeing as how he was within his Regiment a Military Policeman.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 02:34 PM

Don't rush him Muskie
What he does now is give it a little time, then come back without a response as if nothing had happened
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 02:16 PM

I await with bated breath.

That reminds me of a limerick.

With bated breath the dean undressed
The vicars wife to lie on
He thought it crude to do it nude
So he kept the old school tie on

So... Can't wait for them to start on WW2. Or will we have to go through The Spanish Civil War first? That'll be fun. Soldiers in pursuit of being socialist. Lots of opportunity for Terribulus's fascinating logic there.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 12:54 PM

"Now where and when did I ever say that Jom?"
You have gone throught the motions of calling Tommy Kenny a liar and saying that all soldiers are potential liars and gullible Urban Legend spreaders including the last surviving veteran, Harry Patch - and included in your spiteful diatribe was an attempt to pass doubt on Tommy's war service, including claiming that no soldier of that name appeared in military records - of course, you never for a minute claimed he never served - my arse, you didn't!!
Your and Keith's efforts to defend this ****** bloodbath have dredged every sewer possible - your mate's latest stunt is to drag it even deeper into the shit with accusations of racism - Kith - of all people!!
"I am all ears tell us all who it was in Great Britain that promised anybody a "short war" "
I am all agog to hear you come up with some answers to the questions you have persistently been asked and some of the deliberate lies you have told.
Many soldiers went into the war having been told it would be short - the fact that this was officially believed is obvious in a document explaining why British plans for an supplying food were inadequate.
It doesn't matter that no official statement was made - that was one of the beliefs held by those who voluntarily enlisted
"Both France and Britain had made hardly any serious preparations for maintaining food supplies in the event of a long war.1 Both nations had planned for a very short war and mistakenly believed that stocks held by the military, together with some requisitioning of supplies, would be sufficient to carry them through."
FOOD SUPPLIES DURING WW1
Now how about climbing up out of your sewers - both of you - and answering some questions - an apology for the lies is, I suppose, out of the question!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 10:53 AM

What is even funnier is how they all go quiet while they peruse any new links to see what bits they can use to win points. Keeps them occupied and away from here for an hour or two I suppose ;-)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 10:11 AM

Won't wash Dave. Joe Armstrong is neither alive, eminent or singing to the MOD hymn sheet.

I have been poking fun at Teribus and his weird mates throughout this thread on the basis they are trying to defend the indefensible. His balls and bullshit reckoning I don't know my own life and career just takes it out of any sense of reality.

As none of them have been posting about the real war, it isn't distasteful to the memory of the fallen to poke fun at them.

Boom Boom Boom Boom 🐴 Boom Boom Boom Boom 🐮💩 Boom Boom

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 10:07 AM

Well if previous comments by the people who actually took part are anything to go by Joe Armstrong was obviously lying.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 09:58 AM

Some interesting looking podcasts here. Not listened to them as I am sure there are those better qualified to comment on them than me. What I did notice was the opening comment "One of the most popular sayings of 1914 was that the war would be 'over by Christmas'." I am puzzled why this was one of the most popular sayings if no one believed it. Any ideas?

It was also with interest that I saw this example of good leadership -

Joe Armstrong, of the Loyal North Lancashire Regiment, witnessed first-hand how organised the Germans were.

We were in reserve trenches and an officer thought he'd give us a bit of exercise. To get to this here village where he was taking us, we had to go over a plateau. And we, my regiment, were right on the top of this plateau – which was probably about 200 yards across – when all hell let loose. The Germans had retired to positions that they'd held in 1870, and they had all their artillery on this position so they knew the range to an inch. Before we set off, the officer made us clean our buttons – actually, you know, brass buttons – we had to clean them. So in that sunshine we must have been a beautiful target, mustn't we? They were laughing and singing and joking, all the lot of them. And in the twinkle of an eye, I was the only one left alive out of 400. I was the only one left alive out of 400. Dead and dying all round me.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 09:42 AM

About 60% of Terribulus's brain cells ended up on that soggy biscuit by that reckoning.

Just noticed the bit about Locking, that's RAF Locking near Weston Super Mare by the way, the home of Air reconnaissance and telecommunications up to well beyond my short but sweet posting, not the "closed down radio school."

If you insist on bullshit and bollocks to score saddo points where others in here have personal experience, what fucking chance do you have when trying to convince an ever increasingly laughing audience of your twaddle over warfare?

By the way. By WW1, the objective was not to kill the enemy. This was Kitchener's own directive. He stated that the objective was to gain ground by all means. In The Boer War, he and others decreed that Zulus were to be wiped out but "European" Boers were to be contained, hence the concentration camps.

To say the objective is to kill is to show your complete and utter ignorance and stain the very military service you seem to be defending, fool.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 09:21 AM

Believe me Jom I am all ears tell us all who it was in Great Britain that promised anybody a "short war" - or is this a re-run of your "made up" claim reinforcing the myth about "being home by Christmas"?

Kitchener was made Secretary of State for War on the 5th August 1914 when he warned in all seriousness that the war would last three to four years, would be industrial in scale, would involve the whole of the population and would necessitate Great Britain raising the first citizens army the country had ever had - Oh and GUEST Dave in 1914 Great Britain did include Ireland.

Sir Edward Grey's best remembered remark at the outbreak of the First World War: "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our life-time."

So the Secretary of State for War and the Foreign Secretary most certainly DID NOT believe for one nano-second that it would be a quick war.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 09:15 AM

You are correct Terribulus. I was pre commission technically speaking, but gained rank at the outset of engineering college training at Locking, so other ranks did have to salute my twathat. Passing out was at Cranwell prior to that. The only night I or many others ever spent there.

Officer cadets / trainees / recruits were also billeted at Swinderby by the way. I know that not because of reading history or Wikipedia as you must have but looking at the photo outside Gibson block at Swinderby that is on the wall of my study. My lads still think it funny that their old man once considered a military career. Thinking back, it is a waste of your life. Glad I saw the light when I did, even if my reasoning was more on the academic argument than getting a thrill out of killing people. I've been proud to be labelled as a pacifist ever since.

I suppose you are so used to telling little fibs to reiterate your false premise that you think others lie too. Sad fucker.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 08:59 AM

"GUEST - 06 Jan 16 - 08:49 AM - Hello Raggy still sticking to anonymous contributions to snipe. But there again, I have never said that "No Tommy Kenny from Liverpool ever enlisted in WW1" did I? - Jom will not come up with anything to substantiate that claim of his - his track record in this respect is very poor. All I have ever contended is that Jim Carroll when interviewing Tommy Kenny did not bother to check what I would call key details in order that anything said could be verified.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 08:49 AM

"Well I suppose we managed to waste quite a lot of German human lives by, er, killing them..."

Spot on Steve - that unfortunately is what happens in wartime the enemy try to kill you and you try to kill them.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 08:49 AM

About 60% of all WW1 records were destroyed during WW2. The fact you did not find Jim Carroll's Tommy Kenny therefore means SFA.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 08:44 AM

"No Tommy Kenny from Liverpool ever enlisted in WW1"

Now where and when did I ever say that Jom?

I know that you did not check.

I did and found six men with that name who did. I looked at their service records and found the Corps and Regiments they served in.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 07:45 AM

"Amazing what you hear in the galley eh Jom?"
Amazing that you still put up these statements without a shred of proof and expect us to believe them - sort of like No Tommy Kenny from Liverpool ever enlisted in WW1
That's what I call amazing.
Jim Carrol

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 07:28 AM

"It is racist to ascribe characteristics to a population,"
Don't you even dare suggest I am a raciat - not with your track record on all male Pakistanins.
I have never suggested it an "inadequacy" in the British people - on the contrary, I have outlined the massive propaganda campaign, the liase told, the social conditions, the promise of a short war, and eventually, when all this ran out of steam, the eventual enforced enlistment under threat of imprisonment and death for refusal
You have responded to none of this - instead of this, you thrash around making claims of "racism" - a trait deeply ingrained in yo#r own character - anybody who claims that 'all male Pakistanis are culturally implanted to rape children' is a downright racist.   
Nor have you responded to the fact that Germany tyranny was no worse than that encountered at home (from a leadership headed by the same family)
Despite having the role of historians explaind to you, you ignore those fats and continue to hide behind them as if they are gogs or priests.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 06:38 AM

We were far less wasteful of human lives, eh? Well I suppose we managed to waste quite a lot of German human lives by, er, killing them...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 06:33 AM

Keep thinking it through fool. You have just determined all by your clever little self that trench warfare isn't ideal. You've just got to make that mental leap how to ask why the leaders who led well led men perpetuated the flawed technique.

Mind you, please keep posting. You might wish to wear a red nose whilst doing so.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 06:20 AM

Yep GUEST "The number of dead bodies hasn't altered." neither has the fact that there are far fewer of ours than there are of theirs - so if dead bodies is your metric whose army was better led? Don't know about you but I would say ours, as we were far less wasteful of human life than they were.

Odd thing about trench warfare clueless GUEST there is no scope to manoeuvre and all attacks have to be frontal assaults again we addressed the problems that reality threw up and we came up with equipment and tactics to overcome those problems - nobody else did - now would that be another indicator of how poorly led we were GUEST?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 05:56 AM

mmm. I wonder how they discussed the pros and cons of "sending waves of men over the top" at Sandhurst prior to 1929?

Hang on, let's ask the umpire.

Ring Ring

Hello Alex!

Sorry, can't talk right now, I'm driving a van down to Seaham.

Ok. Catch you later.


Seems we can't tell whether Teribus has scored a point or not. Still, we can always fall back on reality if in doubt.

Yep. The number of dead bodies hasn't altered.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 05:37 AM

The military took him on, obviously. Keegan couldn't get lecture time in real universities at the time due to his radical pro military distortion of history.

Sky Murdochvision used to wheel him out for a controversy slot whenever conflict meant lots of dead bodies for the reporters to enthuse over wearing blue flack jackets.

I suppose the problem for those seeking to rehabilitate failure and contempt is that unlike Roman or even Tudor history, the evidence of attitudes and social intercourse of a hundred years ago is widely available for any normal person to weigh up for themselves rather than take it on the chin from academics keen to be part of the establishment.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 05:07 AM

Funnily enough, I was in The RAF for a few months before realising the engineering qualifications weren't quite so recognised in industry as I was led to believe. I was allowed to resign without cost and within a few months signed an apprenticeship with NCB.

So err.. Cranwell is the only one I can tick off your box Terribulus. But at least I did have a military commission, not that I even bothered putting it on my CV. Mind you, we spent time at Cranwell but were billeted down the road at Swinderby, and latterly miles away at Locking. Spanner monkeys mixing with potential aircrew? That'll never do, what?

Tell us about your commission and the lectures you attended eh? I especially enjoyed the ones about men reluctant to drop darts from biplanes through sense of chivalry and fair play whilst below them, waves of men were being unchivalry-less sent over the top to their calculated and approved deaths.

Nutter.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 04:52 AM

So does that mean that you HAVE sat in on lectures in all those places, or are you simply privy to their lecture notes? Just asking...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 04:11 AM

Keegan also supported the Vietnam war, the bombing of Kosovo, and the invasion of Iraq. So there is a pattern.

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.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 09:47 AM

"Only in 1917, and in Russia, did the people get any say."

Tell me Academic Dave just how they did that? How did THE PEOPLE get a say?

Who compiled the lists that defined who THE PEOPLE were? How long did that take? Who was it that decided the wording of the question to be put to THE PEOPLE? Who ensured that all of THE PEOPLE could read it?

THE PEOPLE in Russia in November 1917 had as much say in what was going on and what would form "Government" Foreign Policy as they had in August 1914 - Please, please, please say that you disagree with that and demonstrate to anybody reading this that you are indeed as naive and stupid as you possibly could be.

By the way THE PEOPLE of Russia/U.S.S.R: have NEVER HAD ANY SAY IN ANYTHING the "Communist Party Elite" as represented by the KGB, The Party and the Army have told THE PEOPLE of Russia what to think, how to act and what to do since the October Revolution of 1917.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM

Any reply to that question of Israeli bookburning yet Bruce?

Help is available for your obsession......get it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 08:47 AM

"Good heavens another accusation flung out there without a single instance of such "trivialisation"


You have been trivialising those deaths for the whole of this thread. So has keith with phrases like:

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

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

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 08:40 AM

"Beautifully said!"
Any reply to that question of Israeli bookburning yet Bruce?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 08:34 AM

"The people knew and understood the issues, and decided that making a stand was the right thing to do."

The people had no say in the matter. The decisions were taken by the likes of Sir Edward Grey. Only in 1917, and in Russia, did the people get any say.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 07:50 AM

Jom - if you've got a fiddle you could put a tune to that idiotic little rant of yours - and hey presto another whinging ballad.

Beautifully said!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 07:18 AM

"Jom - if you've got a fiddle you could put a tune to that idiotic little rant of yours "
And if you had any brains you'd be ably to flaw me with one swing of your superior intellect!
But then again - if my Granny'd had balls she have been my grandfather.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 06:56 AM

Jom - if you've got a fiddle you could put a tune to that idiotic little rant of yours - and hey presto another whinging ballad.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 06:26 AM

"fellow travelers"
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.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:51 AM

"The thread was a none starter."

Of course it was for you and your fellow travelers Musket. How on earth could any of you possibly even start to discuss or debate what constitute the history of the First World War and the mythology of that conflict - by your own admissions none of you know the simplest thing about it. But as usual your aim has been to mob and bully Keith - sorry chaps but you failed again

"Terribulus & co are the ones who should be apologising for trivialising 17 million deaths as worthwhile and appropriate."

Good heavens another accusation flung out there without a single instance of such "trivialisation" - Standard tactics for those who argue from a background of ignorance and who have to resort to "name-calling", distraction and deflection. Failed again Musket and no examples of this trivialisation will be given.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:40 AM

"The price in blood may be high, but appeasing a tyrant will lead to more human misery not less."
Tyranny had nothing to do with anything Keith - that is wartime propaganda bullshit.
Each Empire represented tyranny to someone somewhere Britain, Germany, Belgium, France, Russia..... had divided the world up between them and the politicians decimated the generations of their youth in order to maintain those divisions.
The war had nothing whatever to do with freedom and economic conditions at home - it was about who would rule who in Africa, Asia, India.... - it was a war to protect colonies.
The Russian people knew that - they got rid of their feudalistic rulers when they had had enough.
The German people the same - they launched a revolution to get rid of the Militaristic mob that took them into war.
The British clamped down on any significant changes that might have taken place, trades Unions, fights for better conditions.
The Women's suffarage movement made some gains because they supported the war (shamefully)
From day one the Left opposed the war as being Imperialist, which was exactly what it was.
It was never a fight for freedom or national liberation - the victors never became any more "free" after the war, despite having made such a massive sacrifice - it took a decade or so before the colonies began to crumble and economically and socially things became worse, unlike WW2, when a leftish government introduced programmes for the improving the lot of the poor - opposed and eventually dismantled by the right.
THe German leadership was no more a threat that our own rulers - they were headed by the same ****** family.
Had the line of accession been different in Britain regarding of male/female rulers, the Kaiser could have been King of England - that's how different they were.
Acession to the throne
Tyranny my arse - jingoistic bullshit!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:36 AM

Doesn't seem to have done Switzerland much harm.

You really know nothing.
Switzerland has always been determined to fight against any invasion.

Germany decided to invade Belgium whether they defended themselves or not.

Open your eyes and your mind and inform yourself of what really happened.
Read a history book and forget your agenda ridden, class war, political tracts.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:28 AM

Hitler was not an issue in 1914.

No. It was a different tyrant but still a militarist, imperialist, child murdering regime backed by huge and powerful invading armies.

The people knew and understood the issues, and decided that making a stand was the right thing to do.

You say they were wrong.
The difference between your positions is that they were there and you were not.
They knew what was going on and you have shown yourself to have no idea or understanding at all.

The history books contradict you so what are your opinions based on?
Lies.
You have been duped.

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

"Interesting strategy that GUEST Dave - Amounts to the response to a naked threat of invasion and annexation is, "OK then we'll not fight you, now go away" - Doubt if that would actually work, don't you?"

Doesn't seem to have done Switzerland much harm.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:24 AM

Yes, you a quite right, ake. Not often I say that. In proportion to the loss of 17 million this thread really is trivial. Keith's points are trivial, whatever they were. The silly moderation on here is trivial. Jeri, and many others, know that I can sign in from numerous places, other people can use the same IP address I am using and anyone can block their IP anyway. I will not bother putting myself out over it but I see she has neither deigned to comment on my comments or those Musket has made. I think that says more than any of us can.

This thread was dead ages ago. It is now putrefying.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:54 AM

"WW2 cost 60 million lives, but if the world had lain down its arms and opened its borders to Hitler's armies, the world would be a worse place."

Hitler was not an issue in 1914. And had the 1914 war not been fought the conditions which led to the rise of both Hitler and Stalin would not have arisen, as Jim has pointed out. And possibly Spanish flu into the bargain. So we might now be laying more than 100 million deaths at the door of our refusal to negotiate peace in 1914, and again in 1916.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:41 AM

Gosh. I must get used to signing autographs. I know who the guest is now!

Needless to say, I don't log in these days. Don't see the point. If any axe murderer, stamp collector or nymphomaniac wants to be called Musket, that's fine by me. I'm bored with the moniker anyway, considering how many are using it now.

IP. Yeah, that's an interesting one. Something the original three of us had in common was the same VPN that enables us to access certain clinical data on our personal phones iPads laptops etc. Having just checked, my IP is the same as yesterday but different to a couple of days ago. Hoopy.

I don't think this is thread drift. The thread was a none starter. Terribulus & co are the ones who should be apologising for trivialising 17 million deaths as worthwhile and appropriate. Makes discussion over an irrelevant lochside dinosaur meaningless. Mind you, presumably he knows now how frustrating it was for McMusket when Akenaton said he was in an open marriage with multiple sexual partners and carrying disease. I have no idea if this is the same person listed in the courts as claimed, but have no sympathy either way.

Luv&hugs

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:29 AM

GUEST - 04 Jan 16 - 03:15 AM

1: You have provided no information regarding Akenaton you have made serious allegations and refused point blank to substantiate them, which in my book renders your smears and allegations baseless

2: You contribute as a "nameless" GUEST and use an IP Blocker because you are basically a coward who does not have guts to stand by the statements you make.

Apologies for thread drift.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:15 AM

Just out of interest. I mentioned the information regarding Akenaton in reply to his general hatred and awful attitude on this thread, accusing those who support the evidence behind the thread title of being "beaten" by the jingo merchants. Always nice to get a sense of perspective.

I am not a Musket. I used to post under my own nickname though. Akenaton bleated to moderators over my name.

I, like some others on this thread, are aware that Musket is a real person who devised to share his log in with two others. I am none of the above.

I did however suggest that Jeri pop and put the kettle on, and in another thread Jeri called me Musket.

I assume Musket must be laughing his head off, although reading his comments on this thread, I get the impression he thinks the subject title too serious to take too lightly.

Oh, as Akenaton knows my wife is a greyhound trainer, it's the Sheriff Court that acted. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain has nothing to do with criminal convictions. They decide whether registration can be restored or not after "time spent."

In any case, I use an IP blocker which masks my own IP.   Comes in handy when dwelling in the sewer.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:01 AM

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

WW2 cost 60 million lives, but if the world had lain down its arms and opened its borders to Hitler's armies, th world would be a worse place.

That was understood in 1914.
The editorial staff of the MG knew and understood the issues, and decided that it was right to make a stand.

Pennel says her research proves that the same is true of the people.
Macmillan says the same.
Also Boot, Sheffield, Todman, Brown, ....
All the historians.

The people were not lied to, you were.
You are the dupes.
You have been duped by the lies and propaganda of hard left political groups, because you have read no history to find the truth.

It is no coincidence that all you people arguing against the hard, researched evidence laid out in the history books are of the far left.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:28 AM

GUEST,Dave - 03 Jan 16 - 04:47 PM

"Yes. Belgium could have "refused to engage" and the Germans would have left them alone."

They might. And they might not. Either of which would have been better than 17 million dead.

Academic Dave, in making the above statement I take it then that you have read nothing about Germany's attack plan for a war against France.

German mobilisation demanded that immediately after mobilisation Luxembourg and Belgium HAD to be invaded otherwise massive bottlenecks would be created.

Pray tell how the Germans avoiding the invasion of Belgium would have prevented the deaths of 17 million people? After all the formal military alliance between France and Russia, between Russia and Serbia and between Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have still come into play - or had you forgotten all about that - more likely you were completely unaware of their existence.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:16 AM

" they could have refused to engage. There have to be two sides in a fight."

Interesting strategy that GUEST Dave - Amounts to the response to a naked threat of invasion and annexation is, "OK then we'll not fight you, now go away" - Doubt if that would actually work, don't you?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:58 AM

For anyone even remotely interested, there are a number of very good interviews with ww1 historian Margaret MacMillan on you tube. she is especially interesting on the causes of the war. Perhaps some may learn a few things.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:49 AM

How could the Manchester Guardian be "duped?"
They knew what was going on from their own sources.
Like the government they were against Britain entering the war until the very last day.

"The Manchester Guardian had been very strongly opposed to war, and frankly isolationist. No one was more insistent on the need to keep out of a European war than the paper's chief leader writer and deputy editor, CE Montague. But when war was declared, he was so appalled by German perfidy that he enlisted, aged 47, dying his grey hair to conceal his age."

"Once war was declared on 4 August, Scott however swung the Guardian firmly behind the decision, declaring in the next day's paper: "We ourselves have contended for the neutrality of England to the utmost of our power and with a deep conviction that we were doing our patriotic duty …"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:44 AM

Dave, suggesting that there was anything that Belgium could have done to prevent its invasion, and the massacres of its people, again shows your ignorance of the period.

Your claim that everyone including the left were "duped" shows your ignorance.
(" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html)

Your claim that people were "lied to about the Germans" shows your ignorance. You could find nothing to support it. You made it up!

The history books contradict you, so what is the source of your knowledge?

You just make things up in the vacuum of your head and claim it has equal worth as a researched history book!

You call yourself an "academic" but you are just a posturing buffoon.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:32 PM

Dunno really. I don't know who it is who does the censoring, and shall remain cheerfully incurious. The only time I ever get annoyed with thread deletions or post deletions is when I've just done a bloody great big long one that took me ages, only to see it lost forever to the ether!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:17 PM

Yes, you are right Steve, they are not all a joke, But one is and it seems to me that moderating from a biased position is not moderating, it is censoring. As to this not being a democracy, true, but that is a whole other issue.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:11 PM

Well I don't actually think that all moderation here is a joke. At least one moderator here does a good job, and another, once he leaves his religion behind, is fine, even though he pretends he isn't really a moderator. But this one generally wades in with negative comments about the usual suspects, etc., and, were moderatorship a paid post, one might surmise that her interventions were thoroughly unprofessional. As I keep saying, this is not a democracy, nor is it real life. But that doesn't mean that it's OK to sit here being compared to the denizen of a septic tank, etc., in the same post as her crowing about her deleting prowess. That's just bloody annoying is that. Infra dig, as they say.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:59 PM

I agree withSteveShaw, moderation on this forum is a joke. Nasty shite stays while people who complain about the nastiness have their threads deleted.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:28 PM

"I no longer have any idea what your original 3 points were Keith."
"Keith's "original three points" were every single point that has ever been discussed which he was cornered into reducing to three, and has just added another "It was Germany wot did it".
Hurry before he moves the goalposts again.
"both you and Keith have been severely provoked."
Both of these people have lied consistently about their own position and about what others have said - that's what I call provocation.
I do wish people would keep out gratuitous personal attacks though It's neither clever nor helpful.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 06:53 PM

This is not about defending the behaviour of fellow travellers. It is about expressing disappointment about, irritation with and profound contempt for a so-called moderator who pontificates about her thread-closing powers whilst, in the same post, is "wittily" equating posters who she won't actually name with residents of a septic tank. Why, anytime soon, she'll almost certainly indulge in the ultimate irony of condemning "personal attacks."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 06:20 PM

Dave, get a sense of proportion.

He's another member of the braying pack trying to defend the despicable posts of his fellow traveler.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 06:09 PM

Dave, get a sense of proportion.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 06:00 PM

OK then, Jeri. You are happy to name one guest, even though you could be wrong, so who is guest 2nd Jan, 2:58pm then? BTW I do work with high end servers, including web services and security so when I say you could be wrong I do know what I am talking about.

A bit late now but tomorrow as a little demonstration I will post as me from three different places simultaneously, get some else to post from the same IPs and post from a completely untraceable source. Don't operate one rule for some an another for everyone else.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:58 PM

Why I don't close it is that it sort of functions like adult day care... or a septic tank. In any case, it gives people of a certain temperament somewhere to hang out.

If that's your attitude, you are clearly not a fit and proper person to be a moderator. I've suspected that from your overwhelmingly negative attitude here for a long time. This particular post of yours is no better than those of most of those hateful anonymous guests who occasionally plague the place. Still, it's not my gig, and I do enjoy your pointless interventions.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:41 PM

I also know most "guests" from their writing "style" ...or lack of it.
It is quite difficult to disguise ones written work.....ask PFR :0)


Sorry about the drift Keith...apologies.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:39 PM

Of course it was Musket. There aren't very many people active in this thread. Why I don't close it is that it sort of functions like adult day care... or a septic tank. In any case, it gives people of a certain temperament somewhere to hang out.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:32 PM

I know this particular specimen from his history Dave....as do the moderators. He is a stalker which is a criminal offence, as is saying that I have a criminal record for abuse of animals. A complete fabrication.

However, the regulatory boards address has been made available to the stalker. He can either put up or shut up.

It is annoying that these people infest the forum, but as has been explained to me it is extremely difficult to block unnamed GUEST postings.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:07 PM

And you can tell that Guest Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:41 PM is part of 'Team Musket' while, for instance, Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:58 PM, is not. How can you do that then, ake? Do you have access to the IP addresses of all the posters? Are you a moderator? Come on, tell us how you do it. Is it the same as you can tell that a gang of criminals is foreign just by looking at them? Your omniscience astounds me...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:54 PM

The post of 3Jan 16....is a typical example of what I am talking about.
Have you found any proof of these disgusting allegations?
The appropriate body which deals with such matters is "the Greyhound board of Great Britain", 6 New Bridge Street, London.

I look forward to your apology.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:47 PM

"Yes. Belgium could have "refused to engage" and the Germans would have left them alone."

They might. And they might not. Either of which would have been better than 17 million dead.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:41 PM

Has the court given you a date by which you are allowed to keep dogs again Alex?

Stop telling lies eh? There's a good creature.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:07 PM

perfectly correct Mr T, "Team Musket" was formed(by their own admission), to personally insult and confuse debate, they have stooped to every low blow in the book, insult, libel, outright lies, stalking, death wishes, intimidation using ones family, attempts to wreck debate when they have run out of anything sensible to say...which happens pretty quickly.

In all the years we have argued and debated here we have mostly held differing views on politics, but you have never been abusive unless provoked.....and on this particular issue, both you and Keith have been severely provoked.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:43 PM

I no longer have any idea what your original 3 points were Keith. I did ask earlier but you declined to comment. For my sake and for that of anyone who did not know in the first place, what were they?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:25 PM

The Guardian represented the 'soft Left' of Britain - even so, it stuck out against the war till the last minute and the editor considered resigning
The left throughout Europe opposed th war totally - The Bolsheviks won power because of just that - the Mensheviks (Liberal Democrat Majority) insisted on the troops returning to the front to finish the war and then confirming the revolution.
Trotsy, as Bolshevik representative, went to Brest Litovsk, stuck his feet on the table and declared "neither war nor peace", insisting that the war end and revolution should begin throughout Europe - that was the stance of The International, the group that represented the genuine left in Europe.
The fact that the German Left immediately entered into revolution and nearly won proved that the war need never have happened as a significant majority of the German people were against it.
Had this ben successful neither Stalin nor Hitler would never have been issues - both were products of the failures of WW1.
Go read a book instead of scrabbling around for cut-'n-pastes for ****'* sake.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:23 PM

"That all came to an end when the ultimatum was refused and the Left, like everyone else, put their efforts and support into the war."

For all the good it did them, for at the end of the war things went back to the way they had been, and the cause of the working people was advanced not one iota. So yes, the left were duped the same as everyone else, into fighting and dying to maintain the privileges of the wealthy.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:06 PM

From Jim's link,
"Once war was declared on 4 August, Scott however swung the Guardian firmly behind the decision, declaring in the next day's paper: "We ourselves have contended for the neutrality of England to the utmost of our power and with a deep conviction that we were doing our patriotic duty … Some time the responsibility for one of the greatest errors in our history will have to be fixed, but that time is not now. Now there is nothing for Englishmen to do but to stand together and help by every means in their power to the attainment of our common object – an early and decisive victory over Germany."

it in no way represented Left opinion
All through 1914 Britain had been riven by industrial disputes, strikes and civil unrest.
That all came to an end when the ultimatum was refused and the Left, like everyone else, put there efforts and support into the war.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:02 PM

"You really have no idea about that period at all Dave."
Neither have you - as you have just shown
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM

Yes there is, they could have refused to engage. There have to be two sides in a fight.

Yes. Belgium could have "refused to engage" and the Germans would have left them alone.

You really have no idea about that period at all Dave.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 02:09 PM

"Nope Jom - just plain simple statement of FACT "
Oh dear - still - "he started it first Sir"
Your abusive and insulting behavior has been a factor for as long as I can remember.

"The Manchester Guardian had been very strongly opposed to war,"
The Manchester Guardian, like your previous claims of The Daily Mirror and The Guardian on other threads, spoke for nobody but itself - it in no way represented Left opinion But even so .

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 02:09 PM

Terribulus doesn't need to be called a TC. You see, Keith can appear credible till you notice the detail. Terribulus's posts don't require qualifying. Anyone's reaction if they bother reading them to the illogical end tends to be two words, beginning T and C. Waste of effort pointing out the obvious.

Oh gosh..😳 "He knows he would be caught out in a blatant lie if he ever..."

Not a lie then, but a blatant one! He'd be caught out too! Naughty Musket to be potentially caught out, being blatant too, the little scamp.

Ever thought of getting a job on The Daily M*il Terribulus? They sensationalise when trying to come out with bollocks too. They do it with far more panache and style though.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:54 PM

"Political Blunder - nothing new there, but not with regard to the First World War, The German Emperor wanted the war and he got it, not a single thing anyone else could have done about it."

Yes there is, they could have refused to engage. There have to be two sides in a fight.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:28 PM

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:27 PM

"It was Musket who started on Keith A with the TC jibes "
Did you really say "He hit me first sir"?
Jim Carroll"

Nope Jom - just plain simple statement of FACT - go and look it up.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:21 PM

An amalgamation of consensus coupled with historical fact and present day evidence.

The sanitisation of military incompetence, political blunder and callous indifference to those in your charge are there

WHAT amalgamation of concensus? Those put forward as representing views similar to your own fall into two categories:

1 - Revisionists who wrote about the Great War between 1929 and 1969

2 - "Historians" who are not specialists in the subject

WHAT historical "Facts" as far as can be seen from this thread and others on the same subject you have not put forward any FACTS and you have been completely unable to refute those put forward by either Keith A, myself or by others

WHAT present day evidence calls into question the work of modern day historians who are writing and studying the period in question armed with far better knowledge and information than any who have covered the same work previously.

The second paragraph is just a collection of tired old cliches:

What military incompetence to the likes of you lot the military is always incompetent - funny but going by track record I wish that our politicians, leaders of industry and trades unions had proved to have been half as effective and willing to adapt to new ideas and technology as the the military have proved to be.

Political Blunder - nothing new there, but not with regard to the First World War, The German Emperor wanted the war and he got it, not a single thing anyone else could have done about it.

As for "callous indifference" - again only YOUR OPINION, but in time of war the political leadership of any country has committed itself to putting people deliberately into harms way with the inevitable result that some will get killed both civilian and military and if numbers of dead are the metric you judge things by then the British were less "callously indifferent" than many others.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:08 PM

..and Victoria was dead.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:05 PM

Jim, I think we all knew already what imperialism was and is, but this is about WW1.

I think the Germans were more confident of their huge armies winning than their handicapped leader.

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

my view that the default position was to do as you were told.

I do not think the Lefties and Socialists of that time would accept that slur.

I earlier quoted the Socialist Party of Belgium in 1914 who issued a statement to say that their members were defending themselves against 'militarist barbarism' and fighting for liberty and democracy.

The leading left wing paper in Britain then was The Manchester Guardian.

"The Manchester Guardian had been very strongly opposed to war, and frankly isolationist. No one was more insistent on the need to keep out of a European war than the paper's chief leader writer and deputy editor, CE Montague. But when war was declared, he was so appalled by German perfidy that he enlisted, aged 47, dying his grey hair to conceal his age."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:00 PM

"but sometimes making a stand against an aggressor is the lesser evil."
Then why not put Vickie in the ring with Kaiser Bill and let them kick it out - it had sweet FA to do with the millions of lads who had no quarrel with each other perished in the mud of Europe while they both sat at home in comfort (or back safe at Central Command, quaffing Whisky and sodas).
One was no more "evil that the other - ask the 10 million dead Congolese or those being treated as wealth-producing slaves throughout the British or any other Empire.
Jim Carroll

imperialism
......Before the 1800s, Western nations did business in Africa and Asia within existing trade and political networks. After the Industrial Revolution, Western powers used their superior weapons and powerful iron warships to conquer much of the world, especially lands in Africa and Asia. In 1800, Western powers controlled 35 percent of the world's land surface; by 1914, they controlled 84 percent. When a nation dominates or controls another land physically, economically, or politically, it is called imperialism. Western imperialism placed millions of black and brown people under the control of white people.
......Imperialism was encouraged by nationalism; European nations wanted to increase their power and pride by adding new colonies. Imperialism was also supported by racist attitudes like social Darwinism. Europeans claimed to be doing "backward" people a favor by conquering their lands and bringing them Western advancements. But the most important force behind imperialism was money. The Industrial Revolution changed Europe from a consumer of manufactured goods to a producer, and Europe's factories needed places to sell their products. One Englishman said, "There are 40 million naked people [in Africa], and the cotton spinners of Manchester are waiting to clothe them." Colonies provided Europe's factories with new markets for manufactured goods, and cheap raw materials to feed Europe's machines.
A guide to teaching World History

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:32 PM

Don't suppose youd'd care to comment on Israel banning the book 'Borderlife' in schools....

Hey Jew hater, the topic is WWI - can't pass up any opportunity, can you, oh obsessive one?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:28 PM

Dave, you asserted that the people were lied to about the Germans in 1914.
Asked to support that statement, you suggested a book that you had not read and which did not support your assertion anyway!
Nothing else from you on that so far.
You made it up.

Today you asserted that your opinions are based on a lot of reading, but you declined a request to say what.
As nothing written in the last twenty years by any historian does support your views, I think you made that up as well.

Will you tell us now what you have read that supports your opinions on WW1?
Will you tell us now what you have read that supports your assertion that the people were lied to about the Germans in 1914?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:27 PM

"It was Musket who started on Keith A with the TC jibes "
Did you really say "He hit me first sir"?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:25 PM

"Oh Jom, I take it then that you were never bullied at school then."
Let's say I'm usd to thugs like you - I invariably found them pitiful know - nothings who ran squealing and whining to the teacher when the tables were turned - recognise the description?
If you think it important enough to defend people like Keith, who is quite capable of his own hand-wringing bullying and insulting, then try to behave like an adult and stop it yourself - it makes you look stupid to accuse people of what you have become noted for.
You really are not tall enough to talk down to anybody so stop digging holes.
Get a grip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:25 PM

Dave, you asserted that the people were lied to in 1914.
Asked to support that statement, you suggested a book that you had not read and which did not in anyway support your assertion anyway.
Nothing else from you on that so far.
You made it up.

Today you asserted that your opinions are based on a lot of reading, but you declined a request to say what.
As nothing written in the last twenty years by any historian does support your views, I think you made that up as well.

Will you tell us now what you have read that supports your opinions on WW1?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:24 PM

Correct Keith. No "single" historian at all.

An amalgamation of consensus coupled with historical fact and present day evidence.

The sanitisation of military incompetence, political blunder and callous indifference to those in your charge are there, as an elephant in The Litte Englander's room. No amount of scoffing or treating opinion as fact can alter that.

Guest- Whilst I accept that church attendance was dwindling slightly in Edwardian times, the rise of many alternatives at that time reinforces my view that the default position was to do as you were told. Clergy were, as ever, good recruiting sergeants.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:20 PM

"Keith, let me ask you again:

Do you deny that 17 million died?"

Let me ask you academic GUEST Dave - are you really as thick and indoctrinated as you appear to be in print?

I ask as your question has been answered quite a number of times now and the answer has been that NO-ONE denies the number of people who died in the course of the First World War - now what part of that do you not understand - or do you seek further clarification?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:16 PM

DtG, I have not changed any of my claims.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:11 PM

No-one thinks wars are a good thing, but sometimes making a stand against an aggressor is the lesser evil.

WW2 cost 60 million lives, but most of us would still argue it was the right thing to do.

I have just said what the history books all say about WW1.
Jim, Dave and Musket hold views that no single historian of WW1 endorses.

Unless every historian is wrong, they are.

None of them has read any history of the subject written for at least twenty years. Their opinions are not based on any actual knowledge, just politically motivated propaganda.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 11:21 AM

Incidentally Brucie
Don't suppose youd'd care to comment on Israel banning the book 'Borderlife' in schools because it "encourages assimilation" - didn't think so!!
They'll be burning them neext.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 10:59 AM

"My, my but isn't someone totally lacking self awareness."
Want to show where I'be behaved like a thug - O anonymous one (probably Bruce again)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:56 AM

Your persistently thuggish behaviour.....

My, my but isn't someone totally lacking self awareness.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:38 AM

I have not made many comments on here for reasons given very early on but since teribums seems to insist on bring me into it...

The war was necessary has now become That Great Britain viewed the war as one on necessity to protect its own national interests and to honour Treaty obligations.

That everyone supported it has now become That in general the British people supported the Government view and reading of the situation and backed the Government in the pursuit and prosecution of the war against Germany throughout the war.

That the British troops were well led has now become That in general compared to the other combatant powers the British, Commonwealth and Empire armies were well led.

I expect before long that machine guns will become tickling sticks, mustard gas will become happy juice and 17 million dead will become a host of golden daffodils.

You will get used to this, Guest, Dave. When faced with any opposition the usual tactics are abuse and a quick re-write of the rules. You will get used to it and realise that the only thing you can do is either get out of it altogether or just take the piss.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:07 AM

Keith, let me ask you again:

Do you deny that 17 million died?

If you do, then you will be able to point to the historians whose research casts doubt on this number. Even if its David Irving.

If you do not, then your opinion is clearly that the deaths of 17 million were worthwhile in your cause. If that is your view, they you can hold it, I find it repugnant. If historians also hold that view, then I find their views repugnant also, but they are no more qualified to express an opinion than you or I. If that question is in academic realm, it is moral philosophy not history.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:38 AM

"Your post referred to above. If you take as a start point the time when you and your lot jumped in to mob and bully Keith"
Your persistently thuggish behaviour gives you the least right to call anybody a bull;y - go and read your own disparaging posts and count the growing number of questions you still refuse to answer
Th pair of you have persistently resorted to lies - Keith at least attempts to hide behind cut'-n-pastes - you just pronounce and expect everybody to fall flat on our faces.
Give us a break - you wannabe Flashman - stop addressing people as if they are all oiks - that world is as outdated as the one that gave us WW1, fags and common-rooms - you're not at Greyfiars now.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:23 AM

"The informed, evidence based opinion of an historian "
It is opinion - Sheffield's brief if not to give such opinions, his opinions are worth no more than anybody else's
The same goes for every other historian past or present.
Whether the war was worthwhile is a philosophical or political subject not a historical one.
You have been given the political outcome, you choose to scurry behind historians you have not read and don't understand - you are defending your right-wing political position and totally ignoring the obscenity that the war was - very Christian of you!!
"Can you name a single historian who holds a different view?"
Society in general holds that the war was an obscenity - that's why this 'Blackadder'/'Oh What a Lovely War' campaign has been launched.
For Christ's sake Keith - if you support this slaughter, say so and stop hiding behind "experts" again - what do YOU think anout it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:04 AM

"I challenge and defy you". This is a debate forum idiot, not a mediaeval chivalric tournament.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:59 AM

Dave, if your opinion is based on any history written in the last twenty years, then tell us what it was.

I do not believe there is anything you could base those opinions on.
I challenge and defy you to identify anything.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:57 AM

Guest, not to mention Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg, which killed around twice that number. And the codename of the operation suggests that they knew exactly what they were doing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:53 AM

"Again, what is you opinion worth when it is based on an absence of any knowledge or reading?"

It is based upon quite a lot of knowledge and reading. And the fact, which you have not denied, that 17 million died.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:52 AM

Jim,
yet he still thinks the war was worthwhile - no argument there - he is entitled to his opinion - that's what it is AN OPINION

The informed, evidence based opinion of an historian is worth more than than any number of uninformed whims founded on nothing but political dogma.

And not just Sheffield.
Can you name a single hhistorian who holds a different view?
No. You have been trying for years.
All you can do is selectively quote Sheffield hoping to misrepresent his actual view.

Either every historian is deluded, or you are Jim.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:35 AM

Civilians killed in Belgium in the German advance approx. 8000

Civilians killed in one bombing raid on Dresden approx. 22,700 maybe more.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:01 AM

"Jim you know well that Sheffield believes the war to have been necessary and the army generally well and competently led."
And you have exactly what he said in exactly the words he used
He describes incompetence and ignorance, yet he still thinks the war was worthwhile - no argument there - he is entitled to his opinion - that's what it is AN OPINION
He is a spokesman for military affairs, an employee of the war department - he is bound to think as he does, but it has nothing whatevr to do with the fact that he knows and says that the lives lost where "wasted" - which is, as far as I;m concerned, what any discussion on this ****** war should be about - the decimation of Europe's youth to maintain the status quo pertaining at the time.
The people of Britain gained nothing from the war other than depression, mass unemployment and poverty, appeasement to fascism and permanent war from then till now.
That was what all those lives were expended for - Sheffield supports all that and no doubt you do.
""Douglas Haig was 'brilliant to the top of his Army boots'."
You don't even understand Lloyd George's caustic comment on Haig - he hated the man and pointed out that he totally lacked humanity and was incapable of thinking outside of the military box - he couldn't even communicate with his own fellow officers and staff, - that is what that comment is about.
Probably the greatest betrayal of the British people was the fact that the political and military leadership spent as much, if not more time fighting each other than they did the Germans - they were all remote and elitist, defending a rigidly class-divided society and Haig was the worst of them (Kitchener was a close runner-up to the extend#t that it was rumoured that his death was deliberately brought about).
Sheffield attempts to rehabilitate Haig from his widespread reputation of "the Butcher of the Somme" and fails miserably.
"The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability."
McMillan makes the same point, but she points out that it took four years of horrendous war to arrive at that position - both she and Christopher Clark make the point as a criticism - 'eventually, after all that carnage, they finally got there'. Clark deliberately chose his title' 'The Sleepwalkers' to emphasise Britain's unreadiness for war throughout the war.
"The victory in 1918 was the payoff. "
Sheffield's and Terrytoon's point - all those lives were worth sacrificing - cannon fodder - sacrificial lambs - expendable - the traditional right wing elitist view of 'lesser human being' outside the circle of the elite.
Wonder how you square that with your supposed Christianity - certanly not the view held by the "normal human beings" come across on a daily basis.
Any more on how the war was 'really fought' yet Keith?
Don't suppose so!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:51 AM

Dave,
"We fought to resist the invasions which also threatened our own security."
Shades of "45 minutes". Nothing changes.

You are denying that there was a threat, but the fear of invasion was genuine.
There was self interest in addition to a will to defend Belgium from an imperialist militarist invader.

Again, what is you opinion worth when it is based on an absence of any knowledge or reading?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:46 AM

This is one relevant paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15603896

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:40 AM

Greg, I think that you might need to go to an academic library for full texts of John Oxford's work, though abstracts are available on PubMed which is public domain. Careful though there is more than one J. Oxford publishing in medicine, but anything on influenza will be his.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:33 AM

Jim,
'Gallant little Belgium'was a recruiting ploy

No. It was the reason we entered the war.
Otherwise we were intending to stay out.
along with your lurid description of Germans raping and massacring their way across Europe -

"Lurid" but true. That is what happened and there was a very reasonable fear that we would be next.

If there where not enough left to volunteer where did the conscription come from - out of thin air?

People who would have volunteered anyway. To increase enlistment they had to relax physical requirements and accept older men.

All accounts from the history books and especially from the on-lin soldiers diaries explain it exactly and being like that

No they do not. I have read them. You have not.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:25 AM

Jim you know well that Sheffield believes the war to have been necessary and the army generally well and competently led.
By exquisitely selective quoting from a balanced article you have dishonestly tried to reverse its message.

Let me do the same.
Opening sentence,
"Douglas Haig was 'brilliant to the top of his Army boots'. David Lloyd George's view sums up the attitude of many people towards Haig and other British generals of World War One. "

" Haig's army played the leading role in defeating the German forces in the crucial battles of 1918. In terms of the numbers of German divisions engaged, the numbers of prisoners and guns captured, the importance of the stakes and the toughness of the enemy, the 1918 'Hundred Days' campaign rates as the greatest series of victories in British history.

Even the Somme (1916) and Passchendaele (1917), battles that have become by-words for murderous futility, not only had sensible strategic rationales but qualified as British strategic successes, not least in the amount of attritional damage they inflicted on the Germans."

Concluding paragraph
" He (Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:16 PM

I do have my own discussion forum.

Then shut it down because I don't like it.

Please do so!

Pretty please?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:57 PM

He is alive and as far as I know well, though now 73, is still one of the most active researchers in the field of virology

Yeah well, alive, OK but he still ain't one of what the Professor would call an historian, is he?

Are his works available in real bookshops??

If not, thus irrelevant.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:08 PM

Well done, gusset of 02:58pm. As inane comments go yours takes first prize but I suppose it will help to get this nonsense closed. I'll let you into a little secret though. I do have my own discussion forum. You are welcome to join if you can figure out what it is. Oh, hang on. That would mean you letting someone know who you are. I can't see that happening somehow...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:38 PM

He is alive and as far as I know well, though now 73, is still one of the most active researchers in the field of virology:

http://www.oxfordmedicine.co/john-oxford.php

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:32 PM

why Professor John Oxford's research should be considered as discredited.

HEY! First off, is he alive or dead & canhis works be found in "real" bookshops???

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:25 PM

Peeing in a onesie is bloody hilarious. Anyway, back to the substantive. England 1 Germany 0. Replay to come. Aka Chelsea 25, Man U 24 aet. Both teams really well led, especially Chelsea. Not!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:58 PM

Surely, Jeri, it is in your power to put a stop to this ludicrous thread and all the others that are bound to follow.

Please do so!

Pretty please?

Here's a friendly tip Dave the Gno-one; If you want to dictate how a discussion forum is run then start your own.......simple!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:55 PM

"Jim, Britain did not enter the war for imperial gain."
Rthey entered the war to protect their colonial and political interests - for no other reason 'Gallant little Belgium'was a recruiting ploy2 along with your lurid description of Germans raping and massacring their way across Europe - it was an Imperial War in defence of Empire.

"The numbers volunteering increased dramatically when the British Army was thought to be defeated "
These are the monthly recruiting figure from the start of the war to compulsory recruitment was introduced - no dramatic fluctuation.
298.923, 462.901, 136.811, 169.862, 117.860, 156.290, 87.896 , 119.087, 135.263, 114.67, 9 95.413 95.980, 71.617 113.285, 121.793, 55.152, 65.965

"When there were just not enough left to volunteer,"]
If there where not enough left to volunteer where did the conscription come from - out of thin air?

"Sheffield does not Jim"
""One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence."
Gary Sheffield
The word Sheffield uses was "waste" - maybe he was lying - or are you ?

Re the way the war was fought:
"Of course I disagree. Where do you get this stuff."
All accounts from the history books and especially from the on-lin soldiers diaries explain it exactly and being like that - that has never been in question certain not by any historian.
Sheffield mentions the losses of Passchendaele and the Somme, but he and others thing it (the gains of Empire) were worth those lives.
f you have an alternative - give it - I didn't ask for a denial even though I knew that's what'd get.
C'mon Keith - even you can do better than this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:33 PM

Because the peeing in a onesie thread is mildly amusing and does not denigrate the deaths of 17 million people?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:25 PM

Why on earth would you want jeri to close this thread while others like "Peeing in a onesie" are left on the board?
Besides, it is interesting and instructive to see how many knots you pin dancers can tie yourselves into, while you try to escape incoming facts and rationality.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:23 PM

Oh, but he's the world expert on health, especially twisting health statistics to support the less savoury member of his fan club.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:22 PM

"We fought to resist the invasions which also threatened our own security."

Shades of "45 minutes". Nothing changes.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:11 PM

Jim, Britain did not enter the war for imperial gain.
It was intending to keep out of it.
The invasion of Belgium was not expected, and so neither was our entry.

As a consequence the army was unprepared and ill equipped to face the German onslaught.
We fought to resist the invasions which also threatened our own security.

Of course there were encouragements to join, but the numbers volunteering overwhelmed the capacity of the army to process them anyway.

The numbers volunteering increased dramatically when the British Army was thought to be defeated and running, and total defeat imminent.
Any prospect of winning seemed years away and imminent defeat far more likely.

When there were just not enough left to volunteer, conscription was brought in but it did not produce many extra men. Those who had not volunteered mostly had valid reasons not to go. It was necessary to lower the physical requirements and to admit older men.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:53 PM

Jim says:

"World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over. "

and I entirely agree. I am not saying that the British were more culpable than the Germans or indeed less. Unfortunately only the Russians had the nous and nerve to do anything about it

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:51 PM

Surely, Jeri, it is in your power to put a stop to this ludicrous thread and all the others that are bound to follow.

Please do so!

Pretty please?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:49 PM

Jim, I am sure that Keith will, after 10 minutes reading in Hertford Library, be quite able to discern which virologists are discredited and which are not.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:41 PM

Jim,
Even Keith's historian acknowledges it was a waste of young lives,
Sheffield does not Jim.
You made that up.
His view is that the war was necessary, and the army generally well and competently led.

World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.

Not true Jim.

Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grou

Of course I disagree. Where do you get this stuff.
Not from history books!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:33 PM

"Cue Keith and Teribus searching for a reason as to why Professor John Oxford's research should be considered as discredited."
Don't be stupid Dave - he's not a historian
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:17 PM

Hi Terribulus! Any chance of you standing with your mates pointing and laughing at whatever you seem to be aiming at me?

Mind you, two problems with that....

On other matters, I agree with guest completely regarding the role of historians. It's ok to believe their conclusions but that infers a) they flatter your views and b) their selectivity of evidence to deliver their view is also to your comfort.

It is clear, self evident and factual that the deaths of so many people in such a short time cannot lead to a conclusion of "well led." It is also a fact that social class division meant people respected the country's leaders so therefore were more inclined to swallow jingoistic bullshit. It is a fact that war between nations occurs when diplomacy has failed, questioning leadership in any and every way you wish to judge it.

The war was a beast of its time and to judge it by today's standards would be wrong. People fell for bullshit, were less world wise and informed and let's face it, gullible. Most people were superstitious a hundred years ago, so used to being told what to do.

No. The war resulted in the needless slaughter of a generation of Europe's finest. Not a single lesson was learned as we raped what was left of the German economy, leading to extremism flourishing and for that, the sacrifice was futile, wasted and for no purpose.

To defend inept military leadership and to judge the attitude of common or garden recruits against today's intellect is not only wrong but rather distasteful. Sadly, there are many people with the same base intellect as Terribulus. After all, without such ignorance, we'd never get tomorrow's cannon fodder.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:40 PM

Jeri, pop and put the kettle on love.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:13 PM

I wonder if these threads exist for any other purpose than to provide a place for ad hominem back-and-forth always and, unfortunately, forever.

Repeat after me "Get off my lawn" "GET OFF MY LAWN NOW!"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:08 PM

"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"
For crying out loud Keith your not a child and you've used this before - if you cant read a couple of sentences how the **** do you manage to have read what you have claimed to have read - Max Hastings and Margaret McMillam my arse, as for Isaac Deuscher..... further evidence of your truthfulness!!
You really are something else!!

1"simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?
Is that too difficult for you or shall I break it down even further.
You have already claimed you have answered this - so you are ow accepting that you lied.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:04 PM

What happened there?

What that post was supposed to say was that a million dead (British and Commonwealth) is most definitely "MANY", especially when compared with much smaller death tolls over which a great deal of fuss has been made more recently.

And as far as Spanish Flu is concerned, maybe those deaths should be added in as well. For, according to Wikipedia:

"Investigative work by a British team led by virologist John Oxford of St Bartholomew's Hospital and the Royal London Hospital identified a major troop staging and hospital camp in Étaples, France, as almost certainly being the center of the 1918 flu pandemic. A significant precursor virus, harbored in birds, mutated to pigs that were kept near the front."

Cue Keith and Teribus searching for a reason as to why Professor John Oxford's research should be considered as discredited.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:48 AM

"all your questions have actually been answered, "
No they haven't - jeez -you're as big a liar as your mate.
Where have you responded to your long-exposed lying about what I said about Tommy Kenny?
Your contemptuous and contemptible response to my point on the butchery of World War One in no was constitutes an answer - if you have contrary information that it was conducted otherwise, give us it instead of your old usual bluster and bullshit.
Even Keith's historian acknowledges it was a waste of young lives, tough he (as an establishment lackey) asses the opinion that "winning made it all worthwhile.
Where is your response to the suggestion that so many lives were not worth defending the ill-gotten-gains of Empire - you have admitted it was an Imperial war - now justify the sacrificing of so many millions of lives.
You have never attempted to justify your "well-off Liverpool", or "democracy since the beginning of the 19th century" or "classless army" nonsense.
The problem with you Tory bully-boys is you're too used to your victims baring their arses when instructed to do so.
Please stop lying and answer the points, instead of accusing other of doing what you have made a long-standing practice.
You never answer questions - you make arrogant pronouncements.
Sorry if this is difficult for you to read - perhaps you can ask a neighour's sprog to abandon his video game and give you a hand
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:36 AM

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

If you REALLY want my response to something, put them them to me just one or two at a time as briefly and simply as possible.

I think that I actually have answered all your point and you are just obfuscating.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:20 AM

"Many of them did not think that. Many of them were not in a position to think any such thing, on account of them being dead."

Is that where MANY = 1 in 10 GUEST Dave?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:16 AM

Ahhh Jom - all your questions have actually been answered, but as usual with you, you ignore all that does not agree with your idiotic, biased and bigoted point of view.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:11 AM

GUEST,Dave - 01 Jan 16 - 04:31 PM

"We are talking about the history of WW1."

I think we are talking about the actuality of WWI. You know, where 17 million including a million British and Commonwealth died."

No GUEST Dave we all know that WWI actually happened and we all know roughly how many people died during it, a number dwarfed by the way by the Spanish Flu pandemic that followed it

What we are discussing GUEST Dave is the HISTORY related to the First World War as opposed to the MYTHOLOGY related to the First World War.

The MYTHS introduced and promulgated between 1929 and 1969 have to a great extent been disproven, they were after all promoted by people driven by their own agenda's and those ulterior motives have all been exposed for exactly what they were.

A.J.P. Taylor and Alan Clark were put up as champions of those believing the myths - I note that defence of these champions has been notable by its absence since it was brought to notice that the works of both were savaged in peer review by the leading World War One specialists of the day when those works were published. Alan Clark admitted to making stuff up - now exactly what kind of credible historian does that? Certainly not one that any sane person would ever put forward as an expert on anything.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:02 AM

Whoops
"the same challenge that he totally failed in responding to"
You seem to have entered into a vow of silence on all the questions you have refused to answer - particularly about your deliberately distorting what others have said.
Starting the year as you mean to go on, no doubt!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:01 AM

"Those who actually fought it think it was even worth the higher cost, so once again who cares what Dave thinks?"

Many of them did not think that. Many of them were not in a position to think any such thing, on account of them being dead.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:46 AM

Well then "nameless" GUEST you get set the same challenge that he totally failed in responding to

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:23 AM

Missed a bit
Re "New evidence"
WHAT NEW EVIDENCE? THERE IS NO NEW EVIDENCE AND EVEN IF THERE WAS, NO HISTORIAN HAS EVER AT ANY TIME WRITTEN OFF THE WORK OF PAST HISTORIANS - NOT EVER.
THEY MAY HAVE DISAGREED WITH WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, BUT YOU HAVE WRITTEN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM OFF IN ONE FELL SWOOP
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:18 AM

missed a bit
Re "new evidence"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM

"You keep saying this and I keep asking for a clear statement of what you want.
Now you are lying again - you have never asked for any such thing - never!!
Proof of your lying
01 Jan 16 - 09:12 AM
"Simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?
If you do disagree with it, what evidence (historical or moral), to support you?
You insist on our providing historians - where are yours to contradict that statement?"
Couldn't get clearer than that - please stop this dishonesty
"If you think there is a book I should read, name it."
You claim to have read may books and have written off all those who don't support you.
Read what McMallan really says in 'The War that Ended Peace' it dosn't bear comparison with your claims
Read her 'The Misuse of History' which deals specifically with what you are doing here.
Read The Sleepwalkers - which deals with the avoidably of war
"Your quote is of Gary Sheffield WHO YOU KNOW BELIEVES THE ARMY WAS WELL LED!"
Nothing dishonest Keith - Sheffield says what he says about Haig - no editing - you claim he supports Haig - he qualifies his support, which you have deliberately avoided doing - that is dishonesty - it is what you have done with every single quote you have put up - without exception.
Explain the contrdictions in your claims and Sheffield's own statement
"One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. Haig's decision to continue with the fighting at Passchendaele in 1917 after the opportunity for real gains had passed comes into this category."
That is not the unqualified support you have claimed.
Sheffield and McMillan state that the army did not reach fighting fitness until 1918 - virtually the end of the war - so they fought the rest of it unfit for purpose, which leaves the question, was the war worth the sacrifice of so many lives? another question you refuse to respond to   
Don't you ever accuse me or anybody here of dishonesty again after the way you pair have behaved and are continuing to behave here - you have monopolised the practice.
Another simply put question AGAIN
How dare you disqualify all but modern historian when no individual working in the field has ever done so EVER? If that is not the case - show us who has
By the way - yet another lie - you are now claiming that you haven't answered my questions because you don't understand them (having first claimed you had answered them and then told us that you won't answer questions from agenda-driven igoramouses who are incapable of thought) - I make tthat three contradictory answers to the same question - don't suppose you ahve an explanation other than "I told lies" which is the only one I can think of.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 09:40 AM

Jim,
You are not going to respond to my points, are you?

You keep saying this and I keep asking for a clear statement of what you want.
Put it simply and briefly and I will respond.

If you think there is a book I should read, name it.
I have read lots and on these issues they all agree.
None has yet been found by any of us that does not.

Long dead historians are no longer relevant" - sheeeeesh!!

I said that in the context of your post about one whose work has been discredited by new evidence.
I clarified by saying, "No silly!
Only if their findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge."(31 Dec 15 - 10:36 AM)

Your quote is of Gary Sheffield WHO YOU KNOW BELIEVES THE ARMY WAS WELL LED!
Dishonest Jim.
Read the whole thing here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

Dave,
So Keith has accepted that 17 million really did die.

Keith knew that all along.

he believes that this loss of life was worthwhile in some nebulous cause,

It was not a nebulous cause. Powerful and cruel German armies were attacking neighbouring countries and heading our way.
The government and people of the time believed that they should make a stand, and modern historians think they were right.
Compared to all that, why should I care what you think about it?

I suspect they say nothing because they are starting from the viewpoint that the survival of a state trumps the survival of individuals.

If you actually read some, you would find you are wrong about that too!

of the loss of life had been reduced by a factor 10 or 20, the war still would have not been worth it.

Those who actually fought it think it was even worth the higher cost, so once again who cares what Dave thinks?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 09:18 AM

Yes, and the way to learn about it is to read the history books.

Which, as you've admitted numerous times, Professor, you've never done.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 08:44 AM

So Keith has accepted that 17 million really did die. And the corrolary is that he believes that this loss of life was worthwhile in some nebulous cause, though the history books that he quotes are pretty vague about what that was. My contention is that it was petty political egos and vested commercial interests. Keith may say it was the survival of the British state and I would say thats the same thing. History books are irrelevant, the difference between Keith and myself is whether it was worth that sacrifice to preserve a national identity. Especially when the vast majority of those doing the fighting and dying had no stake in that national identity, never had and never would.

So what do these historians beloved of Keith, lets call them apologists for want of a better word, say on that? I suspect they say nothing because they are starting from the viewpoint that the survival of a state trumps the survival of individuals. A bit of a socialist viewpoint it would seem. But I think that is why they say the war had to be fought. Those longer ago (and indeed many more recent, we have seen now that Messinger does not pass muster with Keith, although he is still writing) may have a more nuanced view.

Jim's point is different, it is that if the politicians and military brass had been more competent the war could have been won with less loss of life. I have nothing to say on that, except that of the loss of life had been reduced by a factor 10 or 20, the war still would have not been worth it. And that I would rather it had been lost with fewer casualties than won with as many as there were.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 08:25 AM

"My method of argument is to say, "this is what all the history books say.""
You haven't read "all the history books say" so you are lying - they don't
You are not going to respond to my points, are you?
Doesn't matter; they were not for your benefit.
Your gross stupidity and on history has long been common knowledge - now you have confirmed it yourself.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant" - sheeeeesh!!
Must remember to put that in my 'future use' file.

This is a leading historians description of the competence of the leadership - he goes on to claim the Army only reached the point of becoming a fully efficient fighting force in 1918 - the year the war ended - so the army fought their way through the war below par - McMillan says the same.
"One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. Haig's decision to continue with the fighting at Passchendaele in 1917 after the opportunity for real gains had passed comes into this category. In some ways the British and other armies might have grasped the potential of technology earlier than they did. During the Somme, Haig and Rawlinson failed to understand the best way of using artillery."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 08:05 AM

No, Keith. That's like saying that in the match that ended Chelsea 12 Man U 11, Chelsea defended really well because they won, when the reality is that they defended very badly, though not quite as badly as Man U.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:33 AM

I'm commenting on your apparently flawed method of argument.

My method of argument is to say, "this is what all the history books say."

Jim and Dave's method is to claim the historians have all got it wrong, and it is not even worth their while to read one because they already know everything.

Any comment on that Steve?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:29 AM

Jim
you are now including blame for starting the war in your arguments,

I am not, but you raised the issue and made a false assertion about Macmillan's view on it.
She said Germany and Austria-Hungary were responsible.
Here are ten other historians who mostly agree. None of them blame UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

Dave,
So this new knowledge is what exactly, "did 17 million really die?"
You will find the new knowledge laid out in the histories written in recent years. Just read something Dave, instead of endlessly exposing your woeful ignorance.

"did 17 million really die?"

Yes, and that seems to be the sum total of your knowledge.
The war had to be fought (read the history books).
The war could not be fought without incurring heavy losses (read the history books).
Had the army not been well led, the losses would have been even heavier (as they were for all the other armies) and we would not have won.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:26 AM

Well I'm not pontificating, nor am I commenting on the substantive subject matter of this thread. I'm commenting on your apparently flawed method of argument.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:06 AM

A dogma that can not incorporate knowledge should be questioned, and if it can not accommodate the facts, discarded.
Which Christmas cracker did that come from.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:46 AM

"The military historians say you are wrong, so who cares what you think?"
It is totally mindless to claim that it was well led without being able to say why it was well led.
You have the reasons why I believe it was nothing but butchery, you tell my why you believe it wasn't - and you agree free to quote any historian to back you up by showing they claim is wasn't as I described.
You have lost any right you might ever have had to claim the authority of historians with the most outrageously stupid statement on history anybody has ever made - that all past historians have been made irrelevant by modern ones - that is tantamount to claiming we must now burn all books written by past historians.
Nobody in the history of scholarship has ever made such a suggestion.
No historian has ever had his or her entire work debunked because is was wrong - not one - yet this is what you have suggested - mindless twaddle.
George Bernard Shaw once joked that he was a better playwright than Shakespeare because he had read everything he had written - Shaw was joking - you apparently believe your idiocy.
Your suggestion will remain a Mudcat classic while I am a member.
By the way - I see you have expanded your 3 points to 4 as you are now including blame for starting the war in your arguments, despite your "historians" (particularly Margaret McMillan's) attitude to the subject.
The war was carried out using a policy of simple butchery - show how this was not the case, and again, feel free to use as many historians as you wish
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:36 AM

"You are exactly like those Creationists who can not accept new knowledge because it challenges your irrational belief in dogma."

So this new knowledge is what exactly, "did 17 million really die?" David Irving would be proud of you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:34 AM

Steve, that would be a fair comment if this was all uninformed speculation.
It is not. People who have devoted their lives to the study of military operations have been working on this for a hundred years.
They have now all, independently, reached the conclusion that the army was generally well and competently led.
That is not my opinion. I am not qualified to have one on such a complex issue.
Read a book about it Steve.
Anything less tan twenty years old.
Then read another and you will find general agreement.
I have read lots and I know this.
Jim and Dave are pontificating about something they know nothing about.
They have read nothing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:01 AM

"Had the army not been well led, the losses would have been even heavier (as they were for all the others) and we would not have won."

Without commenting on the veracity or otherwise of this strange remark, I'd just point out the illogicality of it. The easiest way would be to turn it on its head, thus: "Even though the army was very badly led, our enemies' armies were even worse led, leading to heavier losses for them than for us." Just saying.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:55 AM

Yes.
Open your mind to new knowledge.

A dogma that can not incorporate knowledge should be questioned, and if it can not accommodate the facts, discarded.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:19 AM

Its all so simple isn't it. Just black and white.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:53 AM

Jim,
it was not "well led"

The military historians say you are wrong, so who cares what you think?
You are only informed by political dogma.
You reject all the new knowledge of the last thirty years.

If you believe it was well led you would be able to explain it.

I can Jim.
The war had to be fought (read the history books).
The war could not be fought without incurring heavy losses (read the history books).
Had the army not been well led, the losses would have been even heavier (as they were for all the others) and we would not have won.

Instead of political theorising read ANY HISTORY written in recent decades.
They will all tell you what I have been telling you.
Reading those histories is how I know this stuff while you wallow in ignorance and make ridiculous political pronouncements about an event you actually know nothing about.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:43 AM

Dave,
I think we are talking about the actuality of WWI. You know, where 17 million including a million British and Commonwealth died.

Yes, and the way to learn about it is to read the history books.

You consider them all to be deluded while you hold the truth!

You are exactly like those Creationists who can not accept new knowledge because it challenges your irrational belief in dogma.
Hard evidence will never convince you.
Pointing and laughing is the only way to respond.

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

"The historians and military historians agree it was, so why should anyone care what your view is Jim?"
If it was a case of young men sent over to their deaths until the other side gave in - it was not "well led" - that is not leadership it was enforced butchery.
Justifying that historical fact as good leadership is not the domain of historians - it is only their opinion that it was right.
If you believe it was well led you would be able to explain it.
Who cares what an historically illiterate right-wing agenda driver like yourself believes
The scale of death in World War One makes it little short of a holocaust
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:34 AM

Ah but Dave. The actuality of WW1 isn't something that the government wish us to celebrate. They like to see it as an example of serving your country (which means supporting them rather than criticising them.)

Jingoism isn't just good for recruiting sergeants, it allows us to forget how inefficient, unreconstructed and plain inept our military actually are. It is designed to give us a fuzzy warm feeling that young men in uniform who act rather than question, led by people trained to take on armies trained in the same way can somehow make us feel safe in the wake of fear stemming from a source they cannot tackle with their silly drill, medals and shouting at other ranks.

Which is ironic considering WW1 is portrayed as starting as a result of civilian terrorism.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:31 PM

"We are talking about the history of WW1."

I think we are talking about the actuality of WWI. You know, where 17 million including a million British and Commonwealth died.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 02:46 PM

"The (Bryce)report has long been a bête noire for those cultural historians examining popular attitudes during the war, it having been concluded by some very emphatic commentators in the 1920s and 1930s (such as Arthur Ponsonby in Falsehood in War-Time and Irene Cooper Willis in England's Holy War) that the Report was simply a tissue of lies. Modern research, as we shall see, has confirmed that the Report's conclusions were substantially correct."
http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/memoryofwar/the-rape-of-belgium-revisited/

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 02:32 PM

It wasn't though, as you find when you read the whole of that chapter

It was thought to be true at the time, and turned out to be true in fact. It does not justify your false claim of the people being lied to about the Germans.
They already knew about the atrocities anyway from the hundreds of thousands of Belgian refugees.
The revisionist historians tried to understate the German atrocities, but we now know that 6000 civilians including children were deliberately massacred.
Messinger is out of date on that. It was published 24 years ago.

But we arent't talking about history as an abstract concept.

We are talking about the history of WW1.
Of course the historians know more about it than you do!
Your pomposity is truly breathtaking!

Jim,
Far from being "well led", it was.....

The historians and military historians agree it was, so why should anyone care what your view is Jim?

You are very ill informed about this Jim.
It is blatantly obvious that you have read no history written for at least twenty years.
Almost everything you have said about it is wrong.

If you want a response on something, try to formulate a question and I will answer it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 11:13 AM

Teribus quotes Edward Grey, as some length:

"And I do not believe, whether a great power stands outside this war or not, it is going to be in a position at the end of it to exert its superior strength."

Exerting superior strength, thats what its all about, not the interests of the working people.

"For us, with a powerful fleet, which we believe able to protect our commerce, to protect our shores, and to protect our interests, if we are engaged in war, we shall suffer but little more than we shall suffer even if we stand aside."

Commerce, shores, interests, not a mention of the people anywhere

"We are going to suffer, I am afraid, terribly in this war, whether we are in it or whether we stand aside."

Not him though, not Sir Edward Grey, the suffering is something to be done by the lower orders

"Foreign trade is going to stop, not because the trade routes are closed, but because there is no trade at the other end. "

Thats what its all about, trade and the interests of the mercantile classes, of whom Sir Edward Grey was very much a scion.

Wikipedia says a bit about Sir Edward Grey, descendent of baronets, related to other politicians, privilege all over the place, and this bit about his time in Oxford:

"Grey subsequently became even more idle, using his time to become university champion at real tennis. In 1882 his grandfather died and he inherited a baronet's title, an estate of about 2,000 acres (8.1 km2), and a private income. Returning to the University of Oxford in the autumn of 1883, Grey switched to studying jurisprudence in the belief that it would be an easier option, but by January 1884 he had been expelled. Nonetheless, he was allowed to return to sit his final examination. Grey returned in the summer and achieved Third Class honours."

An idle child of privilege who only obtained a degree because of bending of the rules, not stated there but one suspects that daddy had pulled a few strings.

A third rate scholar and a fourth rate human being. Remind you of anyone else from Oxford, a bit later??

Sir Edward Grey was a big part of the problem, and if revolution had come to Britain he would have been one to get his come-uppance in a very big way.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 10:57 AM

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

But we arent't talking about history as an abstract concept. We are talking about the deaths of 17 million people, including a million British and Commonwealth.

Regarding the quote from Messinger:

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

It wasn't though, as you find when you read the whole of that chapter

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 10:31 AM

"First part is a gross over-simplification of what went on - I think that you actually do know this, but for sake of clarity if you do not - then you are a complete and utter idiot who should actually do some reading (Even by people you think are wrong) and educate yourself."
Are you going to educate us on how World War One was really fought or are you going to leave us in suspense forever - as I suspect will be the case?
Happy New Year
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 09:36 AM

Eehh. You don't half talk bollocks Terribulus.

"Wealth, security and prosperity." You forgot the common denominator, "privilege."

A bit of a glaring omission, coming from such a cap doffing fool.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 09:24 AM

"They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans, and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos." - GUEST Dave

Not in July and early August 1914 - Forget about historians looking back at the events, as you do not seem to believe them - go to Hansard and read the speech given in Parliament by the British Foreign Secretary of the day Sir Edward Grey on the 3rd of August 1914:

Grey's Speech 3.08.1914

On the IN or OUT thing here is what SIr Edward Grey said:

It may be said, I suppose, that we might stand aside, husband our strength, and that, whatever happened in the course of this war, at the end of it intervene with effect to put things right, and to adjust them to our own point of view. If, in a crisis like this, we run away

[Loud cheers.]

from those obligations of honour and interest as regards the Belgian treaty, I doubt whether, whatever material force we might have at the end, it would be of very much value in face of the respect that we should have lost. And I do not believe, whether a great power stands outside this war or not, it is going to be in a position at the end of it to exert its superior strength. For us, with a powerful fleet, which we believe able to protect our commerce, to protect our shores, and to protect our interests, if we are engaged in war, we shall suffer but little more than we shall suffer even if we stand aside.

We are going to suffer, I am afraid, terribly in this war, whether we are in it or whether we stand aside. Foreign trade is going to stop, not because the trade routes are closed, but because there is no trade at the other end. Continental nations engaged in war all their populations, all their energies, all their wealth, engaged in a desperate struggle they cannot carry on the trade with us that they are carrying on in times of peace, whether we are parties to the war or whether we are not. I do not believe for a moment that at the end of this war, even if we stood aside and remained aside, we should be in a position, a material position, to use our force decisively to undo what had happened in the course of the war, to prevent the whole of the west of Europe opposite to us -- if that had been the result of the war -- falling under the domination of a single power, and I am quite sure that our moral position would be such as --

[the rest of the sentence -- "to have lost us all respect." -- was lost in a loud outburst of cheering].

And THAT was part of the speech that took Great Britain to war the next day because the Germans violated the neutrality of Belgium - a move clearly to e seen as being AGAINST Great Britain's best national interests.

"They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans, and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos."

Nothing whatsoever to do with "supposedly superior breeding" or with "petty political and aristocratic egos." it was all to do with protecting the wealth, security and prosperity of the nation - and that includes the jobs and livelihoods of all.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 09:12 AM

Agree entirely with that guest.
Simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?
If you do disagree with it, what evidence (historical or moral), to support you?
You insist on our providing historians - where are yours to contradict that statement?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 08:19 AM

Normal people don't "accept" anything Keith. They consider.

The only people who "accept" either lack capacity or are superstitious, which is basically the same thing.

There is no definitive "history." I was at Orgreave in 1984, and have yet to read an account from any viewpoint that coincides with my own recollection. I am sure any of us could give examples of this. In my professional life, a newspaper once turned my "we cannot comment on individual cases" into about three column inches of comment attributed to me.

If you are impressed by someone being given the (non legally reserved) title of historian, then I'm sure they wouldn't complain. But being a "historian" doesn't stop David Irvine from being a holocaust denier, and doesn't stop Max Hastings from altering his view of the same evidence as his earlier view based on pushing his "opinion."

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 07:58 AM

"and I have expressed no opinion on events before Belgium."
Belgium was the start of the war - what's your point?
You have supported every single aspect of the war
You have either denied or ignored and refused to respond to the effect blackmailing nature of the recruitment campaign, the threats of dismissal by employers, the promises of a short war, the conditions that forced men to join up, and the fact that compulsion was introduced when the recruiting campaigns failed, insisting that people joined up because they believed in the war - you spent a graet deal of time on these - which one of your "three points£ covered that?
For ***** sake Keith - stand by your arguments and stop moving the goalposts
You have supported every single aspect of this war from day one - stand by what you have claimed.
Despite having claimed otherwise, you have at no time attempted to answer how the war was "well led" or how it was a war worth millions of lives.
You have said you have answered these points - indicate where you have or answer them.
How about a New Years Resolution like "I promise to speak the truth".
It really would life much easier for the rest of us.
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is getting silly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 5 of Messinger, on Lord Bryce.

The reports about German atrocities were basically true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your quotes of me support me not you!

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

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

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

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

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

The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I say that historians agree my three points."
McMillian says that historians are at odds about most aspects of the war - read what she says.
"You have claimed throughout that Historians back you up on Germany's blame fro starting the war - McMillan doesn't support that view by any means
I made no such claim."
That was one of your first claims until you retreated to your present three.
Yo defended every single aspect of Britains involvement in the war - your three points are now your Fort Alamo - that's where you have retreated to.
You said it was why Britain had no other alternative but to fight.
Jim Carroll

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

"First part is a gross over-simplification of what went on - I think that you actually do know this, but for sake of clarity if you do not - then you are a complete and utter idiot who should actually do some reading (Even by people you think are wrong) and educate yourself."
I know nothing of the sort and your arrogantly bullying tone indicates that you don't either but are trying to bluff your way through, as per usual.
Enlighten us, pray do as you have on every other declaration you have made in your somewhat aggressively defensive manner.
G'arn - educate us
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First part is a gross over-simplification of what went on - I think that you actually do know this, but for sake of clarity if you do not - then you are a complete and utter idiot who should actually do some reading (Even by people you think are wrong) and educate yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year everyone.
keith.

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

Jim,
"Only if there findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge."
And nobody has here Keith, but you have written all of them off without exception

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

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

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

You have claimed throughout that Historians back you up on Germany's blame fro starting the war - McMillan doesn't support that view by any means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans,
What lies? Justify your wild assertion.
and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos.
Justify that assertion too!

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

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

From OED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Only if there findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge."
And nobody has here Keith, but you have written all of them off without exception
Your Margaret McMillan out of context quotes are totally meaningless, as are all you other out-of-context ones.
The facts of the efforts made to recruit young man, the emotional blackmail inducements, the threats of dismissal by employers, the per pressure of the''Comrades Brigades' the exaggerations and downright lies about how easy the war would be, and when it would be over... and above all, the fact that the recruiting campaign ran out of steam and was replaced by enforced enlistment - all makes total nonsense of any idea that men joined up as a crusade.
Even your mate claimed (not true, of course) that the majority of men came from the middle classes - suggesting that the workers really wanted nothing to do with the war other than as a source of employment and romantic adventure (which were two major features of the recruiting drive)
You have claimed throughout that Historians back you up on Germany's blame fro starting the war - McMillan doesn't support that view by any means
She was interviewed and said:
"You do mention the thesis of the German historian Fritz Fischer about German culpability, but you don't endorse it unambiguously do you?

No. He was writing at a particular time and I think what he did was very brave. But having read his books again, I think that he allowed the hunt for German guilt to guide him in the selection of documents. He and his followers were so fixated on looking for German guilt that they failed to take into account some of the other possibilities. After all, Germany was not operating in a vacuum. It was having to deal with other nations which were also making decisions."
Smacks your claim in the face, for a start.
McMillan interview
She makes it quite clear that she believes that every aspect of the war is complex, yet you have used her quotes throughout to make them simplistic - that is a major part of your dishonesty.
Out of context quotes are dishonest manipulation of the facts to suit an agenda - your agenda.
You claim taht "all historians" agree with you on everything" - she doesn't, as has been pointed out to you.
I suppose any attempts to get you to commit yourself to why the war was "well led" is a bit of a lost cause!!!
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

As a commentator, she gives a view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Stevenson argues persuasively that we must believe that men and women meant what they said when they talked about duty and sacrifice, that they accepted the war, even willingly."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n23/margaret-macmillan/von-hotzendorffs-desire

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


By no means as irrelevant as The Professor.

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

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

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

"Long dead historians are no longer relevant"

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

Truly astonishing.

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

Sorry, not myself today.

Dave,
But if she says what you say she says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, quote missed.

delete my last.


Dave,
But if she says what you say she says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave,
But if she says what you say she says

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

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

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

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

No it isn't -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keith's arguments are, and always have been a mass of contradictory, ill-thought- out claims
He claims to believe that history is "THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD, PAST AND PRESENT" yet he excludes as irrelevant the use of all historians no longer alive, including historians who were alive during and just after the War (such as Liddell Hart, who actually fought) - how dishonestly stupid is that?
He tells us that he is not going to respond to a question because we are all "empty-headed, abnormal random know-nothings": "Who cares what random know-nothings might believe? Just political whims from empty heads! Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle! I read history books to learn my history! Normal people do!!"
Shortly afterwards he claims to have responded to the question - he isn't even singing from his own hymn sheet, let along his claimed 'historians'.
His motivation is crystal clear; he obviously has no knowledge of WW1 - the subject probably doesn't even interest him beyond at the 'Boys Own' comic- book level
He has proved himself a rabid, pro-establishment nationalist who will hear nothing criticising the British establishment.
When the centenary campaign was launched to whitewash the events of 100 years ago and make them, acceptable, he was there like a rat up a drainpipe to do his bit for God, Queen and Empire.
Despite claims to the contrary by this pair, nothing new has emerged from the War - it was as bloody, as ruthlessly vicious and as politically-driven as we have always known it to be.
It is pointless to ask either of them to produce anything new that has been discovered - they don't do that sort of thing, though they have often claimed to have "already done so".
They are, of course, quite welcome to prove this is not the case, but they won't - neither of them.
Hiding behind "experts" and "historians" and refusing to take responsibility for his own opinions, has now become one of Keith's main gambits to "win" arguments, every bit as useful as 'The English Opening' or 'Fools Mate' in chess.
These arguments are a prize-winning game to Keith - personally, I find them only useful for their entertainment value.
Thanks to Keith's obsessive desire to win, I have long given up any hope that we might actually learn something from them - his New Year present to all of us - Happy New Year Keith.
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes perhaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That is the knowledge of current historians."
No it isn't - you have spent your time debunking past historians as have those who are presently trying to resurrect the reputation of this squalid war.
Despite your claims, nothing new has been produced to justify the war - the soldiers diaries still by and large remain out of reach to most of us, what has been released has confirmed what a horrific affair it all was, but nothing else - what will be released in future has been filtered through a process so as not to rock the boat too much - nowhere has the war been commented on.
You refer to 'methodology' as if you understand it, you have proven over and over again that you haven't a clue - your pomposity makes you a grater caricature than you already where.
And you sill haven't answered my question.
HOW CAN A WAR CONDUCTED BY SENDING YOUNG MEN TO CERTAIN DEATH IN WAVE AFTER WAVE UNTIL ONE OR THE OTHER SIDE GIVES UP BE DESCRIBED AS ANYTHING BUT RUTHLESS BUTCHERY - WHERE ID THE "GOOD LEADERSHIP" COME IN
You dishonestly claimed that you have already answered this: "Here AGAIN are the answers to your questions Jim." having previously said you refuse to do so:
"your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war"
Your reply
"Who cares what random know-nothings might believe?
Just political whims from empty heads!
Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle!
I read history books to learn my history!
Normal people do!!"
You have yet to reply
Jim Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keith,

Telling phrase in your post at 04:58:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.J.P. Taylor & Alan Clark

Points of similarity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


She has been researching the period for decades, and her findings are confirmed by all the others, e.g.
" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

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

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

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

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

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

Is my summary correct then, Keith?

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

If Keith wants to win, fine, let him.

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

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

Forgive me for defending my position which is proved correct.

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

Sorry - Incomplete first line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Cochrane? How about Jimmy Clay:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[With thanks to Spaw, god rest him.]

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

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

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

Q: Keith] Are you really THAT stupid?

A: Yes

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

Ditto for Colonel Blimp a.k.a Teribyte.

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

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

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

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

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

What about Neil Faulkner?

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

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

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

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

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

"The historians"

AJP Taylor
Alan Clark

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

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

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

Q: Are you really THAT stupid.

A: Yes

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

" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macmillan
the "futility of war" line only emerged later. "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/25/margaret-macmillan-just-dont-ask-me-who-started-war

Pennel
"People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here AGAIN are the answers to your questions Jim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you disagree that it was a wart of attrition

Yes it was.

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

No. They were not tricked or duped.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you disagree that it was a wart of attrition

Yes.

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

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

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

Q: Are you really THAT stupid.

A: Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Success!!

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

Let's see now

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

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

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

Round one hundred and forty three!!!

🛎

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:13 AM

To those who doubt Haig's capability as a leader take a look at the date given in the quotation supplied by Akenaton then consider that having had the best that the Germans could throw at them in their last gasp effort to win the war Haig on the 8th August 1918 went over onto the attack - it was to be and is still considered to be the most successful offensive campaign ever fought by the British Army - and by 11th November 1918 the war on the western front was all over.

GUEST - 29 Dec 15 - 05:19 PM Couldn't agree more.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:56 PM

Quotations from famous Scots.

"Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall, and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."

Field Marshall Earl Haig, Order of the Day, 12 April 1918. Douglas Haig was born in Edinburgh in 1861.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 05:19 PM

Cast not your pearls before swine comes to mind, Teribus.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 03:40 PM

Teribus has claimed that he has found the records of 6 Tommy Kerrys. What he has failed to say is that a huge proportion of WW1 records were destroyed during the blitz of WW2.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 02:09 PM

"Jom could you please give us that again in English."
Typos again shipmate - perfectly understandable and you know it
You deliberately launched into a defence of French to avoid responding to all the other cock ups - which you have yet to respond to.
There - that'll save you having to ask the nearest five year old to explain it to you.
"Jom you said that Tommy Kenny was a soldier, yet you could not state where he served,"
Wasn't what we were there for - all in his documents (I've told you this several times - even when you sneered at our poor collecting technique)
"I resorted to IWM records and found the service records of six Tommy Kenny's who served in the Army during the Great War"
And you said none were from Liverpool
"What by asking about your Uncle who served in the Second World War??"
You had as much information as you did on Tommy Kenny - more in fact yet you drew a blank, having said it was relatively easy.
You said you were unable to - the "spending good money" is an addition to the equation - is it any wonder that nobody believe a word you say - you make it up as you go along?
"YOU accused the Military Police of forcing men over the top at gunpoint and pointed to Tommy Kenny and your third hand hearsay source as proof"
More misrepresented distortions - I said Tommy Kenny told us that men were forced over the top - by being beaten and sometimes at gunpoint - didn't use it to justify anything - I reported the contents of our recordings.
At no time did mention the military police having done so - will you please stop making things up as you go along - it's now getting very silly.
"YOUR story changed to Special Groups of Military Policemen gunning down troops who didn't move quick enough and who returned to British Lines"
Sighhhh - for the umpteenth time, Isaid no such thing.
The report of military police summarily executing those who didn't go over the top quickly enough came from the website you were linked to by the grandson of a veteran - he even gave the squad a name (which escapes me at present)
You went though somersaults trying to claim this wasn't true so it's hard to believe you have forgotten - once again - stop making things up.
Corroborated by whom - the word of somebody who was there suits me far better than a whitewash of century old events which the nation has every reason to be deeply ashamed of.
You are obviously ot going to respond to any other of the points made (other than to claim that you already have), so unless you learn to sort out fact from fiction, I suggest we're done here.
If you weren't so struttingly and unpleasantly arrogant in trying to pass over your bullshit, perhaps you wouldn't look so stupid when it all collapses around your ears - that goes for the pair of you - though I have to admit that your contrasting styles are amusing - your Bill Sykes to Keith's Uriah Heep.
Have a nice evening not - of to listen to some superb singing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:29 PM

"yous smokscreen in putting up French as a good leader when he had nothing whatever to do with what was being said."

Jom could you please give us that again in English.

In 1914 French (That is General Sir John French) handled the minute BEF very well as they were attacked by the extreme right of the German offensive through Belgium. At times outnumbered 3:1 he delayed the German advance, causing them considerable casualties and succeeded in over stretching them to such an extent that a gap opened up that the French Army took advantage of and that resulted in the Battle of the Marne which was a victory for the Entente Powers -it also signaled the end to any prospect of a rapid victory in the west for the Germans and the death of the Schlieffen Plan. In doing all this French kept the BEF intact and in the field as a fighting unit.

In 1915 however in offensive operations he proved to be too timid and on at least two occasions his handling of the reserve prevented a breakthrough occurring - As a consequence of this he was replaced in December 1915 and Haig took over.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:29 PM

My Grandfather served in WW1. No idea what regiment, rank or even where. I suppose that puts me with the vast majority. Could I look it up? Maybe I could but would I be any the wiser? I doubt it. He died fifteen years before I was born. He was the subject of stories that were funny till my Dad's generation came back from the second war apparently. All of a sudden, his deafness, shakes and inability to sleep had an explanation.

What point is Teribus making? Is his stance so utterly without foundation that he spends his sad life looking up irrelevancies in order to question the main points?

You don't need War Office bollocks, Google Maps are all you need to see the extent of the war graves. Tell me again it was well planned, tell me again the poor cunts were well led. Tell the poor cunts they knew what they were doing and it was a good idea.

Pathetic stupidity from someone with no sense of shame. "War by definition is an acceptance of failure". Kitchener said that about the politicians. A bit of lucid insight amongst his failings.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:13 PM

Jom you said that Tommy Kenny was a soldier, yet you could not state where he served, what Regiment or Corps he served in and when he was in France or wherever. I resorted to IWM records and found the service records of six Tommy Kenny's who served in the Army during the Great War. You put me to the test? What by asking about your Uncle who served in the Second World War?? WTF would I spend good money doing that you PRAT, what possible relevance would that have.

YOU accused the Military Police of forcing men over the top at gunpoint and pointed to Tommy Kenny and your third hand hearsay source as proof. When WE pointed out that it is physically impossible to to that (Given the dimensions of a frontline trench - Hey Jom that is the one nearest to the enemy) YOUR story changed to Special Groups of Military Policemen gunning down troops who didn't move quick enough and who returned to British Lines - all without one shred of evidence - I take it that you do know what does constitute evidence don't you (It isn't uncorroborated hearsay for a start Jom)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:08 PM

"I just know what is in the history books."
You don't even know what you've cut-'n-pasted
You have fully declared yourself an arrogant know-all fully paid up meglo.
Once more for old time,s sake (now filed next to your implant theory, for future use)
"Who cares what random know-nothings might believe?
Just political whims from empty heads!
Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle!
I read history books to learn my history!
Normal people do!!"
As you no longer deny your untruthfulness I assume we're agreed on that one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 11:52 AM

Jim,
If yoiu know so much more about these subjects what's in it for you other than a peacock display of your obviously vast knowledge.

I just know what is in the history books.
Anyone who takes that interest and reads knows every bit as much as I do.

You Jim, have read no history written for at least twenty years.
If you had you would know that it all rubbishes what you believe!

If that is not true, name one such historian who does not rubbish your old myths.
Sheffield, Macmillan, Boot, Pennel, Todman, Snow, Stevenson, Brown, etc.
(More than six already!)

So Jim, you believe what you believe, while informed folk believe the history books.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM

"grandfather of a veteran"
Should read grandson" before you make a meal of it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 09:25 AM

" Come on Jom give us an example of that"
You said I had altered Tommy Kenny's story "considerably" - in fact, you deliberately distorted what I had written about Tommy and claimed it was my doing - downright **** manipulation what others have had to say- the fact that you refuse to respond when requested to do so is indicative that it was deliberate.
Your claim that you have answered points when in fact you haven't
your persistent claims that Tommy Kenny was the only soldier to make such statements, yous smokscreen in putting up French as a good leader when he had nothing whatever to do with what was being said.
"What facts Jom?"
Liverpool conditions, democracy since the early part of the 19th century, a classless army..... your crassly stupid claims have all been answered with documented facts yet to refuse to respond to them.
You are quick enough to leap on the mistakes of others yet totally ignore your own trail of wreckage that passes for argument.
"first Military Police were responsible then it became special groups assigned to the task "
That was never part of Tommy Kenny's statement - if you are not lying - put it up - it's still around - I've given you exactly what Tommy said about deserters.
That was a statement by the grandfather of a veteran who included it on his website.
You claim to b able to produce soldiers records - six Tommy Kennys, was it? yet you withdrew that claim when I tried to put it to the test - the fact that you did this to cast doubts on Tommy's war record makes you what you are.
For ***** sake - can't either of you make a statement without lying?
You continue to denigrate the last WW1 veteran - now adding the nice touch that it was edited by the BBC - what are you people on???
Your contempt for those people who fought (now it spreads to Harry's "hearsay" peddling comrades), seems to know no bounds - all in support of the official version that has come down to us from the Military and the politiciansd who brught this bloodbath about.
You pair are the sole defenders of this war - proof enough of what a murderous debacle it really was.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 08:45 AM

"deliberately lied" - Come on Jom give us an example of that (I mean to say according to you our lies as so abundant you should be able to come with such an example fairly quickly)

"he has had the facts pointed out to him and refuss to respond"
- What facts Jom? - you would not know a fact if it jumped up and bit you. One of your facts for example Kitchener was forced to resign" according to Jom the infallible yet the record shows that Lord Kitchener was made Secretary of State for War on the 5th August 1914 and died in that post on the 6th June 1916. And who was that historian and former World War 1 Stretcher Bearer according to Jom the infallible who is still alive and thus managed to outlive the last known veteran of the First World War.

Don't you dare to tell me of lies Carroll your posts are riddled with them. Perhaps you actually should take some time out and practice setting out posts that are lucid and coherent instead of the poorly written garbled nonsense you usually produce.

Another atrocious and baseless allegation made against men who can no longer defend themselves without one shred of substantive evidence to back it up was the utter nonsense about men being forced over the top at gun-point, about summary executions (And yes YOUR STORY DID CHANGE first Military Police were responsible then it became special groups assigned to the task - then you latched onto the Harry Patch interview [edited no doubt by the BBC] supplied by Raggy) And the "evidence" you put forward for this is hearsay from someone who didn't even bother to check if they had ever served in the Army, and a story you heard at third hand - In some ways Jim I really do wish they still had the death penalty where you live and I would then like to see you condemned solely on the basis of what you say constitutes evidence - thankfully to establish proof of anything you need a damn sight better evidence than seems to suit you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 07:25 AM

"Thank you at least for acknowledging my veracity."
Obviously lack a sense of irony as well
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 07:07 AM

Missed a bit:
"Who cares what random know-nothings might believe?
Just political whims from empty heads!
Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle!
I read history books to learn my history!
Normal people do!!"
This is a perfect example of why you should ot contribute to this forum
If yoiu know so much more about these subjects what's in it for you other than a peacock display of your obviously vast knowledge.
As well as being the most dishonest and inhuman person I have ever encountered you are also the most arrogant if you believe this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM

There you go Keith - you are not going to respondy honestly to anything and are going to cotinue to nause up these discussions
Do not accuse us of lying while you behave the way you do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:46 AM

Never been one for "belonging" to groups but I could make an exception if I could join the "Muskets", if only to add further upset to the usual suspects.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:24 AM

Rag, I ordered it when you first started quoting it.
It is a little late, but any day now.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:22 AM

Your own 'honesty' on what your less-than-half-a-dozen historians have said,

More than that but about six who are very well known.
Reminder, you can not find a single one who believes your version!

your claims that nobody has challenged your statements,

No historian has. The statements are those of historians!

your cxlaim to have read books yet have refused to respond to contradictions,
What contradictions?
I have been reading books about this all my life!

your whittling down your entire support for every single aspect of the war to 'I have only ever claimed three points,

The war is a huge subject. I have only ever defended those three points which you have utterly failed to refute!

your manipulation of what is acceptable from you and what is acceptable from the rest of us,

I have no idea what you are talking about! Have you?

your constant claims of "all" or "the majority" of historians backing your archaic attitude to this bloodbath,

ARCHAIC!!!! Theses are the considered and researched findings of all the historians!
Remember, you have failed to find a single one outside the consensus!

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

Who cares what random know-nothings might believe?
Just political whims from empty heads!
Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle!
I read history books to learn my history!
Normal people do!!

- and then claiming you already have...... amply bears out your veracity in these discussions.

Thank you at least for acknowledging my veracity.
I believe I have responded to all your points but again, if I have missed one, put it up and I will again.

You persistently lie and distort and put stuff out of context.

Blatant lie! Each quote came with a link to PROVE it was in context.
You produced no quotes at all. You couldn't.

You have never made your case on any of these threads yet you persistently claim to have "won"
I just said that if you argue about history against the history books, you lose.

You ignore what people say then claim they haven't said anything.

You have found no single historian for me to ignore!
You have not said anything except from inside your own empty head.
No scholarship from you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM

"The library will have a copy for me in the next day or two"


Must be a bloody good library if they opened specially over Christmas just for you to order the book.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 05:56 AM

"You have certainly deliberately lied, particularly what people have actually said"
Terrytoon claimed I changed my story on Tommy Kenny - that was a deliberate lie - my statement was directed to his claim of having unjust things said about him.
He also said "yet when asked for examples the accusers go awfully quiet"
That is a lie - he has had the facts pointed out to him and refuss to respond.
Your own 'honesty' on what your less-than-half-a-dozen historians have said, your claims that nobody has challenged your statements, your cxlaim to have read books yet have refused to respond to contradictions, your whittling down your entire support for every single aspect of the war to 'I have only ever claimed three points, your manipulation of what is acceptable from you and what is acceptable from the rest of us, your constant claims of "all" or "the majority" of historians backing your archaic attitude to this bloodbath, your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war - and then claiming you already have...... amply bears out your veracity in these discussions.
You persistently lie and distort and put stuff out of context.
You have never made your case on any of these threads yet you persistently claim to have "won"
You ignore what people say then claim they haven't said anything.
You spoil these discussions with your obsessively dishonest behaviour and your desire to "win" something.
Now you are about to tell me I am a liar - which is yet another lie.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 04:52 AM

You have certainly deliberately lied, particularly what people have actually said

That is itself a lie Jim.
I have quoted the historians and only the historians.
You were given links to see the quotes in their original context.

The fact and the truth is that they all rubbished your version of the history.
You have failed to find even one single quote of recent times that supports you, because nothing does anymore.

- it's become instinctive with you - and your silence on the issues that have been pointed out to you have compounded those lies.

If you really think that, just put something up now and you will have it answered at once.
You will not.
You know it is not true.
You can only lie.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 04:37 AM

"Keith A, Ake, HiLo and myself have been accused of much and called all sorts of things by you lot "
You have certainly deliberately lied, particularly what people have actually said - it's become instinctive with you - and your silence on the issues that have been pointed out to you have compounded those lies.
I have no doubt that your silence will continue
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 04:30 AM

"Personally I agree with Labour's policy of regulating immigration"
Immigration should not be an issue - not while THIS is going on.
Labour's immigration policy is little different than the Tories (just like its political policy in one-party Britain)
The war these people are fleeing from is one we helped to bring about and it is totally immoral and inhuman that we should send these people back, many of them to their certain deaths, until it is settled.
Is that really what Britain has become?
THESE images should be on display in every city in Britain - that is what our policy of trade and appeasement has helped create.
Nigel the Farrago and his like have fed on the Xenophobia my generation took in during our daily post-Empire lessons and has created a strutting little one-policy party which now commands a magnificent %1.00 of the British vote - one seat - so by Ake's reckoning, the rest of Britain is not "of sound mind".
Nige the beer swilling No-brain has gone and stars of the political scene like Tory cast-off-crooks IAN AND CHRIS have stepped in to make up the numbers.
Sorry Ake - the last "Socialist" to have played the race card in the political game in Britain was THIS ONE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 03:32 AM

Immigration is regulated, and every party has a policy to regulate it. Personally I agree with Labour's policy of regulating immigration.

Free movement within the EU and is a different issue. It has great benefits, for instance allowing our talented young people access to the job markets in the strong economies of mainstream Europe. Cutting off this free movement would damage the prospects of an entire generation.

As far as job creation goes, unrestricted free trade is a much greater problem than restricted immigration. Many more people lose their jobs to imports than do so to immigrants.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 03:32 AM

I'll go along with team Musket. Jim appears to be in the team to what I can make out. It means anyone who feels Mudcat deserves better than being a haven for views that Terribulus and Keith thought their well led eager men fought against. 🐴🐴🐴

Fully agree with the anonymous member of the team when they say, if I read it right, that it is bad enough this thread being about war loving armchair jockeys trying to sanitise a shameful event of history without the confused hate exhibited by Akenhateon on any subject he sees "liberals" debating.

Sad, I know. For me, he's welcome to post his irrational weird attacks on people and concepts he confuses, contradicting himself as he goes. In some ways, it is about as insightful and accurate as the inane wittering Terribulus excels in.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 08:42 PM

" Is there anyone left, of sound mind, who does NOT agree with the UKIP policy of regulating immigration?"
Certainly not anybody who describes themselves a socialist
Ukip is a racist party and anybody who supports their policy is supporting racism.
Maybe of sound mind to you, for me it is the policy that created South African Apartheid and herded six million Jews into extermination.
Nice to see you've stepped out of your closet at last though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:08 PM

On the one hand we have logic and hard facts and on the other la la ideology, personal attacks and puerile name calling. Guess which side has credibility?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:49 PM

"Though he has declared support for Ukip policies and calls Farrago "Mr" - (not "sir" yet, but give us a few more immigrants....!) "    Is there anyone left, of sound mind, who does NOT agree with the UKIP policy of regulating immigration?

And if you think that supporting unregulated immigration makes one a socialist, then its no wonder that you are such a mixed up political train wreck.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:05 PM

I see "Team Musket" have regrouped and are attempting guerrilla tactics :0).....abuse stalking and bullshit will never beat logic and hard facts.

They really are
sad people, I have never encountered such blind hatred.

Of course all wars could be prevented from happening in an ideal world, but this world is far from ideal; and when the guy with the machete comes for your throat you kill him before he kills you.
Just like the defenders of Stalingrad did and just like Assad and Putin are doing.
If Assad had fallen to our bombs three years ago, Syria would be in the hands of ISIS today.

We have finally come round to what I have been suggesting for years, an international coalition to contain the madmen.
This means a complete reversal of policy for the West, but it can work to make the world a safer place.....some people don't deserve liberty or "equality"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 03:50 PM

"but I do not see how anyone else would have benefited."

How about the 17 million who died, who would otherwise have been alive?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 02:51 PM

I see the Terribulus and Worm fan clubs are out in force 😹😹😹

I can't be arsed to read too many posts. Are they still claiming those who were there know less than twenty first century "historians?"

When people bow their heads at war memorials, I reckon it's because the likes of Terribulus make the dead wonder why they bothered being butchered if fools never learn. Lest we forget, not lest we marvel at what a spiffing good show it was, you bloody maniac.

Happy New Year

Luv&hugs

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 02:43 PM

I love how Teribus, who has never seen action can, like all idiots who pontificate from the comfort of their armchairs, speak of death and destruction, genocide, loss of a generation and carnage with such authority.

Please go away. Please?

You make decent peoples' skin crawl

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 02:42 PM

"He isn't a socialist Jim."
I knoooooowwww (Liverpool pronunciation if you go up at the end).
I asked him what he thought of equality of opportunity and public ownership - and answer, came there none - he'd have pleaded the Fifth if he didn't live in Scotland.
"He reckons he is in The SNP"
Though he has declared support for Ukip policies and calls Farrago "Mr" - (not "sir" yet, but give us a few more immigrants....!)
"Some Christian churches though, the Quakers"
Would go along with that - always had a soft spot for them since they gave us the use of their floor on the Aldermaston marches
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 02:39 PM

GUEST,Dave - 28 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM

Utter hogwash Dave

"nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth that sacrifice of life and health. And that Keith and Teribus will not even understand that point of view."

Damn right I disagree with that point of view


"I have said that peace could have been negotiated at least twice, and maybe before hostilities even started."

You might think that but no-one else believes it (Interesting concept that though Dave negotiating for peace even before hostilities beak out) - You have failed to tell us how French and Belgian Leaders were going to negotiate their fellow citizens rights, liberties and lives away to their conquerors. The German terms in 1914 and in 1916 were totally unacceptable.


"And that I at least will go further, if Britain had surrendered to Germany in July 1914, that would have been a better outcome than what actually happened."

Now that intrigues me just exactly how could Great Britain have surrendered to Germany in July 1914 - War wasn't declared until August of that year. It is as I said an interesting idea I am absolutely dying to hear how it would have been "better", certainly better for the Germans for sure, but I do not see how anyone else would have benefited.

Are you really such a blithering idiot?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 01:55 PM

All Christians are pacifist.

Or hypocrites.

Take your choice. They do, changing it often..

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 01:48 PM

Some Christian churches though, the Quakers being a notable example, have been firmly pacifist in outlook, and in WWI I know of examples of people in my wife's family history who declined to fight, but served in ambulance units instead, because of their Christian beliefs.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 01:27 PM

And then there's the stench of hubris from both TeraByte and the Professor......

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 01:22 PM

He tried.

Even they wouldn't have him. They said, "We may be misogynist homophobic bigots but even we have standards..

He isn't a socialist Jim. He reckons he is but it is a word he learned to spell. He reckons he is in The SNP, a liberal leaning all embracing party that introduced equality into the sectarian sewer we call Scotland. He reckons he is a communist but waffles on in other threads about how lucky The USA are to have the likes of Trump to vote for.

The only message that specimen is consistent with is his insistence that his whole sorry life is someone else's fault.

Sorry, thread drift, I know. But it's bad enough Teribus trying to rewrite history and Keith seeming impressed with him, without the stench of hatred pervading the thread.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:51 AM

Incidentally
"typical "liberal" fairyland!"
Every human being should be given the choice of not taking life if that is their belief - pacifism is something to be admired and not sneered at.
The more liberals there are in the world the less chance there would be of obscenities like World Wars.
'Thou shalt not kill" is supposed to be a basic Christian tenet, though most Christian churches appear to have given themselves a 'get out of jail free' escape clause on that one.
I have little doubt that you will have as little problem with that one as you have with your claimed "socialist!!!" principles when you finally take the plunge and join the god-botherers Ake.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:19 AM

"What absolute nonsense!.."
The Nazis could have been stopped had that been the reason in the first place - the persecution of the Jews was well underway by the time WW2 broke out - Britain didn't lift a finger - on the contrary, it appeased Fascism and criminalised those who took up arms to oppose as "premature anti-fascists.
I have never at any time claimed there are no just wars - there are - but the butchery of WW1 certainly doesn't fall under this description.
Isis - by the way - was the result of the world doing nothing about the massacres in Syria - one clown described any attempt to stop Assad as "fascism" (wonder who that was - oh yes - I remember!!)
Now we're up too our arses in wars on other countries (presumably no longer fascism Keith?)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM

Of course they were. Akenaton gets his facts from having American newspapers read to him.

Hey Alex! Tell us all again how Donald Trump and Putin are ok guys eh?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:14 AM

They weren't? Jeez - better check with ALL of the Profesors live, bookshop historians before making a blanket statemant like that.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:03 AM

The Nazis or ISIS were not involved in 1914 though, were they.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 09:56 AM

"Jim, I think you sum up the difference here, which is that you think, and I agree, that nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth that sacrifice of life and health"

What absolute nonsense!......So the Nazis or ISIS should be allowed to take over the world unhindered.
Do you think the Russian people believe the defence of Stalingrad was a mistake?.......typical "liberal" fairyland!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 09:55 AM

"As for Teribus, why bother arguing with him?"
Why bother arguing with either of them - they both claim they have "won" something, and totally refuse to take responsibility for whaty they claim or to respond to what others say - like the system that WW1 was fought to defend - they are both well past their sell-by date.
Lying tossers - the pair of them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 09:48 AM

Recent...

Ernie Wise wrote the "plays what he written" far more recently than Shakespeare wrote his.

I fail to see the logic of Keith A of Hertford's claims.

As for Teribus, why bother arguing with him? He comes out with distorted bullshit and lies. He seems to have a bit of a problem. The sort who, if we were in a pub you'd throw a packet of peanuts to in order to keep him quiet whilst normal people are talking.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 09:32 AM

Rag,
I have read Marc Ferro's book from cover to cover,

Please tell us what it says about the Lavantie truce 1915 then Rag.

and Gary Mead's book cover to cover,

That is the one titled "The GOOD SOLDIER" but you have only produced negative quotes from it.
You are being dishonest about it.

The quote I provided from Montgomery came from Gary Meads book The Good Soldier, do you really expect me to type out the entire book?

No, but I would expect a balanced view of the work. You have exclusively quoted only the negative.

Try going down to your local library and borrowing the book yourself, if they don't have I am sure they will source it for you.
The library will have a copy for me in the next day or two.
Then we will see Rag,

Dave,
The minor point being that peace could have been negotiated on at least two occasions with goodwill from the rulers on all sides. And that had they done so, millions of lives could have been saved. Very minor point according to you.

It was never part of the argument. You raised it.
I have said that peace could have been negotiated at least twice,
Can you find a single historian who agrees?
No.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM

"refuse to respond to the point"
"points" of course - good things al;ways come in dozeens
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 07:56 AM

"No you don't Raggy you rely on cut-n-pastes hastily sought to back up your own rather feeble arguments"
Are we to assume you are just going to walk away from your proven lies and refuse to respond to the point which leave your arguments in tatters
Hardly grounds for claiming the arguments of others "feeble"
It would appear that for you - the war is over
""there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE""
Classic!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:22 AM

The quote I provided from Montgomery came from Gary Meads book The Good Soldier, do you really expect me to type out the entire book? Try going down to your local library and borrowing the book yourself, if they don't have I am sure they will source it for you.

The quote from Keating came from an article that I provided a link to, if you cannot even be bothered to follow a simple link why on earth should I be bothered to type out the entire article.

Of course the information from both might upset your preconceived adherence to the glory of war and the fact that you keep banging on about "that we won"

We know "we won" but some of us are concerned not only about the cost of "winning" but the manner in which many men died in futile circumstances.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM

Jim, I think you sum up the difference here, which is that you think, and I agree, that nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth that sacrifice of life and health. And that Keith and Teribus will not even understand that point of view. I have said that peace could have been negotiated at least twice, and maybe before hostilities even started. And that I at least will go further, if Britain had surrendered to Germany in July 1914, that would have been a better outcome than what actually happened. But I don't think it need have come to that, if the rulers were not so pig headed and egotistical it could have been a peace with honour.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:06 AM

"I do not rely on cut and pastes hastily sought to back up a jingoistic viewpoint."

No you don't Raggy you rely on cut-n-pastes hastily sought to back up your own rather feeble arguments and fail on every single occasion to achieve your aim - the Keating example is one such instance, and your Montgomery example another. The former where YOU deliberately misrepresented what actually occurred and the second which was just so much waffle about nothing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM

Keith,

The minor point being that peace could have been negotiated on at least two occasions with goodwill from the rulers on all sides. And that had they done so, millions of lives could have been saved. Very minor point according to you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:56 AM

"Individual anecdotes do not give a balanced view, and may be wholly unrepresentative.
Not a case of giving a "!balanced view"! Keiuth - this twot says again and again that what these soldiers say happened never happened - therefore the men who fought an
d risked their lives were liars.
That is about on par with both of your positions - that everyone who gives evidence contrary to your claims is telling lies - sewer-level debate.   
Your carefully edited century-later less than half dozen 'historians' certainly don't give a "balanced view" - you even dismiss what they say when it doesn't suit.
I'm grateful for Terrytoon's magnificent summing up of Military mentality
"there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE" military brain-dead thuggery at its very worst -
8.5million - Killed:
21 million Wounded:
7.7 million POW's + missing:                
37 million Total casualties
57% casualties in % of men mobilised                 
Doesn't matter a flying ****, as long as you ended up on the winning side.
And for what? - the settling of a family squabble over who gets to sit on the throne and run the estate.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM

Professor please stop showing your utter ignorance. I have read Marc Ferro's book from cover to cover, and Gary Mead's book cover to cover, two of numerous books I have read on the subject.

Unlike you I do go beyond the title when reading a book, I do go beyond reviews that are found on the internet. I do not rely on cut and pastes hastily sought to back up a jingoistic viewpoint.

I doubt if you have read a WHOLE book in your life, with the possible exception of Janet & John which frankly seems to be about the summit your mental capacity.

Try reading both books and come back to me when you have. I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:27 AM

Dave, that was a very minor point.
In the all the years we have been discussing this, I have never before or since referred to peace initiatives during the war.
I gave the quote making my point, but also gave the link to that the whole thing could be seen.
I did not pretend, as Rag does, that it was the only point.

My only case in all this has been that the army was generally well and competently led, that Britain had little choice but to fight and that the people supported the war.

I have quoted the historians on that with links to their articles.
That proves that it is indeed the view of the historians, and not just me.
None of you have been able to do that in support of your views because no historian holds them.
They are discredited and debunked myths.

You have still found nothing written in recent decades in contradiction.
I have.
Lots.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:15 AM

Rag,
No professor I suggest you read because it might, just might, give you an insight into the various truces that happened throughout WW1 not just Christmas 1914 but Christmas 1915, 1916 and 1917.

So you have not read any book on the subject!
I have.

Professor, how the **** you can make such a statement when you haven't actually read the book should amaze me, but it doesn't.

It would be a rubbish biography if it gave a one sided view of the man.
I have read Sheffield's biography which concludes he was a competent general, but gives a balanced account. If you just picked out the negatives you could give the same false impression.

I have no doubt that Mead's book is the same. The title is very positive about Haig which gives a clue to the overall view. You have been deceitfully and dishonestly giving a false impression of the work.

Jim, millions of British men served as soldiers.
Individual anecdotes do not give a balanced view, and may be wholly unrepresentative.
Historians study the accounts of thousands to give a balanced and representative view.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM

Keith, re: cherrypicking

On 20th December at 09:07 you quote one sentence, and one paragraph from one of your favourite historians, unfortunately for you also a link where you can read the paragraph in between which you conveniently left out, and which rather damages your argument.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:27 AM

"When did you give me your Uncles name."
There - you can stop holding your breath
Will you stop implying that people are lying while at the same time lying through their teeth - it makes you look stupid
Jim Carroll

"Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 09:14 AM
Terrytoon - if you're still there
You claim you can find the record of all servicemen with ease, and on that basis, you have denied the service record of Tommy Kenny
My family includes several with service records - would be grateful for your assistance in confirming them
My Uncle Gerry (Carroll) served in Europe during WW2, and was decorated for exceptional bravery under fire.
He was later tried and convicted by the army for refusing to go to Greece to train fascists during the Civil War there.
Who was he, where did he serve, what was he awarded his medal for and what regiment was he in?
There - you have three times the amount of information than you had on Tommy - should be a piece of cake for someone with your super-human skills.
More to come, when you reel off that one."
Your reply was that you never claimed to be able to do such things - another lie
Jim Carroll"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:06 AM

"So all those posts of yours SCREAMING about Military Police and then latterly "Special Squads of Military Policemen" lined up behind our gallant chaps about to "Go Over The Top" with specific instructions to shoot them if they didn't get out of the trenches are just a load of bollocks are they Jom?"
No - the only bollocks here is your lying claims that I have altered my Tommy Kenny story at any time - which you have not acknowledged, nor will you.
Are you now claiming that what I have put up is based on my experience of spending three days recording an old man talking of his experiences as a soldier.
"Jom NO MAN under arrest OR punishment can bear arms in the British Army - HAVE YOU GOT THAT ? THAT IS A FACT "
Another "fact" for which you provide no evidence!!
I believe that it is against regulations for an officer to strike a man under his authority, yet it was common for officers to use their sticks to beat men out of the trenches and into the field
The story of the special squads and summary executions had nothing to do with Tommy - you appear to have linked to thee story put up by a man who recorded the facts from his grandfather, just as we recorded Tommy's story - it seems you have lumped them all into one to make it easier for you to denigrate one old soldier. .   
You have attempted to denigrate Tommy's story - you have claimed his war record doesn't exist, you said he lied to take the piss out of us (including his grandson), in front of his mates in the pub.
You do the same with Harry Patch - only served four months on the Western Front.
You are a real pieces of low-life - true patriots all .
"The defeat at Loos – F**K All to do with Haig"
Who the **** said it had - stop making things up
I have not commented on Haig's leadership, or any individuals - that would have meant only one bad apple instead of the ****** shambles of sending inexperienced young men to their deaths instead of the ****** bloody shambles of an incompetent higher command who couldn't agree fighting with the politicians back home that it was - you couldn't hope to organise a works outing on that basis, never mind a war.
You refuse to respond to the cock-ups, you refuse to refuse to respond to the morality of sending so many young men to their deaths, you refuse to respond to the fact that this was done in order to continue a system which exploited the people of the world - a system that was due to collapse a few decades later anyway (when another equally rapacious method was found to Carry on Exploiting (I think the 'Carry On' team dipped out by not making that one)
Your entire argument is made up of deliberate lies on your part and Establishment makkie-ups: a "classless" army, pre-Tolpuddle democracy, a Liverpool flowing with Milk and Honey, soldiers ignoring the massive recruiting campaigns and going to their deaths willingly, like lemmings - Barbara Cartland couldn't have made it up in her long career - you are a couple of jokes, the pair of you.
You couple of Tory-Boys really are going above and beyond the call of duty.
One more try- without the smokescreens and the bullshit:
You have yet to explain how you found four Tommy Kennys while you couldn't find one Jerry Carroll
You have to produce another version of Tommy's Story
You have to explain how this war of attrition – sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths – was not efficient butchery but good leadership
You have to explain how "good leadership" led to the defeat at Loos – The Dardanelles, the massive loss of life at the beginning of the Somme, the wrong ammunition fiasco and the internecine in-fighting that was taking place between the wartime Government and the Military...... and all the other sit that happened, can possibly be described as "good leadership"
No hurry – we've waited this long
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 11:37 PM

Ahh Jom - Jim Carroll - 27 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM

1: "This old man's story has changed quite dramatically since the day first introduced us to Tommy Kenny, that story has altered by Jom to cover all the glaring anomalies that have been pointed out to him - Now we have the admission by Jom that Tommy Kenny NEVER, EVER, actually saw anyone being shot by the military police in the situations and circumstances he first described."
Once again you are reduced to simply lying
At no time have I claimed Tommy witnessed and execution – courts martials were not public events, nor were executions
Tommy's account – which you have been given several times, said that men were picked up for walking away from the noise, were tried and sentenced to death."

So all those posts of yours SCREAMING about Military Police and then latterly "Special Squads of Military Policemen" lined up behind our gallant chaps about to "Go Over The Top" with specific instructions to shoot them if they didn't get out of the trenches are just a load of bollocks are they Jom?

Your Tommy Kenny didn't say anything at all about witnessing any Summary executions? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE NOW SAYING? A simple yes or no would suffice.

You did not check whether or not anyone called Thomas Kenny served in the British Army and that is the truth. I FOUND SIX possible candidates - none of whom fitted the profile of the man you described.

Hey Jom your next load of complete and utter bollocks
If there was a push on thy were taken from where they were being held, placed in the front line and if they survived, were then taken out and executed.

Jom NO MAN under arrest OR punishment can bear arms in the British Army - HAVE YOU GOT THAT ? THAT IS A FACT - So what your Tommy described could not have possibly happened - My own Paternal Grandfather survived just because of that fact - that is why I know that what Tommy told you was complete and utter bollocks.

I have been proved a Liar? I don t think so.

Now this one really puzzles me Jom because it only seems to have existed inside your own imagination>

When did you give me your Uncles name.    Please provide the deatils of the post, date and time. First mention of Jerry Carroll if that is indeed his name has been on this thread, in this post – Please prove me wrong – I won't hold my breath.

Harry Patch only did serve three months in France that is a well documented fact. No denigration at all just simply a matter of FACT. Do you have any problem with that?

The average life expectancy was six weeks was it / tell me Jom if that was the case how come only 1 in 10 died?

There is no reason for us not to believe Tommy Kenny served ; we met some of his old mates at his funeral, we saw his photo in uniform – both his and Harry Patch's experiences makes shit of your defence of this squalid bloodbath.

Only thing is Jom you told us that they saw men summarily executed by military policemen when they very clearly and patently didn't.

"You have to explain how this war of attrition – sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths – was not efficient butchery but good leadership"
Jom it is you who believe incorrectly that wave after wave of young men were sent to their deaths our fatalities were less than any other of the 1914 combatant armies how do you think we did did that if we we sent wave after wave of young men to die??
Now we are discussing the leadership of the British Army under Douglas Haig:
The defeat at Loos – F**K All to do with Haig
The Dardanelles – F**k All to do with Douglas Haig
The massive loss of life at the beginning of the Somme – Haig was opposed to the attack on the Somme in 1916 (Matter of record) The British Government and the French High Command insisted on it against Haig's best advice.

"The wrong ammunition fiasco" – 1915 absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Haig

" the internecine in-fighting that was taking place between the wartime Government and the Military...... and all the other sit that happened, can possibly be described as "good leadership"
No hurry – we've waited this long
Jom do you mean reasonable argument against decisions by the British Government, primarily David Lloyd George to place British troops under French command so that French Generals could order British troops to march to their own destruction? As they tried to do on the Somme in July 1916 as they insisted on doing at Passchendaele in 1917?
You've been given the answers many at time and oft Jom – you just ain't prepared to accept them. Just before you forget in November 1918 the victory celebrations were held in Paris and in London – NOT in Vienna or Berlin. If you are involved in a war there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE. Our "good leadership" guaranteed that – simple matter of record Jom.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 10:35 PM

" it might, just might, give you an insight into the various truces that happened throughout WW1 not just Christmas 1914 but Christmas 1915, 1916 and 1917. Easter at times, Holy days and perhaps (and this is purely conjecture)the men were simply tired of killing each other."

And ALL OF IT Raggy completely inconsequential as the nation states invoiled at the time were engaged in a global conflict - you seem to lack not only knowledge but a sense of logic and more importantly perspective - but there again Raggy old chap I get the distinct impression that you have never had to fight for anything in your life - there have always been others prepared to do your fighting for you to enjoy your freedom of speech and your freedom from persecution.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 10:28 PM

Ehmm No Raggy you tell us all about Launcelot Kiggell and how he was so instrumental in us "winning" the war despite not knowing how the chaps were doing up at the front. You see despite the opinions at the time of some junior Divisional General Staff Officer, Haig's Staff dealing and directing the activities of the entire British, Commonwealth and Empire Armies in France from 1916 until November 1918 did rather well - a damned sight better that the Generals and the nsataff's of the German armies opposing them - this evidenced by the fact that the Germans did actually lose the First World War - any problem disputing that fact Raggy?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 07:55 PM

" Rag, you suggest we read Marc Ferro's book. Why? Have you read anything relevant in it, or are you just trying to give the impression that you read something"

No professor I suggest you read because it might, just might, give you an insight into the various truces that happened throughout WW1 not just Christmas 1914 but Christmas 1915, 1916 and 1917. Easter at times, Holy days and perhaps (and this is purely conjecture)the men were simply tired of killing each other.

" Rag, you dishonestly pick out only the negative from a balanced account to give a false impression of the work"

Professor, how the **** you can make such a statement when you haven't actually read the book should amaze me, but it doesn't.

Unlike you I actually went beyond the front cover and read the book. When you actually read a WHOLE book on the subject it might help.

Do try Gary Mead's book it's quite interesting.

Oh and while your about it try reading a little about Launcelot Kiggell.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM

"This old man's story has changed quite dramatically since the day first introduced us to Tommy Kenny, that story has altered by Jom to cover all the glaring anomalies that have been pointed out to him - Now we have the admission by Jom that Tommy Kenny NEVER, EVER, actually saw anyone being shot by the military police in the situations and circumstances he first described."
Once again you are reduced to simply lying
At no time have I claimed Tommy witnessed and execution – courts martials were not public events, nor were executions
Tommy's account – which you have been given several times, said that men were picked up for walking away from the noise, were tried and sentenced to death.
What you were told was that Tommy was fighting next to someone one minute, then shortly afterwards reading a notice saying their earlier sentence had been carried out.
If there was a push on thy were taken from where they were being held, placed in the front line and if they survived, were then taken out and executed.
That is the account Tommy gave which was recorded by four of us, and is housed in the British Library along with the rest of our collection (and in The Traditional Music Archive in Dublin)
If you can come up with an alternative account – do so – otherwise you have bee4n proved once again the liar you are.
You will find no other "version" of this story – on the contrary – in order to prove Tommy never served you claim to have researched his name and could only come up with four other Tommy Kennys – none from Liverpool.
When I gave you my uncle's name (a medal winner) – you came up with no information and said that it was not possible to research soldiers names how the **** did you come up with four Tommy Kennys if you aren't a liar?
Similarly, you have tried to denigrate Harry Patch as a liar or gullible because he only "served for three months"
The time Patch served was on The Western Front – he was wounded out at Passchendaele
The average life expectancy in action was six weeks – Patch served sixteen – I would have thought that would have elicited a little respect from even wee jobbies like you pair – obviously not.
At least it was enough time to pick up the information that has got up your nose enough to lie like a politician.
Why on earth do you sink to such depths – more than a little sick, don't you think?
There is no reason for us not to believe Tommy Kenny served ; we met some of his old mates at his funeral, we saw his photo in uniform – both his and Harry Patch's experiences makes shit of your defence of this squalid bloodbath.
Now
You have yet to explain how you found four Tommy Kennys while you couldn't find one Jerry Carroll
You have to produce another version of Tommys Story
You have to explain how this war of attrition – sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths – was not efficient butchery but good leadership
You have to explain how "good leadership" led to the defeat at Loos – The Dardanelles, the massive loss of life at the beginning of the Somme, the wrong ammunition fiasco and the internecine in-fighting that was taking place between the wartime Government and the Military...... and all the other sit that happened, can possibly be described as "good leadership"
No hurry – we've waited this long
And please stop lying so stupidly – it's become embarrassing to watch you humiliate yourself.
Keith remains the joke he always was      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM

Dave, if you are suggesting I have ever done that, I challenge you to give an example.

I quote historians, and provide links so that the quote can be seen in the context of the whole article.
What have you ever put up Dave?
Nothing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:40 PM

Did I really there see Keith accuse Raggy of cherrypicking quotes!? My mind is well and truly boggled!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:19 PM

GUEST,Raggytash - 27 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM

All the wrong reasons Raggy?

Gave the Germans such a fright on two occasions in 1915 that they specifically ordered that defences had to be prepared and and manned at at least double strength if German troops found themselves facing sections of the line manned by British Troops.

In 1916 it was Haig with Britain's first ever citizen army that forced the German Army commanded by Falkenhayn to retreat, Falkenhayn was dismissed as a result and the Germans sued for peace - unfortunately their terms were not and never, ever would be acceptable to either the Belgians, the French or the British.

In 1917 he introduced the bit and hold raids on German positions, whilst doing so the system of all arms integrated warfare was further developed. By and large still used to this day.

In 1918 even after the German Army doubled it's size on the western front and threw it against Haig's Army within 21 days of the five German offensives reaching their high water mark Haig attacked and 100 days later the war was over.

I would say he did rather well and a damned sight better than anyone he opposed. But of course being a complete and utter buffoon you would have to disagree.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:13 PM

Rag, you suggest we read Marc Ferro's book.
Why?
Have you read anything relevant in it, or are you just trying to give the impression that you read something.

Did you read the translation or the original French?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:08 PM

Les - Churchill "ran it" at the only time it mattered to rob the Germans of the victory they wanted 22nd June 1940 until coincidentally 22nd June 1941.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 11:52 AM

Err.. There was summary execution, as most historians have established.

Name? Quote? No. Not a single historian has ever said any such thing. Entirely false.

Rag, you dishonestly pick out only the negative from a balanced account to give a false impression of the work.

Look at the front cover for a clue.
"The GOOD SOLDIER. The Biography of Douglas Haig. Gary Mead."
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/391349179074?adgroupid=13936810266&hlpht=true&hlpv=2&rlsatarget=pla-124296488226&adtype=pla&ff3=1

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Les from Hull
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 09:30 AM

Fortunately Churchill was never in a position that the others you mention of being a general organising a battle. He would have been chap. Couldn't even catch Peter the Painter!

Actually Churchill didn't get to much opportunity to run the Second World War, and when he did he usually made a mess of it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM

"their record and actions proved it."

We know Haig's record and actions too well, and for all the wrong reasons.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 09:09 AM

Well then Raggy just one of those accidents of history that we were lucky enough that the right man was in the right place at the right time, others have been, Marlborough, Clive, Wolfe, Wellesley, Churchill - None of whom were considered to have been "the best of the bunch" by their peers but when the challenge arose they all proved to be more than equal to it and their record and actions proved it.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 08:15 AM

Whatever Teritowelling,

If you want to believe that a second rate soldier was the best thing before sliced bread you carry on. I've just read Gary Mead biography of Haig. He starts by saying he wants to portray Haig as you do.

All I can say it's just as well he didn't try to do a hatchet job because if what he has written is correct Haig wasn't even the best of a bad bunch.

Without his connection and sycophancy to royalty he would have been sacked near the outset of the war. In fact without his sycophancy to royalty he would never have got near a command of any description.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM

Well thank you for that Raggy - probably the first time that you have answered a direct question with a direct and straightforward answer.

Now toddle off and compare how long it took Montgomery to learn the lessons Haig had to learn - you will find that Haig was a far quicker learner and a far greater innovator, especially when you take into consideration that Haig faced the best the German Army could throw against him for his entire time as Commander. The BEF in 1914 survived as an effective fighting unit, the BEF in 1940 was thrown out of France and ceased to exist. The most successful offensive campaign ever carried out by the British Army in its entire existence? Haig's 100 days campaign in 1918 NOT Montgomery either in North Africa or in Northern Europe.

Montgomery fought two battles where manoeuvre wasn't an option at Alamein and in the Normandy Landings he chose attrition as his weapon of choice through necessity, Haig on the western front between 1915 and 1918 never had any other choice, and it was Haig who developed the tactics that enabled armies to break the stalemate NOT Montgomery. Kiggell apart from being sacked from his Liaison job with the French appears to have been of no significance whatsoever.

During the course of the First World War 9 out of every 10 men who joined up survived.

During the course of the Second World War 9 out of every 10 men who joined up survived.

And for Nameless GUEST:

"The terms and procedures of some Court Martial trials did not follow the law prevailing at the time. Study of court documents and correspondence between Generals in the field and the War Office, and between The War Office and the judiciary make it quite clear that there were political decisions for expediency. By definition" They were carried out with procedures agreed to and in force at the time.

Over two years to come up with one single instance of a summary execution as described by the likes of Jom the infallible, i.e. a British Soldier being executed on the spot for not getting out of a trench quick enough or on returning to that trench - NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF IT.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM

The last post of course was I.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 07:21 AM

From Teribus "4: YOUR old soldier? No idea who he was, perhaps you could tell us, but ALL he is doing is stating his opinion, he is perfectly entitled to that but it does not make his opinion FACT.

(a) I do not believe that every soldier in the Army saw Haig - so nothing too unique or damning in that.

Interesting Teriblossom, my old soldier is none other than










FIELD MARSHALL BERNARD LAW MONTGOMERY, 1ST VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN KG, GCB, DSO

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 06:51 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 27 Dec 15 - 04:00 AM

Just for clarity and just for you, in an attempt to prevent you from repeating this by now very tired line of argument:

1: What old soldier of Jom's? Jom has got no proof that the man was ever in the Army (He didn't check) - This old man's story has changed quite dramatically since the day first introduced us to Tommy Kenny, that story has altered by Jom to cover all the glaring anomalies that have been pointed out to him - Now we have the admission by Jom that Tommy Kenny NEVER, EVER, actually saw anyone being shot by the military police in the situations and circumstances he first described.

2: Harry Patch was interviewed by the BBC over 80 years after he had fought in France for three months in 1917, he had never spoken about the war in all that time. The link put up was what the BBC decided to print and in all probability does not reflect the entire interview. In that interview Harry Patch contradicts himself and if he was telling the truth then he could not have possibly witnessed any summary execution carried out by an officer as described. Later in the interview he describes what did occur when an officer drew a weapon on a platoon of men and tried to order them out of barracks for bayonet practice - the men, who were carrying their rifles chambered rounds and threatened to shoot the officer - THAT Raggy would have been exactly what those same men would have done in a trench in France if ANYBODY Officer or Military Policeman had indeed shot any of their number.

3: Robert Keating - In no way have I ever stated that he was in any way lying - you on the other hand have completely misrepresented what he did in fact say:

He did not mention any gun being fired - he did mention a gun being turned on the men on top of the parapet - YOU assumed that to mean that the gun was fired - the Diary evidence supplied by Sir Ian Colquohoun indicates that no shots were fired - now who is lying about what happened Keati, Colquohoun OR YOU (My money's on you)

4: YOUR old soldier? No idea who he was, perhaps you could tell us, but ALL he is doing is stating his opinion, he is perfectly entitled to that but it does not make his opinion FACT.

(a) I do not believe that every soldier in the Army saw Haig - so nothing too unique or damning in that.

(b) Had French not been replaced then the BEF would have been defeated by the Germans in 1916.

(c) Haig's refusal to follow orders of French Generals placed over him at the insistence of British politicians saved thousands of British lives. Both the Somme and Passchendaele were battles forced on Haig against Haig's own better judgement which he clearly voiced at the time.

(d) "There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front"

Yes there was up until this point no-one had ever fought a war on this scale - another big difference the "Staff" visited "The Front" every single day whereas the "fighting Army" spent only three weeks in the front lines before being sent to the rear areas for two months.





…....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 05:37 AM

Err.. There was summary execution, as most historians have established.

The terms and procedures of some Court Martial trials did not follow the law prevailing at the time. Study of court documents and correspondence between Generals in the field and the War Office, and between The War Office and the judiciary make it quite clear that there were political decisions for expediency. By definition, summary "justice."

Another piece of intrigue was that officers were afforded post mortem to begin with where their bodies were available, but not other ranks. This was quietly dropped when it was established that some killed going over the top had bullet entries in their back.

I do wish the jingoistic fools on here would read rather quote titbits.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 04:49 AM

Teribus says:

"A former US President who died in office put it brilliantly - ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Very easy to say when you are the guy at the top who stands to benefit from the things that other people are being asked to do.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 04:00 AM

Ahem, You and the professor have managed to disabuse Jim's old soldier, Harry Patch, Robert Keating ......... the only old soldier who you have not called a liar yet is my old soldier who wrote:

"I served on the western front during the 1914/18 war as a platoon commander in 914 rising to GSO1 of a division by 1918. I never once saw Haig, nor did I ever see him after the war …. I can never forgive a General who intrigues, as Haig did – against his C-in-C, and against his political chief …....... There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front …....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:24 PM

Only problem for you Raggy is that both Keith A and I can prove that we are not dreaming. Same cannot be said for you.

From a multi-coloured screaming rant from Jom the infallible we got this:

"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!!"

A former US President who died in office put it brilliantly - ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Now then Jom the people who were of a certain age back there in 1914 they had absolutely no problem with that - The baby-boomers who came after their grandfathers and their fathers fought and died for the freedoms and liberty that we all take for granted don't and you prove that by your incessant carping about nothing:

But by way of explanation just for you Jom:
- That Empire gave people jobs
- The people of France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc, etc, did not fight that war in the expectation of GAINING ANYTHING - they regarded it as being their patriotic duty.
- You see Jom the people of those days were not you, they were not professional tooth-sucking victims, "always somebody else's fault" isn't it Jom. In those days Jom people still stood on their own two feet and took responsibility for their own lives and that Jom included fighting for their countries when necessity demanded it - just as their forefathers had done (Pssst Jom - and they didn't expect anything for it either)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:14 PM

Keep on dreaming children

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 04:07 PM

And reading about the Christmas Truce of 1914 would tell me what about the absolutely scurrilous allegations that you along with your fellow travelers have tried to promote on these WW1 threads? All Keith A and I have tried to do is to get you to provide evidence to support your dearly held myths - and you have failed at every turn.

NOT A SHOT WAS FIRED - it was you that put the spin on that and gleefully stated about British troops firing at fellow British Soldiers, even although the link you supplied said nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 02:30 PM

Teribus, Initially I had you down as a reasonably intelligent man. Over the past few months you have shown yourself to be far less than that. More's the pity.

Could I suggest that you and your monkey try reading "Meetings in No Man's Land" by Marc Ferro.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 02:27 PM

Still no evidence to substantiate summary executions by either Officers or by "Special Squads of Military Police" - remembering of course that to date the only people who have mentioned this have admitted that they never actually witnessed any such executions.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:38 PM

One of the officers was aquitted, the other sentenced to a reprimand but Haig remitted that sentence.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:31 PM

The book actually contains accounts of the same incident at Lavantie, including from other 15RWF Privates, Bertie Felstaed and Harold Diffey.

They both report artillery fire ending the incident.
Very early on a British sergeant was shot and killed standing on the parapet, but this was taken as an accident.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:17 PM

""fortunately, no one was killed" Is a bit of give-away"

Only indicates that the gun did not have to be fired.

After the 1914 Christmas Truce orders were given that there should be no reccurrence, trench raids and actions were deliberately planned and timed so that it could not happen again they also gave orders that artillery and the machine gunners were to fire off salvoes every few hours over the Christmas Period including throughout Christmas Eve and Day. Appparently this isolated instance in 1915 didn't in anything like the scale and form of what happened in 1914 - the account in the link basically says so.

Captain Ian Colquhoun and Captain Miles Barne of the Scots Guards were Court Martialled under what charge Raggy? You forgot to mention it, so I will - Both men were charged with:

"Conduct to the prejudice of good order of military discipline in that on 25th Dec he (1) Approved of a truce with the enemy (2) Permitted a cessation of hostilities".

He did that for one reason and one reason alone - so that the Germans could collect and bury their dead who were lying in "no mans land".

Oh by the way Raggy Sir Ian Colquhoun in his diary entry for the 25th December 1915 specifically states that during the 45 minute "Truce" period Not a shot was fired The only shots actually fired that day were fired later on at night when the Germans put "fairy lights" up and the machine gunners fired at them from the British Trenches, this resulted in the lights being taken down.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:12 PM

I have a copy of Christmas Truce by Malcolm Brown and Shirley Seaton.
It is about Xmas 14 but the final chapter is about Xmas 15 and there is a postscripts chapter about later events not always at Xmas.

In 1915 strict orders were issued on both sides against fraternisation, and harassing fire was used by both sides to deter it.
All the incidents described are of artillery fire on opposite lines and no man's land. There were casualties on both sides.

The incident mentioned is unusual and probably unique. The machine gun fire would have been indirect and fired from well back, but anyone exposed in NML would have felt fired on. A machine gun firing at close range directly at exposed troops would have killed people.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 12:30 PM

What you people don't seem to grasp is that we were engaged in a bloody war of attrition and neither fraternisation nor refusal to fight could be seen to be allowed.

Warfare has always been conducted thus. Primitive, bloody, pitiless, but once embarked upon, there are no choices.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 12:24 PM

I know little of warfare, but from what I have read, "fraternisation with the enemy" has always been regarded as a serious crime; for very good reasons, one being security and the safety of the regiment.

The officers had their standing orders and to disobey these orders would be construed as mutiny.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM

"fortunately, no one was killed" Is a bit of give-away

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:43 AM

No Raggy - you assumed the gun was fired, but there is no evidence, or clear statement that it was. I have no idea if an officer did shout, "Coooeeeeee !!! Come on boys, back to your trenches" but there is a clear statement that an officer did shout to tell the men to come down from the parapet.

"As it happens Captain Ian Colquhoun a Company Commander and the Commanding Officer of the 1st Scots Guards, Miles Barnes, were taken before a Court of Enquiry and were later Court Martialled. Barnes was acquitted and Colquhoun received a reprimand which wasn't followed up."

Care to tell us what the charges were?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM

If the machine gun was merely pointed at them but not fired why would Private Keating write "fortunately, no one was killed"

You, as always, are putting your particular spin on it and not reading what is actually written.

In the early hours in December do you think they could clearly see it was just being pointed and not actually fired.

Do you really think one of the officers shouted Coooeeeeee !!! Come on boys, back to your trenches. No doubt he made them tea and crumpets and told them they were naughty boys.

As it happens Captain Ian Colquhoun a Company Commander and the Commanding Officer of the 1st Scots Guards, Miles Barnes, were taken before a Court of Enquiry and were later Court Martialled. Barnes was acquitted and Colquhoun received a reprimand which wasn't followed up.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM

Ehmmm GUEST,Raggytash - 26 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM - What bit "about firing a machine gun on our own troops". I believe the article mentions something about turning (training) a machine gun on the troops out in "no man's land" - nothing whatsoever about it being fired.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 08:13 AM

The diary states unequivocally "So we went on till the early hours of the morning and the only thing that brought us down was one of our machine guns being turned on us - fortunately, no one was killed."

Read the bit that says "TURNED ON US" not opposing lines not no-mans land "TURNED ON US" ......... "FORTUNATELY, NO ONE WAS KILLED"

For ****'s sake.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:59 AM

Rag, to prevent fraternisation there was firing into the opposing lines and no man's land. It happened in many places and by both sides. Your article said no-one was killed.

Do not try to confuse the issue with summary execution which never happened in the British Army.

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!

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.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:52 AM

"Jim, Sheffield was not involved in any of that series of programmes."
As I said - his name appeared in the credits.
With your idiotic behaviour nobody needs to make anything up.
If I am mistaken, then it calls into question your claim of him being the leading authority on the war.
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.
"Canadian Margaret Macmillan is in complete agreement with him on these issues."
Whan will you gety it into your head that nobody gives a tuppenny **** about your claims of which historian said what.
If you are not prepared to back your claims with personal knowledge by responding to the points made, nobody should give a tuppenny **** about what you say either - hiding behind unread historians is uninformative, unedifying and downright boring.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:31 AM

Superman Sheffield, the establishment spokesman on the war

Canadian Margaret Macmillan is in complete agreement with him on these issues.
Likewise US historian Max Boot.
Also Catriona Pennel, and every other historian who has written on it.

There is no "establishment" view of these century old events.
People learn their history from historians.
Suggesting that historians lie for "political expediency" or collude in
falsifying research (and somehow hiding that from their students) is ludicrous and shows that you have nothing whatsoever to support your deluded, political version of history.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM

"Jim, Sheffield was not involved in any of that series of programmes."
Sheffield's name appeared in the credits at the end - I made nothing up, I don't make things up, you are the only one who makes things up, habitually.
Do not call me or anybody a liar - certainly not with your long-running reputation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:24 AM

Jim, Sheffield was not involved in any of that series of programmes.
You made that up.
They were made by the BBC in conjunction with the Open University.
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/greatwar

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM

"So a television programme"
Not without backing evidence, but far more reliable as out of context cut-'n-pastes
The main adviser on these particular programmes was Superman Sheffield, the establishment spokesman on the war
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM


People have found numerous works that do not follow your thinking, you have dismissed them all.

Not true.
Produce some of these "numerous" historians, perhaps with their credentials and bibliographies.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM

It is not ignorance that prevents people distinguishing between an unknown number of anonymous Guests.

You can lie with impunity.
Your last post might be such a lie.
No way of knowing who you are or what you have previously said.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:16 AM

People have found numerous works that do not follow your thinking, you have dismissed them all. Dave the Gnome has even offered you a way to phrase your claim so that it could be true, i.e. all the histories I have read, you have ignored that too.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 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.

Ignorant fool

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM

Guest, the programme was made by BBC in conjunction with the Open University History Faculty, and Jim brought it up.

I have also quoted a large number of historians all of whom have independently reached the same research based conclusions.

None of us have been able to find anything to contradict written in recent decades.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:46 AM

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

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:35 AM

More 19th century democracy
"The final and most contentious wave of land enclosures in England occurred between about 1750 and 1850. Whereas the purpose of most previous enclosures had been to turn productive arable land into less productive (though more privately lucrative) sheep pasture, the colonization of Scotland for wool, and India and the Southern US states for cotton now prompted the advocates of enclosure to play a different set of cards: their aim was to turn open fields, pastures and wastelands — everything in fact — into more productive arable and mixed farm land. Their byword was "improvement". Their express aim was to increase efficiency and production and so both create and feed an increasingly large proletariat who would work either as wage labourers in the improved fields, or as machine minders in the factories."
You really are going to try and walk away from this nonsense, arent you?
The Liverpool myth appears to have been exploded fully - no comment on the grounds it might incriminate you.
"Please provide the quotes Jom "
I watched the programme, as did many her, no doubt
How do you provide a quote on a programme that's been and gone?
A promise of a job and security has always been a ploy for the army - top well known to be disputed, even by you - turn your tel on.
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.
From an article on Irish recruitment to the army.
"To the question of why Irishmen joined the British Army, Peter Karsten in his research paper, "Irish Soldiers in the British Army, 1792-1922," presents many readily understandable reasons. Foremost was economic opportunity since most volunteers were of minimal means. Regular pay, daily sustenance, medical services, pension benefits, and post-service government jobs were strong inducements."
Had enough yet - plenty mote?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:28 AM

About 9 minutes in, Paxman to camera.(prog1)

"Most people seemed to have accepted that the war had to be fought.
To honour treaties. To defend the empire. To protect Britain.
And, what else were they supposed to do?
To sit back and watch as Germany amassed an empire from Russia to the shores of the English Channel?
Now war had broken out, almost everyone backed it.
Most trade unions suspended strikes, which had been common."

43 minutes in. Paxman to camera.
"The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."


43 minutes in. Paxman to camera.prog2
"The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."

Programme 1 Paxman to camera.
"But it seems to me remarkable that a country which considered itself in the grips of a struggle for national survival, none the less allowed individual citizens to decide whether they could reconcile that struggle with their personal conscience. It didn't happen elsewhere in Europe."

29 minutes in. Paxman to camera,
"Britain now had a tactically smarter, better organised army, capable of deploying men and machines to devastating effect"

He and the team clearly saying that the army was well led.

57 minutes in. Paxman to camera, final prog
"Later generations would contend it had been a futile war. The war was terrible certainly, but hardly futile.
It stopped the German conquest of much of Europe, and perhaps even of villages like this.

Never before in the nation's History had a war required the commitment and the sacrifice of the whole population, and by and large, for 4 years, the British people kept faith with it."

He and the team (Open University History Faculty) clearly saying
1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM

When you are at the bottom of the pile whether you have a German Oligarchy or a British Oligarchy matters not one jot.

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

"It was a basic part of Paxman's programme that they were."

Please provide the quotes Jom - There was no promise or inference given at any time from the British Government or by any of the Armed Forces that:

1: "It'll all be over by Christmas"

2: "We are fighting the War to End War"

3: "We are fighting for a home fit for heroes" - (First mention of that was made by Llyod George after the end of the war)

Thanks for the correction on Bevan/Beveridge I knew that the 1942 Report was by Beveridge but incorrectly thought that it was Bevan who was responsible for implimenting it.

I'll take notice of the "ignorant fool" but not from someone who can't tell the difference between a Mute Swan and a Flamingo.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM

It was a basic part of Paxman's programme that they were.

No it was not.

Dave, are you suggesting that any Belgian or French people welcomed the vicious invaders?
They resisted to the end.

Do you defend all such imperialism on the grounds that who rules does not matter?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM

"Note that Jom - The plain facts as presented plus the source "
You were given a comprehensive report on the conditions being experience in Liverpool which you refused to read out of hand as being "badly written - get somebody to read it for you.
'yr 'ti again
LIVERPOOL 1915
Note that me little grease disher upper. - The plain facts as presented plus the source - in great length, not a Keith cut-'n-pastealike
"Oh and Jom none of them volunteered on the promise that they would be given anything."
It was a basic part of Paxman's programme that they were.
You are doing your old usual of ignoring what is put up Democracy came when - women got the vote when?
"So basically we have been ruled by a democratically elected Government since 1832"
Five years after your "democracy" was introduced to Britain, six Dorset farm labourers, The Tolpuddle Martyrs, were sentenced to seven years' penal transportation for attempting to form a Trades Union.
No women, no farm labourers - some democracy!!
Want any more examples of British democracy?
On your Planet Zog maybe!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 03:51 AM

Teribus, that says nothing about conditions of the working people in Liverpool at the time, sure lots of big buildings were being built, but its like saying that all of the south asian immigrant workers in Qatar working on world cup stadia are really well off. As usual, a selective quote taken out of context, with no indication even of who the author is (Belcham is the editor of that volume, and could have written that paragraph, but may not).

Beveridge wrote a report, on which the welfare state was founded, but he did not implement anything. Support for his recommendations was cross-party. Bevan can take much credit for the foundation of the NHS (the crowning achievement of 20th century Britain), but less so for the Welfare State.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 04:43 PM

It was Beveridge's welfare state, you ignorant fool.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 03:11 PM

"During the first part of the 20th century Liverpool continued to expand, pulling in immigrants from Europe. In 1903 an International Exhibition took place in Edge Lane. In 1904, the building of the Anglican Cathedral began, and by 1916 the three Pier Head buildings, including the Liver Building, were complete. This period marked the pinnacle of Liverpool's economic success, when it regarded itself as the "second city" of the British Empire." - Source: John Belchem, ed. (2006). Liverpool 800: Culture, Character & History. ISBN 1-84631-035-0.

Note that Jom - The plain facts as presented plus the source - if you disagree with what is written above take it up with John Belchem.

GUEST - 21 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM

On balance I believe the poor sods who were there."

And by and large so do I GUEST I believe what thousands have written - the thousands who never saw, or never heard of military police forcing men over the top at gun-point, never saw the summary executions of British soldiers by either Special Military Police Squads or by their own officers. I believe the men of my grandfather's generation and guess what GUEST - Not one of them said it was a waste of time, not one of them said it was pointless, not one of them said it was futile - they were all firmly of the opinion that Germany was an enemy that had to be stopped.

Oh and Jom none of them volunteered on the promise that they would be given anything. If Bevan could see what has been made of his welfare state he would be horrified.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 02:57 PM

"Now correct me if I am wrong here"
You really do survive on maling bulling pronouncements then doing a runner when your impregnable ego crumbles around your ears.
You'll never understand what a berk your pomposity makes you look.
You appear to b fairly permanently wrong
At last we'v seen the last of your gloating at other people's mistakes (tell me again how well of the people of Liverpool were prior to WW1
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM

On balance I believe the poor sods who were there.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 01:19 PM

"British Army - Great Britain's first citizen army, roughly half were volunteers "

"Which means that the other half weren't. It seems that a greater proportion of British were persuaded that fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class was worthwhile, it doesn't mean it was true."

Nope GUEST Dave it does not mean that - Great Britain introduced a system of universal conscription and fell in line with what all the other combatant nations had had in place in order to prosecute the war.

Please provide some substantive evidence for your claim that the war was about "fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class" - I can certainly see nothing to support that point of view.

"What territory and ego are you talking about from Great Britain's perspective?"

"They certainly acquired German East Africa after the war, not that the views of the people who lived there had any bearing upon the matter. And quite a bit of territory from the Ottoman empire, which they then proceeded to make a total mess of ruling. But thats the British ruling class for you."

Could you show us where and when before the war that Great Britain viewed the prospect of taking over German colonies? Good luck with that as there is no evidence of it.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but neither Great Britain or France gained any territory from the Ottoman Empire, THEY DID HOWEVER take on administrative responsibility for territorial mandates handed them by the League of Nations and nothing could be done in those territories by the mandatory powers without the knowledge, consent and approval of the League of Nations. Those mandates were time limited from the outset, so to present that as either country "acquiring territory" is simply incorrect. As to who has made a complete and utter mess of the middle-east? My money would go on the people of the area who have had over 67 years to sort things out and yet haven't - they now falsely claim to be fighting to achieve the "Two State Solution" that they rejected 67 years ago - no wonder the Israelis are more than just slightly sceptical about that.

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

"So basically we have been ruled by a democratically elected Government since 1832"
Really?
Women got the vote when exactly - or doesn't democracy include that particular section of the population?
"I know that neither Maths, History or General Knowledge are your strong suit Jom"
Certainly isn't yours.
The fact remains - and as yet responded to is that our particular versions is like Orwell's equality - some have more democracy than others - depending on which particular rung on the ladder you occupy.
Our democracy is based on the idea that at election time - they promise, once the elections are over, they forget those promises until the next election, when they promise again - and so ad infinitum.   
Expecting an equal share of the benefits wrought from my labour and those like me and an equal right for my voice to be heard and my childdren to be educated has SFA to do with "envy" - it's called "democracy"
You really are a cliché ridden, dyed-in-the-wool establishment arse-licker
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 12:37 PM

"British Army - Great Britain's first citizen army, roughly half were volunteers "

"Which means that the other half weren't. It seems that a greater proportion of British were persuaded that fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class was worthwhile, it doesn't mean it was true."

Nope GUEST Dave it does not mean that - Great Britain introduced a system of universal conscription and fell in line with what all the other combatant nations had had in place in order to prosecute the war.

Please provide some substantive evidence for your claim that the war was about "fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class" - I can certainly see nothing to support that point of view.

"What territory and ego are you talking about from Great Britain's perspective?"

"They certainly acquired German East Africa after the war, not that the views of the people who lived there had any bearing upon the matter. And quite a bit of territory from the Ottoman empire, which they then proceeded to make a total mess of ruling. But thats the British ruling class for you."

Could you show us where and when before the war that Great Britain viewed the prospect of taking over German colonies? Good luck with that as there is no evidence of it.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but neither Great Britain or France gained any territory from the Ottoman Empire, THEY DID HOWEVER take on administrative responsibility for territorial mandates handed them by the League of Nations and nothing could be done in those territories by the mandatory powers without the knowledge, consent and approval of the League of Nations. Those mandates were time limited from the outset, so to present that as either country "acquiring territory" is simply incorrect. As to who has made a complete and utter mess of the middle-east? My money would go on the people of the area who have had over 67 years to sort things out and yet haven't - they now falsely claim to be fighting to achieve the "Two State Solution" that they rejected 67 years ago - no wonder the Israelis are more than just slightly sceptical about that.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 12:11 PM

😇

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 11:32 AM

"Apparently you don't understand the difference between being governed by a democratically elected Government and being part of a class system where which side of the blanket you are born carries far more weight than who you vote for."

So basically we have been ruled by a democratically elected Government since 1832 - I know that neither Maths, History or General Knowledge are your strong suit Jom but did 1832 come before or after 1914.

As to the last bit of about birth and blankets, etc I suppose that that is just another example of your tooth-sucking, envy riven, hatred of everything British that you nurture with such zeal - what a truly ugly and discontented person you must be.

"I take it we are in agreement about your crass "facts"?"

What "crass facts" Jom? You and the "emoji" king have yet to point any of them out.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 11:26 AM

"someone who twists" Plenty of examples here
"The bulk of the volunteers in 1914/1915 came from the middle-classes"
In fact the the overwhelming majority of those who enlisted came from the labouring classes
"The school that suffered the highest mortality rate among its former pupils was ETON"
Responded to already and ignored, by you too, it would seem.
'Liverpudlians were living off the pig's back at the outbreak of WW1' (to paraphrase)
Again, responded to at length and described as "badly written" (the official document containing the facts and figures presumably) and so, unworthy of a reply!!
Plenty more examples were those came from - unfortunately, pretending that his feet are not regularly lodged firmly in his mouth, as he always does, doesn't make his delivery anymore clear and intelligible.
Captain Pugwash here has an amusing habit of putting his somewhat quaintly out-of-date opinions up as indisputable facts and in such a sneery manner to make it extremely satisfying when his case falls around his ears, and it mainly does.
Trying to talk down to people from holes you persistently dig yourself into is not good practice for a bear with so little brain.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 10:26 AM

I have to admit, Terribulus's methods of what he calls debate are tiresome and have the disadvantage of defending a view that is reactionary.

That said, the answer is always somewhere in the middle. His Rottweiler approach merely leads to any points he makes being hidden in the diatribe.

I suppose that puts me in the pointing and laughing camp. It has the advantage of, wait for it... history being on our side 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 10:18 AM

someone who twists and corrupts the sources of his so called facts

It would be helpful if you could provide examples of this so that we can all point and sneer at him together.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 08:28 AM

I suppose some people poke fun at Teribus on the basis you can't have a conversation with someone who twists and corrupts the sources of his so called facts in order to suit his rather extreme and old fashioned take on society.

You can't educate pork, so just get the crackling roasting.
🐷

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM

I read the figures quite recently on a history website. I'll try and find it again.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:59 AM

Teribus says:

"The people of Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine regained their freedom and liberty"

No they didn't. They regained the right to be subject to a Belgian or French ruling class, instead of a German ruling class. Freedom and liberty were, as always, not on the agenda.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:51 AM

"Terribulus's confusion is rather funny. "
Absolutely hilarious
Two of his unsubstantiated "facts" are made up bollocks and prrovably so and the third demonstrates the appalling condition workers lived in and also, contrary to their claims one of the main reasons for people volunteering in the first place - a roof, a bed and thre square meals - that they could not get at home
I do balieve hes come over to our side!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:35 AM

As a class the middle class made up about 40% of volunteers at the start of the war. Industry made up about 27% and Agriculture about 22%. So it is reasonable to say at the start of the war the middle classes made up a significant proportion of the total but not the bulk.

(27+22 being greater than 40, thus the working class made up the majority)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:33 AM

Terribulus's confusion is rather funny. If we didn't have idiots to laugh at we'd probably question ourselves more.

Call it a civic duty. Every village has one, but Mudcat does seem to host their conventions.

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

🐮💩

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:25 AM

Missed a bit
" The school that suffered the highest mortality rate among its former pupils was ETON"
Once more you are presenting distorted "facts"
The ages of pupils of schools like Eton far exceeded those attending working class schools - who left at as low as 12 and 13 years of age.
Toffee nosed school tended to make a thing about "fallen pupil" where working class schools didn't go in for that sort of thing.
" The bulk of the volunteers in 1914/1915 came from the middle-classes"
You have always claimed that the British people flocked to join up as a patriotic duty - now you are claiming that it was mainly the midle classes who did so - presumably the working classses, who formd the majority of the population had the good sense to stay away!!!
Are you ****** mad - be consistent in your stupidity - that's the secret
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM

The vast majority of casualties throughout the war were from the working classes
Those are the facts - not your made up and as usual unsubstantiated ones.
The crap that the War was a "relatively classless one is risible - you have, again, as usual, ignored the fact that you've once more put your foot in it (quick enough to gloat about the mistakes made by others through)
Nor will you respond to the fat that any social gains made post war were bitterly fought for against "Get on your bike" twots like you.
You are a pair of establishment suck-holes (don't know if that phras made it out of Liverpool)
You really are hooray Henry caricatures
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 05:44 AM

What quote was that GUEST Dave, or are you resorting to "Made Up Shit"?

Jom you missed the point re-classless - GUEST Dave was wittering on about working classes being sent to their deaths - unfortunately the facts don't suit Dave's MYTH, representatives from all social classes died:

1: The bulk of the volunteers in 1914/1915 came from the middle-classes

2: The school that suffered the highest mortality rate among its former pupils was ETON

3: When the "working classes" arrived for training the Army were appalled at their general physical condition. During basic training after a regime of proper diet, fresh air and exercise the recruits gained in height and in weight - for most it was the first time they ate meat on a regular basis.

"What evidence have you that the new rulers would have been any different from the old rulers?"
Ehmmm Dave you are the French or Belgian politician that is going to negotiate away the rights of your former fellow citizens in your "negotiations" with the Germans – You appear to be missing the point – the new rulers in Belgium and in large chunks of the North of France would have been their German conquerors – always amazed to see how those who claim to be "socialist", pacifist and anti-war are always so keen to reward military aggression by others when it doesn't affect them – how noble of you.
What benefit the people saw from the war? The people of Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine regained their freedom and liberty – that good enough for you – or has the gain got to be material?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 04:17 AM

"The First World War (HINT: Take a look at the title) was a fairly classless affair "
Nice to sneer hasn't gone away from your contributions shipmate.
From the British Library site.
   
"To us, with modern social attitudes and communications technology, Turner's world might seem rigidly hierarchical. But to men like him it would have seemed much less strange. Born in a more deferential age, the soldiers of the First World War were accustomed to everyone having their place and knowing it, too. The British army of 1914-18 was structured very well, not only to accomplish its military mission, but also for a society of such men."
CLASS DIVIDED WW1
World War One was rigidly class divided
"There had been a disproportionately high percentage of casualties among the landed classes,"
Another crass argument - the overwhelming majority of those involved came from the "lower" (a term very popular in those days) classes, so comparing percentages of larger numbers of working men with vastly smaller numbers of smaller men is totally misleading - those who went over the top were the drones - those who sent them over or stayed back at headquarters in relative safety were the queen bees.
Not were any social changes brought about following the war due to the sacrifice made by the workers who fought and gave their lives.
British workers became more militant having become concious oof the contempt they were held in - soldiers protested to the point of rioting during and after the war, Trades Unions began to fight for better conditions, against tiff and sometimes brutal opposition from their "betters" (still very much part of the British vocabulary) - workers during The General Strike faced both the police and the army in their attempts to get a better way of life... and then of course, thanks to the total breakdown of the system, we had the great depression, where families starved and workers took to the streets to feed them.
The same happened, of course, happened at the end of World War Two, a progressive (those were the days) Labour Government introduced improvements in workers lives - social housing, the strongly opposed (by the right) National Health Service and nationalisation of industry
All these were strongly opposed by the right, run down when they took power and eventually either neutred by privatisation or done away altogether.
We've already had the 'patriotic' right extremist 'voice of reason' telling us that British industry was crap (ie "unprofitable") and that British people never manufactured anything worth buying and I have no doubt we'll get more - ah well, that's patriotism for you.
What are you pair of eejits on?
As you were cookie and Corporal Pike.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 04:01 AM

I disagree with Keith and I'm a historian.

Next.

Teribus is quoting straight from the Michael Gove book of putting empire worship on the school curriculum.

Next

The first time some idiot of a general was supported for saying "Sending men over the top seems to get them all killed, let's send some more and see what happens" was the time that military incompetence entered the war and managed to survive.

Next

War itself is an admission of failure.

Next

Each and every person arguing on here for glorification of a public service society should be looking to make irrelevant has never been to war, has never been subjected to the idiots from Sandhurst and have obviously never read accounts from those actually there.

Next

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 03:48 AM

Keith,

"You are entitled to your view Dave, but I must point out that no historian agrees with it."

This after Teribus posted a quote from one of his favourite historians, unfortunately for him he also posted a link, which shows that the rest of the article provides actually a much more balanced view, and does not support your (plural) extreme position at all.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 03:45 AM

Teribus:

"Tell me GUEST Dave these compromises you prattle on about - as a Frenchman, or a Belgian, just exactly how much of your sovereignty would you have been willing to compromise away, and what would you have said to your former citizens who you were throwing on the mercy of their new rulers?"

What evidence have you that the new rulers would have been any different from the old rulers? The ruling classes of the time were much the same, and in many cases were closely related to each other. WWII was different, as I have said many times.

"British Army - Great Britain's first citizen army, roughly half were volunteers "

Which means that the other half weren't. It seems that a greater proportion of British were persuaded that fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class was worthwhile, it doesn't mean it was true.

"What territory and ego are you talking about from Great Britain's perspective?"

They certainly acquired German East Africa after the war, not that the views of the people who lived there had any bearing upon the matter. And quite a bit of territory from the Ottoman empire, which they then proceeded to make a total mess of ruling. But thats the British ruling class for you.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 09:49 PM

My view is that if all the historians disagree with your view of history, it is probably wrong.

Not quite, Professor. Your view is that if any historians disagree with you, ipso facto, they must be wrong.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 07:30 PM

"If the imperative of the ruling classes had been to avoid the huge suffering of the people they were sending to fight, rather than territory and ego, then those compromises could have been found. As it was they were happier, on both sides, to send more of their working classes to die."

And IF my Aunt had Balls she'd be my Uncle - What is being discussed is History versus Mythology - you have signed up to the mythology which has led you to come out with what you have said above.

The First World War (HINT: Take a look at the title) was a fairly classless affair - and it wasn't only the working class who died - another of your more dearly held MYTHS.

Tell me GUEST Dave these compromises you prattle on about - as a Frenchman, or a Belgian, just exactly how much of your sovereignty would you have been willing to compromise away, and what would you have said to your former citizens who you were throwing on the mercy of their new rulers?

British Army - Great Britain's first citizen army, roughly half were volunteers whereas the armies of France, Belgium and Germany were all conscripts raised through a system of universal conscription - they had no choice or say in the matter whatsoever.

What territory and ego are you talking about from Great Britain's perspective? Both Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were fighting in the hope of territorial gain - Great Britain certainly wasn't.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 05:31 PM

You are entitled to your view Dave, but I must point out that no historian agrees with it.
You said on the previous thread that there were "many" such but then failed to produce anything written less than fifty years ago!

My view is that if all the historians disagree with your view of history, it is probably wrong.

I formed my views by reading the history books.
They all agree on the issues I have defended.
None of you have found anything written in recent decades that challenge them.
Unless and until you do, we can not progress this discussion.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 04:37 PM

Negotiation usually involves each side setting out a position, and then compromises being made. Sure the Central Powers set out their position, and the British and French a different one. If the imperative of the ruling classes had been to avoid the huge suffering of the people they were sending to fight, rather than territory and ego, then those compromises could have been found. As it was they were happier, on both sides, to send more of their working classes to die.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 03:38 PM

YAWN.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 12:32 PM

Guest Dave, once the war started Great Britain found itself in an alliance with France, Belgium and with Russia.

As Keith A has introduced the fact that peace would have had to have been bought on the premise that the Germans retained all the territory they had captured - while NO British territory had been taken you sitting in your armchair now in 2015 might think that that might have been a good deal it was always going to be totally unacceptable to the French and the Belgians - Our Allies.

The entire country was at war it was not just the ruling classes and the attitude at the time was perfectly correct - we are involved in a war against those who would do us harm - we have to win this war, we will win this war and do anything we have to do to accomplish that goal.

The German Kaiser was the person who pushed for this war, he was the only person who could have prevented it from happening and he didn't. It was the German Kaiser who would have had to have agreed any overture of peace and the entire world and his dog must have known that the terms submitted would have been instantly rejected by the countries whose territorial integrity had been violated and whose civil populations had suffered.

Because of the losses suffered by the German Armies on the western front at Verdun and on the Somme in 1916 - the German High Command knew that they could not defeat either the British or the French - hence the peace proposal.


It was the rulers of the Central Powers who set out THEIR terms so please tell me how on earth we must share the blame for something that we had no part in.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 11:41 AM

Interesting Keith that you quote that paragraph from the linked article, rather then the one immediately before, which says:

"Peace initiatives during World War I never had much chance of success. Three reasons stand out for why this was so. First, both sides suffered from a profound sense of insecurity. They were trapped in an anarchic international system long characterized by uncertainty, arms races, warfare, and constant intrigue. Both sides tended to assume the worst in their enemies; both trusted in the reduction of their opponents' power, more than anything else, to keep them safe. So long as they could believe that they had a plausible chance to prevail on the battlefield, they would not abandon their quest to achieve that goal."

These attitudes were ingrained in the ruling classes on all sides. They derived particularly from the imperialist mindset of the 19th century, shared by the leaders of all of the major European powers.

So Keith is right to say that peace never had a chance. But our rulers share equally with those of the Central Powers in the blame for this. .

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 09:07 AM

An American historian's view,
"Peace initiatives during World War I never had much chance of success."

" Secondly, the character of the German government, especially after Ludendorff and Hindenburg consolidated their power after July 1917, made a peace based upon the status quo ante bellum – the terms most likely to end the fighting – almost impossible. Germany's military leaders consistently opposed even the indirect forms of German expansion advocated by Bethmann and Kühlmann as inadequate for Germany's security, were completely convinced that only the most extensive gains possible could fend of revolution at home, and, at crucial turning points in the war, always advocated high-risk gambles for victory rather than seriously explore peace possibilities. "
http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/peace_initiatives

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 08:55 AM

Keith, are you seriously saying that all modern historians deny the the Germans offered peace negotiations in December 1916? Deny that Woodrow Wilson was trying to push the British towards peace negotiations? Deny the existence of the Lansdowne Letter? Some of this stuff is even on the website of the National Archives.

Instead we get from you a Daily Mirror article by Paxman, not an historian of any note but a political interviewer. With a degree in English not History. And a self-confessed tory.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 08:39 AM

We have seen in the other thread that we could have negotiated peace at least twice,

Not from any historian.
Please give us the relevant quote.

Meanwhile please read this Daily Mirror piece by Paxman, who has never been accused of "political expediency."
"WW1 changed Britain forever"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-paxman-ww1-changed-britain-3973087

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 08:33 AM

Yawn. We have seen in the other thread that we could have negotiated peace at least twice, at the end of 1914 and most definitely at the end of 1916. The second was after the Somme, but a negotiated peace then would have avoided the horrors of Passchendaele.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM

There is MYTH #2 - That the First World War was somehow a war of choice - Simply put it wasn't, not by a long shot.

It doesn't matter a toss what we think about it today, what mattered in relation to the situation that developed in Europe was how the Government of the day read the situation.

The ONLY country that could have stopped the war in the summer of 1914 was the German Military Autocracy, the elected German Government of the day had absolutely no say in matters relating to foreign policy or the military. The Kaiser had four days towards the end of July when he could have stopped the whole thing - he decided not to, because he thought that he could win - they very nearly did.

The choice as seen from Great Britain's perspective was fight Germany now as part of a powerful alliance, or risk having to fight Germany on our own later. They followed historical precedent and elected to fight as part of an alliance as Great Britain's army in 1914 could not possibly match that of Germany's on its own.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 04:01 AM

Well Keith, it will surprise you that I agree that things were better after the war. Indeed also after WWII. Apart from for those that were killed or maimed in it that is. Just as, because it broke the economic power of the lords of the manor, things were better after the Black Death for those who survived. However, that doesn't make it a good thing.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 04:00 PM

Oh Keith, do try and educate yourself. The rest of us are tired of the attempt.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM

You seem to be agreeing that things were better after the war.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:15 PM

Working class people were able to get white collar jobs, because it became less acceptable to restrict these jobs to the middle class. In my view, the fact that a working class person has a middle class occupation does not detract from their working class credentials.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM

"How was post-war British society different from the society that had entered the First World War in August 1914? It was indubitably more democratic. Previously under-represented groups such as women and, in particular, the working class became better organised and more powerful during the war. This, in turn, encouraged the growth of less deferential attitudes, as did the cross-class experiences of the trenches. There had been a disproportionately high percentage of casualties among the landed classes, and the strict class hierarchy of Edwardian Britain disappeared for good in the immediate post-war years.

Yet, though the working class became a more powerful political force, it shrank numerically. Growing numbers of the working population in inter-war Britain were employed in 'white collar' jobs. The First World War thus marked an important staging post on the road to 'modern' British society."
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/aftermath/brit_after_war.htm

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 12:56 PM

Amazingly the propaganda of the time still exerts it's influence a hundred years later.

I would say that statement is nonsense and challenge you to justify it.
Paxman in his programmes, informed by the OU History Faculty, said Britain was a much better place after the war.
Have you compared social conditions before and after?
I have not.

I think that all the European armies in WW1 used colonial troops.
What is your point?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 12:41 PM

Amazingly the propaganda of the time still exerts it's influence a hundred years later. I suppose the British use of "colonial" people was something else.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM

Rag,
Before you go on a rant Teribums try to think how the majority of people benefitted from the war. The 20's and 30's saw mass unemployment, means testing, poor housing, poor living conditions, low wages etc etc.

Yes, the nation was impoverished, and WW2 made things worse.
In the lands occupied by the German armies during WW1 and WW2, civilians were taken away as slave labourers. Many people would say that is worse than austerity and grateful that they did not widen their empire any further.

You will find no expression of regret for making a stand from the people who lived through the 20s and 30s despite the cost.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 08:21 AM

"It is a very nice Whiskey"
Hmmmm??
Three whiskey salesmen met at a convention and later began to stand each other rounds in the bar
The Paddy's rep brought three glasses of his product, which they all downed.
The Bushmills man did the same - three Bushmills.
The Jameson rep went to the bar and brought back three Paddys
"Shouldn't you be promoting your own product?" they asked.
"Don't want to go back to work with the smell of whiskey on your breath", he replied.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:34 AM

And just to spread a bit of Christmas cheer Aldi (at least the one in Eccles) are selling Clontarf Single Malt at £19.99 a bottle. It is a very nice Whiskey.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:32 AM

The army could have been 930,785 stronger but sadly they were the one's who were killed.

To say nothing of the millions of men like both my grandfathers who were gassed and maimed and had to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

However we won and that is all that matters to some people.

Before you go on a rant Teribums try to think how the majority of people benefitted from the war. The 20's and 30's saw mass unemployment, means testing, poor housing, poor living conditions, low wages etc etc.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:27 AM

Please note that NONE of the "usual suspects" are actually addressing any facet of either the history or the mythology of the First World War - The angrynauts have the loudest voices!

However in the same "lets talk about the actual subject" spirit, I offer what I have found in one small town about peoples' family memories regarding WW1. stroudvoices.co.uk - audio relating to WW1 There is a panel of explanation, click on it and it will reveal a button that can display 5 more tracks at a time (of 29).

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 06:37 AM

"The battle began horrible Galwegians"
Sounds like the only Celtic-Rangers match I ever attended.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 05:09 AM

As no-one would appear to have any comments relating to the British Army which started the war as a force of 440,000 men and ended it about ten times that size, then I would draw the attention of those who are of the opinion that its leadership was incompetent to the organisational skills required to expand, train, equip and deploy that number of men from scratch up to the point where in 1916 Great Britain's first citizen army saw off the best the Germans could throw at them.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Beverley Minster
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 04:58 AM

"Battle of the Standard: properly trained Norman knights - God has chosen them to punish the Scots. Arouse your spirits then, ye civilized warriors, and, firmly relying on the valour of your country, nay, rather on the presence of God, arise against these most unrighteous foes,and let not their rashness move you, besides your forefathers, when but few in number, have many a time conquered multitudes.

Any keenness of the Scots yielded to the will of the Galwegians:
casual slaughter of unsalable encumbrances - "For the sick on their couches, women pregnant and in childbed, infants in the womb, innocents at the breast, or on the mother's knee, with the mothers themselves, decrepit old men and worn-out old women, and persons debilitated from whatever cause, wherever they met with them, they put to the edge of the sword, and transfixed with their spears; and by how much more horrible a death they could dispatch them, so much the more did they rejoice."
The battle began horrible Galwegians

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 04:15 AM

"I'm thinking it was the pipes that made them run."
Brendan Behan once said of the highland pipes that the only thing in their favour was that they didn't smell!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: gillymor
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 04:09 AM

LOL, Phil.

In Winston Groom's Book on the Ypres salient "A Storm in Flanders" the author wrote that when they heard bagpipes German troops would retreat from the advanced lines of defense because they knew a unit of the Black Watch was coming thru and that the Scots would kill everything in sight and wouldn't back off but now I'm thinking it was the pipes that made them run.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 03:54 AM

"No Jom - you have been asked a specific question either answer it or keep out of it."
You have been asked dozens of direct questions (morality of a war that sent so many young lads to their deaths for instance, or good leadership vs butchery, or a war for territory by Empires capable of slaughtering 10 million of its colonials, profiteering on ceramic poppies (now for sale on Ebay at around £200 a go.....) - you have refused to respond to each and every one of them.
Your technique is to bully and bluster your case as if they are indisputable facts, and when you are proven wrong, you do a runner.
You did the same with your fatuous arguments on the Famine - when presented with documented facts you clam up and refuse to respond.   
I have no intention of continuing with this farce - as far as I'm concerned enough facts have been given for those in any doubt to make up their mind and "two dissenters don't make a summer" as they nearly say, even if those two particular swallows consider themselves sparrowhawks in Supermen suits!
"Scots and their bagpipes"
Referred to as "the ladies from Hell" when they were seen coming up the D-Day Beaches.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:07 AM

Joe Offer: "Can't see how this fits into the music section, Keith. I moved it below the line."

Au contraire.

Terribus: "If you cannot actually put a reasonable argument forward then please do not get involved."

[John McIlwraith voice] The ONLY reason the whole lot were of any use at ALL was the Scots and their bagpipes. Posted in the rear, the only viable escape route was to the front. Infantry being the lovers of fine music they are, it wasn't exactly the "all volunteer" affair some contemporary patriots make it out to be. And being no slackers at music themselves, the Germans were greatly disadvantaged by having to cover their ears with both hands and operate a weapon all at the same time. (w/apologies to the original – RIP)

I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeD9Nk8-tY0

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 09:10 PM

Have no intention whatsoever in engaging in any form of discussion

Absolutely correct (this once) Terabyte, as there would be no point whatsoever in so doing.

Now, with any luck, no one else will engage you & the Professor for the umpteenth time and thus save a great deal of futile effort, not to say bandwith and computer memory.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 07:17 PM

No Jom - you have been asked a specific question either answer it or keep out of it. If you cannot actually put a reasonable argument forward then please do not get involved.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 07:13 PM

"We must agree on some things"
For crying out loud - we don't - leave it.
"All threads condemned to it should self-destruct in three weeks "
Now there's something to ask Santa to leave in your stocking.
" "usual suspects" "
You pair are on your own
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 07:12 PM

Anyone wishing to respond to my first post on this thread please address the points made - not the person posting them.

I can instantly see that:

MartinRyan - 18 Dec 15 - 04:55 PM

Greg F. - 18 Dec 15 - 05:46 PM

Kampervan - 18 Dec 15 - 05:56 PM

Greg F. - 18 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM

Have no intention whatsoever in engaging in any form of discussion which sort of begs the question "Just what the fuck they are doing here". Perhaps its just an educational thing -like they actually need an education in something.

As to the rest of the crew of "usual suspects" lets hear your views with regard to the British Army of 440,000 men who started out in 1914 as that contemptible little army and ended up as Great Britains very first citizen Army of over 5 million strong who, in time of war, was created, equipped and trained, then took on and defeated the the greatest and best army in the world at that time.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 06:35 PM

Well, same old, same old.....plus guest!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM

Oh no, PLEASE don't ask...... it'll only encourage The Dynamic Duo.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Kampervan
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:56 PM

What is this all about?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:46 PM

Yup. Its season 26 of the Terabyte & Professor Show, god help us......

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: MartinRyan
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 04:55 PM

I'd move it a bit further down than mere BS Joe.

That reminds me - it has struck me before that there is a definite need for a "Mudcat Lowest Level of Hell" layer in this forum. All threads condemned to it should self-destruct in three weeks - bit like Mission Impossible...

;>)>


Regards

p.s.
Happy Christmas!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 04:15 PM

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Agree that no one has found anything on here but that does not mean that there is not anything :-)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 02:58 PM

Please note that NONE of the "usual suspects" are actually addressing any facet of either the history or the mythology of the First World War, I will however.

The first will be the the British Army

A force deserving nothing but contempt from their adversaries in 1914 - only 80,000 strong who were faced with holding off 180,000 to 200,000 men for the first five months of the war. Not only did they survive but they inflicted serious damage on their enemy but delayed them sufficiently to completely derail and destroy the German plan for an early victory in the west in 1914. They did not do it on their own the French and the Belgians played their part - but play their part they did - do not detract or diminish in any way the role that they played.

By 1918 the British, Commonwealth and Empire armies present in France were the ONLY formation capable and willing to take the fight to the enemy, only 21 days after the armies of the "Entente Power", primarily the British, had withstood five successive and prolonged offensives by a German Army reinforced and doubled in size with men transferred from the Eastern Front, the first citizens Army that Britain had ever raised (Ten times the size of the army that Great had in 1914) in 100 days defeated what was generally considered to be the best army in the world. This campaign is still considered to be the most successful offensive campaign ever mounted by the British Army in its entire history.

The expansion, training, deployment and development of tactics could not have been accomplished to achieve those results if the leadership of the British Army had been useless or incompetent.

Anyone wishing to respond to this post please address the points made - not the person posting them.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 02:54 PM

Or we could try to find common ground.
We must agree on some things.

The war was a catastrophe in economic terms leaving Europe utterly impoverished, but above all it was a human catastrophe on an unprecedented scale of horror.
Agree?

WW2 was an equivalent disaster for Europe.
Agree?

Those views expressed by Jim on WW1 have been put forward by eminent historians and are still widely believed.
Agree?

Current historians do not accept those views, and none of us have found anything written in the last 20 years that does.
Agree?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 11:05 AM

Well, a groan in tme saves nine, Dave. ;>)

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:50 AM

I know I said it was my last but I couldn't resist causing a groan on a Friday afternoon...

Have you said that before, Greg?

:D

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM

Oh no! Its déja vu all over again!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:10 AM

"Perhaps there is no point in continuing."
You said it Keith - we really are too much of a bunch of thick and ignorant "Muppet lefties" to be won over by the erudition of shining pair of intellects such as yours
For your own sake - let it be over by Christmas
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 09:56 AM

Perhaps there is no point in continuing.

Keith, with all due respect, you just said what I pointed out in my first post with the line "There is no point in continuing the argument ad nauseum"

Now we are both agreed perhaps we can just draw a line under it?

And, unless you want me to address any specifics, that really is my last post on this! Let me know if you do. Maybe by PM?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 09:50 AM

Thanks Joe.
I was hoping people might be less abusive above the line, and it is folklore of a modern kind.

Rag,
Oh ! ! Dilemma ! ! Who should I believe the review of Gary Mead the noted Historian or the professor Keith A of Hertford.

If it is about history, believe the historian obviously, but I would never expose myself to ridicule by arguing against one.

How about, "Oh ! ! Dilemma ! ! Who should I believe, the findings of all the noted Historians, or any group of non-specialists on Mudcat?

Nothing new from any of you folk then.
Perhaps there is no point in continuing.

I have just said what all the historians say.
I do not believe that they falsify evidence and lie.
Why would they?

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 04:46 AM

I hope we can discuss this reasonably and stay open. LOL !!!!!

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 03:28 AM

Oh dear - it's not going to be all over by Christmas - again!
Bloody insane to infest the season of goodwill with yet more phantom historians.
Better luck with your shadow boxing this time.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 03:05 AM

Well, I will make one contribution and hope that will be the end of it from me. There is no point in continuing the argument ad nauseum. There are differing viewpoints on all aspects of history and they are all, in the main, valid. The facts are the facts and will never be altered but the interpretation of those facts will vary considerably depending upon many circumstances. I firmly believe that in the previous discussions everyone, with some very rare exceptions, was telling the truth and was right. This is the important bit as far as they were concerned. So, Keith, Jim, Teribus, Raggytash and anyone else involved. Your views are all valid. I have read them and taken them on board. I also have views and they agree with parts of what you all say but not all.

Good luck to all who decide to step once more into the breach...

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 02:30 AM

I'd move it a bit further down than mere BS Joe.

The moderators, for their reasons I suppose, closed the thread Keith refers to.

His inability to debate, his ridiculous infantile stance of "everybody other than anybody I try to impress on Mudcat agrees with me" is either funny or disturbing, but not the foundation for mature debate.

No Keith. The world does not spin at the speed of The Daily Telegraph or recruiting sergeants. Come back when you grow up.

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 01:17 AM

Can't see how this fits into the music section, Keith. I moved it below the line.
-Joe-

Subject: Folklore: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 01:05 AM

Not wanting to continue a stale thread, but an unusual agreement had just taken place.
Raggytash ridiculed the idea of believing some unqualified folkie over an historian, which is a point I have been making for years.
(True he directed it at me, but I had not challenged anything by a current historian including the one he quoted.)

Jim, I do not lie. M's book was not relevant and I did not have a copy to quote anyway, but I started quoting her, as you said, when I found all her articles and essays on line (like the FT article you just quoted) which makes her position on what is history and what is myth very clear indeed.

I hope we can discuss this reasonably and stay open.
I am off to the hospital shortly. If this goes before I return later today could someone pm me how it went please?