BS: I am not an historian but........

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:19 PM

"lets take this present case. let us suppose that Haig had the tactical skill of Julius Caesar, the sagacity of Talleyrand, the brilliance of Henry V at Agincourt"

You "be fair" Al, Keith is not suggesting such things, he IS suggesting that the "revisionist" opinions on WW1 are wrong and quoting sources to back up his view.

As Teribus says, much of the information regarding WW1 has come into the public domain only in the last few decades.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:22 PM

No, what he is saying is that the old revisionist opinions are wrong and the new revisionist opinions are right. What they are are two different opinions, no more, no less.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:50 PM

I thought everybody but Keith and Teribus were questioning the revisionists?

Even when he manages a post with no undercurrent, he gets confused. Still, I suppose he owes Keith a favour.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:09 PM

Al, on history I believe historians.
Certainly if there is a consensus, which on this there is.
You are suggesting they are all deluded.
That is a point of view but I could never share it.
That is what Musket and all the guest clones are claiming too.
I am happy to say we agree to disagree on that.
I believe the historians, while you believe them all to be deluded.


Guest whichever, if it is not all, why can no one find one.
Not just me.
I have been making that claim for over a year.
It makes everyone angry, but they still can not find a single one.
I have found loads.
Ask yourself why.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:22 PM

I believe the historians

Again, the monlitihic bloc of "The Historians". How are you coming with that list of all living historians, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:28 PM

I am not Greg.
It is the simple fact that no one can find one that disagrees.
If there were any, one would have been found by now.
I have found a dozen or so who agree.
Neither you nor anyone can find any that don't.

My explanation is that there are none.
What is yours?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:55 PM

My explanation is that there are none.
What is yours?

The same explanation as for any theory. That you have not yet found any. You have not yet answered how many of those 17000 books you have read and whether you believe it represents a significant sample.

My explanation for not having found any is that I have not looked and have no intention of doing so. As has been said elsewhere it is purely academic and if you could let go of this ridiculous concept of there being a black and white, right and wrong you may be able to get on better with people.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:00 PM

Amazing. You really are a moron, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:01 PM

Guest# gives an example of someone not believing that Haig was as good as others claim. You have not yet responded to that. Have you read his work Keith? John Keegan was a military historian that died in 2012 so not currently alive but certainly aware of developments post 1970. Would you care to elucidate Guest#? Either before or after Keith decides Keegan does not count?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:04 PM

It is true I have not yet found any.
OK so it is not proveable that all historians agree on my points, BUT IT IS VERY EASY TO PROVE THAT THEY DON'T!

JUST QUOTE ONE!

All those people loudly claiming I am wrong have spent a year searching utterly in vain.

If there were any, one would have been found.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:24 PM

Keegan's book was published in 1998.

"Keegan maintains a fine line between condemning general staffs for circumstances beyond their control and excusing them for their failure to understand and adapt to a new sort of war."

Current historians would point out that the British adapted far better than anyone else did.
The innovative use of artillery, and of air power and tanks was decisive.

"Erich von Falkenhayn at Verdun and Douglas Haig at Ypres had no strategy beyond bleeding the enemy to death."

Verdun was a desperate defence that almost failed to stop the Germans breaking through.
Haig had to keep fighting alongside Verdun on the Somme or all would have been lost

"On the subject of Haig, commander of the British armies at the Somme and Passchendaele and an object of execration for two generations of British survivors and commentators, Keegan is unambiguous: in his ''public manner and private diaries no concern for human suffering was or is discernible.''"

Since then many historians have found plenty of evidence for such concern.

So, Keegan is the last of the old school whose work has now been superceded and discredited.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:26 PM

So, you agree that you claim that all living historians substantiate your claim cannot be proven? Wow! We are making progress. But why should it be up to someone to disprove your claims when you are the one who is making them? You know, I think you would make an excellent religious leader. Ever thought of starting an organisation based on claims that cannot be substantiated and then challenging people who disbelieve them? I think it may have done before but you know how gullible people can be...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

Sorry Guest# - Keith has pre-discredited your guy. I guess he must have read all his works.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:30 PM

It can not be proven, BUT IT IS TRIVIALLY EASY TO DISPROVE!

So, why can't any of you manage it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:43 PM

""In 1914 Great Britain faced the choice of fighting Germany alongside powerful allies. Had Great Britain stayed out of the war as recommended by Niall Ferguson then Great Britain and her Empire would have been destroyed within ten years. Sir Edward Grey and the rest of the British Government saw that in 1914 and acted accordingly in the best national interest of Great Britain and her Empire.""

Wasn't this exactly what many of us were saying, and which Keith hotly denied, claiming that the sole cause was German aggression against Belgium.

We've said all along that it was about the defence of Imperial possessions.

Thank you Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:45 PM

Guest SBS....I think it is you who is confused, Guest immediately above my post recognised the "revisionists" referred to, but did not take into account the wealth of new information which has become available in recent times to serious historians.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:02 PM

By the way, can anyone confirm that Keith's patronym is "Thicke"?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:09 PM

"So, Keegan is the last of the old school whose work has now been superceded and discredited."


Discredited? Keegan? You mean Sir John Desmond Patrick Keegan OBE FRSL who was a British military historian, lecturer, writer and journalist?

Well, I'll be.

As an incidental thing, I'd like to say hello to Teribus. Good to see you posting.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 12:07 AM

Keith A of Hertford: (From the opening post) "..... Laughable, but a group of Mudcatters, are saying exactly that about historians on the WWI threads.
Some of them ridicule others for believing without evidence on spiritual matters but do it themselves on history.
Is it just me or are they being irrational?"

I've read so many inaccurate bullshit on here,...oh, 'accurate' to their stupid 'talking points'...but completely off base, and not attached to reality....and yes, they are very irrational.....but they clump together in semi-literate groups, and back each other up, as if it gives the appearance of being true....but in reality, they like splashing together, and play in huge puddles of complete bullshit.....but that's the political way...they should stick to music....but alas, a lot of them aren't too good at that, either!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:26 AM

"Wasn't this exactly what many of us were saying, and which Keith hotly denied, claiming that the sole cause was German aggression against Belgium.

We've said all along that it was about the defence of Imperial possessions." - Troubadour

Sorry Troubadour but that was not the original argument relating to the First World War at all. On that Keith A of Hertford has always contended that:

1: The First World War was a war of necessity as far as Great Britain was concerned.

2: The population of Great Britain fully understood the reasons for going to war with Germany and backed their Government and supported the decision to go to war with Germany and that they maintained that support throughout the war.

3: That in general the British and Commonwealth Armies during the course of the First World War were well led in comparison to the armies of the other combatant nations.

As far as the first point goes most on this forum have argued that there was no need for Great Britain to involve herself in the war - That is wrong because it would have been against the best interests of the country to have stayed neutral. "Most WWI historians" agree with that and conclude that Sir Edward Grey did not have any other choice except to declare war on Germany after German troops invaded Belgium.

As far as the second point above goes, we have the facts about recruitment between 1914 and 1916 and the fact that among all combat nations involved in 1914 Great Britain was the only major power whose armies did not mutiny and whose Government did not have to face anti-war or anti-government riots throughout the entire course of the war. We also have the facts relating to changing over the industrial base of the country from one used to producing goods to serve the peacetime, civil needs of country and empire to one geared entirely to support the war effort, this was done with amazing speed and could only have been accomplished with the total support of the country. "Most WWI historians" support those facts.

Most on this forum are trying to tell us that all those 2.6 million volunteers who initially overwhelmed the recruiting offices as bad news was pouring in of a British Army being driven back and suffering losses had to be tricked and coerced into joining the Army. That they were all gullible dupes, so stupid that they must have been capable of believing any lie told to them. Most on this forum believe that the biggest lie told those volunteering in 1914 (1,200,000 of them) was that "It would be over by Christmas" - yet when asked to identify who it was in authority who started this lie they fall silent. Not surprising because you see the "Over by Christmas" as official propaganda was a myth. From records we know for certain that in August 1914 Sir Edward grey believed that the war would be prolonged and we know that in August 1914 Lord Kitchener told the Cabinet that the war would last between three to four years and that to fight it Great Britain would have to raise an Army numbering in the millions to fight it.

Keith's third point, is supported by every single metric for success that can be applied and the only ammunition used by those disputing the point with Keith have to resort to distortion. Neither Keith of myself are saying or have ever stated that Haig was a military genius, we are not saying that mistakes were not made, what we are saying is that in general and in comparison to those commanding the armies of the other combatant nations Haig proved himself to be a better commander than they were. That is borne out by the fact that he commanded an army that went through the greatest degree of change, that saw the greatest expansion, that conceived and adopted the greatest number of technological advances and changes, that rose to meet and overcome every problem and challenge thrown in its path. By 1918 even when Germany could instantly double the size of its Army, the most powerful and most professional in the world, and throw it against the British and Commonwealth forces in Northern France, Britain's two year old Citizen Army accepted everything that was thrown against it and succeeded in first stopping the German offensive then 21 days later went over onto the offensive themselves and in only 100 days succeeded in defeating the German Army - that offensive still remains to this day as being the most successful military campaign ever mounted by any British and/or Commonwealth Army and the commander of those armies and the architect of that offensive was Haig.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:54 AM

I've read so many inaccurate bullshit on here,... ...but they clump together in semi-literate groups

Wonderful, GfS. Thanks for reminding us why no-one should ever take any notice of you.

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:56 AM

So, Keith. You cannot prove that all historians support your views. So why keep saying it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:35 AM

GUEST: "I've read so many inaccurate bullshit on here,... ...but they clump together in semi-literate groups
Wonderful, GfS. Thanks for reminding us why no-one should ever take any notice of you.
Idiot."


I can see that you didn't either!......

What did I just post......about these same people being disconnected from reality......

...and they just don't see it!


Boy, Don's a dilly!


GfS


P.S. Puddle wallowers: Take notice...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:12 AM

I'll have a pint of what he's on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:14 AM

Glad to see the quality of your supporters has improved, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:00 AM

I keep saying all living historians agree on this because I know it to be true.
You people have proved it by failing to find a single one in over a year of frantic googling.
Look at the shit you come up with.
Anonymous bloggers, extremist sites and some kid's homework.

There is a reason why no living historian still believes what some used to believe.
It is because they have been proved wrong by subsequent research.

Why do you people dismiss the knowledge of all living historians?

Because, just like religious fundamentalists, you close your mind to anything that challenges your beliefs.

Political superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:23 AM

"What some used to believe", eh? Hello, the cracks are beginning to show. Or, more like, you are quietly aligning yourself with Teribus in order to keep him on board. We may not be historians but we're not stupid, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:37 AM

Explain your point Steve.
Some historians did used to believe what you people cling to.

Now none do.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:39 AM

Oh yes you are!!    You lack comprehension. Read Keith's post again and try to understand what he is saying.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:46 AM

I keep saying all living historians agree on this because I know it to be true.

No you don't and you have already agreed that you cannot prove that statement. The only thing that you can say with absolute certainty is that the work of all living historians THAT YOU HAVE READ supports your view. You have no idea of the number of living historians let alone read all their work.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:49 AM

"is that the work of all living historians THAT YOU HAVE READ "
He doesn't read - he has proved so often enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:09 AM

No you don't and you have already agreed that you cannot prove that statement.

Yes I do, and you people have proved it by failing to find a single one in over a year of frantic googling.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:34 AM

Interesting article on BBC News website today, all about the Xmas truce etc.

One very interesting point made by one of the historians about how we sanitise war to keep the population on side. It mentioned Wooton Basset and how we were encouraged to revere the dead boys and men coming back from our latest illegal war, as sympathetic media made it difficult to criticise the war without making you look indifferent to the dead sons and husbands.

Fascinating. And from a living historian too.

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:38 AM

Sorry Keith, I have never even attempted to disprove what you say. I do not know who you mean by 'you people' but it is phrases like that, coupled with 'over a year of frantic googling', that you cannot possibly prove either, that make a nonsense of any intelligent argument. Failing to find proof to the contrary is NOT proof of fact. Your fact is nothing but a theory and you cannot say that all living historians support your position until you have read the work of all living historians. Until you are in that position please stop saying that all living historians support you. Even the rider that all living historians WHO'S WORK YOU HAVE READ would be an improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:27 AM

Here is the BBC item Musket refers to.
It is by a newspaper correspondent not an historian.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30417641

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:16 AM

I didn't say it was written by Max Hastings 😂😂😂😂

Of course the writer is a historian. He is writing about WW1. Just like your oracle you call "the historians."

You get funnier with every post.

Although you manage to shame the memory of a whole generation with your disgraceful claims.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM

You said he was "a living historian."
That was a deliberate lie.
He is not, makes no claim to be and is no where described as such.

Except by you, who lies.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:15 AM

Since German strategy was based on the knowledge that a long war would be disastrous and the hope that a short one was made possible through quick action and by the enormous firepower of the day, the expectation that the war would be over by Christmas was probably more current in Germany than anywhere else.

A returning American businessman wrote in a trade journal (Iron Trade Review, Nov. 19, 1914: "The people in Berlin were very optimistic. I was in Berlin October 20 to 22, and a man who was supposed to be on the inside told me that they would capture Paris inside of ten days and the war would be over before Christmas. My opinion is that the war will least a year and possibly longer."

But ill-informed Britons (and presumably others) had the same desperate hope. From the Saturday Review (London), Sept. 29, 1914:

"But the gigantic part of the task lies yet before us; and we have no more patience with the comfortable armchair view that it will all be well over 'before Christmas.'"

So in the early autumn of 1914 the "armchair view" (which obviously was not that of the military or intellectually responsible politicians) was being rejected even by the press.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:15 AM

...that make a nonsense of any intelligent argument.

But Keith HAS no intelligent argument- they're all nonsensical arguments to behin with.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:32 AM

From the Indianapolis Star, Oct. 13, 1914, p. 10:

"London, Oct. 12-- Earl Curzon of Kedleston, formerly viceroy of India, in a speech at a war meeting at Harrow School tonight, ...said England was in for a long war and declared he was shocked that some people should think the hostilities should be over by Christmas.

"In his opinion more than one Christmas would roll by before the ending of the war."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:48 AM

Bar fight 

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:34 AM

I love it, Ed. Sure someone will point out everything that is wrong with it but I love it all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:35 AM

About the only thing I find wrong with it is the assertion that
"America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France."

What I saw was Germany refreshing itself with a another stein, slugging Britain and France and then punching America after shouting to Mexico to land a punch too. Then I saw Britain, France, and Australia jump up from the floor and knock Germany groggy with a flurry of punches.

Then Britain bopped Germany with a bottle of Bass with one hand, then, with the aid of France, clobbered the Ottoman Empire with the other. While Germany was hearing birdies sing, America knocked him cold with the bar stool.

Finally, I don't remember anything about the winners buying drinks for their friends. But I do recall America swearing that was its last bar fight and it wouldn't go into a bar again.

It even made liquor illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:45 AM

speaking as a part time Musket, can I say that Keith has yet again called a respectable honest person a liar.

This would never happen if this site was moderated.

A person who writes about and comments on history is called a historian. Yet again, Keith struggles to keep his absurd definitions in one piece.

Prat.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:56 AM

Musket, you did claim that the piece was by "a living historian."
It was not.
You lied hoping to gain a cheap point.

You do it so readily that nothing you say should ever be taken at face value.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:13 PM

I really don't think you understand what history is about, Keith. You keep on talking as if it was a matter of proof, and it's not. It's about weighing evidence, and interpreting it and offering opinions. Evidence comes into it, and so does fashion and academic ambition. There'so no room for being dogmatic.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

I use two words myself.

Keith. What is a historian?

You know, putting aside living, having never voted Labour and all the other silly nonsense.

As you call me a liar, at least have the decency to indicate how and why.

(You can't, you lose, I confidently predict you can't etc ad nauseum. Not nice is it?)

🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:16 PM

I accept that fully Kevin, but on the specific three issues that I have discussed there is now a consensus among the historians.

I have been attacked for saying that, but no-one has found an exception apart from Ferguson saying we should have let Germany take Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:44 PM

"Consensus" can be another way of saying "fashion".

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:09 PM

...there is now a consensus among the historians.

Here we go again with the monolithic block "The Historians".

You mean the 6 bloggers you found that agree with you, don't you, Keith?

By the way, how far have you got with that list of all the living historians, Keith??