BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 04:45 AM

Grishka you were asked where and when British diplomatic efforts could have been brought to bear in the period in which you claim they did nothing (1904 to 1911) in order that the War could have been averted? So far you have been unable to answer that question. What "fair peace perspective" could Great Britain have offered either France or Germany between 1904 and 1914? "Fair" to who? Who decides what constitutes "Fair"?

The "essay" linked to by Monique shows the British efforts towards both the French and the Germans. The former were pressing the British to engage in a formal military alliance in support of both themselves and the Russians, the latter were pressing the British to formally declare their neutrality in the event of a war between Germany and France. There was no eagerness on the part of either the British or the French military for a war, the fact that they were making plans to counter any attack in itself means nothing. Example: The US Military have plans for the invasion of Iceland, Ireland and Great Britain and they have had those for decades and they are constantly reviewed and revised - Why? As a precaution, so that should any such action be required they are already prepared, they don't have to start from scratch.

The British withstood the pressure applied by the French until 1911 when they formally joined the Triple Entente, in joining this alliance the British made it perfectly clear to the Germans the penalty of any German invasion of Belgium. Britain, Germany(Prussia) and France were all signatories of the 1838 treaty that guaranteed Belgian sovereignty and British resolve to honour that treaty was so well understood that the French in their war plans made certain that under no circumstances would they enter Belgium to counter any German mobilisation (That is clearly stated in the "Essay" supplied by Monique) as that might bring Britain into the war on the side of Germany.

So talking of the "western front" here there was absolutely nothing that Great Britain could have done between 1904 and 1914 that would have averted the conflict that became known as The Great War.

Your example of present day diplomacy with regard to Iran, did not just occur in the last six months, the peaceful diplomacy also must include what was done in the period 2004 to 2012 and that includes all the sanctions all the rhetoric all the scaremongering and hypothesising about military action and the threat of military action, all of that brought pressure to bear and resulted in what we have arrived at today, and what we have arrived at today is still very much a "let's-wait-and-see"; "Carrot-and-Stick" process

As to why a wish "to honour those who served" should be viewed as a "stumbling block" I simply cannot see. In what way do the elected members of parliament who form our Government and Opposition seize the merits of those who they in the company of our Head State honour each year at the Cenotaph? As far as those who served in the Great War are concerned there are now no longer any participants living to parade and publicly demonstrate any act of remembrance for their comrades who fell and for those who served - so if they are to be remembered at all it is entirely fitting that the remembrance of a grateful nation is officially demonstrated.

"Privately we may well honour soldiers" Well we may but that isn't quite enough is it? Doesn't quite do the job. Why? How? Just read through this thread and find out how many clowns think that "Oh what a lovely War" and "Blackadder goes Forth" are representative of anything that occurred during those terrible years.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:58 AM

"You are out of your depth here Jim."
We appear to be all out of out depths here in the face of your proclaimed infallibility.
Kitchener sent the wrong shells - he tendered his resignation, he was kept in office by his reputation as the hero of Omdurman and Kahtoum.
He offered to resign then withdrew it when he saw he could get away with it - he was one of the leasing "donkeys".
Settled - now respond the the fact that all your other arguments have been shot to pieces and stop trying to use this as a diversion
The rest of the below quoted article is well worth a read too.
Buffoon!!!
Jim Carroll

http://www.cercles.com/n21/parsons.pdf
"The admitted fact is that Lord Kitchener ordered the wrong kind of shell—the
same kind of shell that he used against the Boers in 1900. He persisted in
sending shrapnel—a useless weapon in trench warfare. He was warned
repeatedly that the kind of shell required was a violently explosive bomb
which would dynamite its way through the German trenches and
entanglements and enable our brave men to advance to safety. The kind of
shell our poor soldiers have had has caused the death of thousands of them.
Incidentally, it has brought about a Cabinet crisis and the formation of what
we hope is going to be a National Government.
This was greeted with outrage: The Times was accused of giving
sensitive information to the enemy and of undermining military and
civilian morale. Copies of The Times and the Daily Mail were burnt in the
streets and The Times was banned from a number of London clubs.
Northcliffe was, for many people in the British establishment, a cad.
Northcliffe however stuck to his guns and fought back, probably earning
grudging admiration in some quarters for having done a considerable
service to the cause of the war. Others probably never forgave him,
whether he was right or not.
It gradually became clear that there was a genuine shell shortage.
However this was not the only issue which threatened the government. At
least as significant in weakening the government's political position was
the resignation on 15 May 1915 of Lord "Jacky" Fisher, the First Sea Lord,
over the Dardanelles.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:35 AM

Jim, I have only expressed 3 views about WW1.

1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;
3: That the British army was not badly led.

The programme has not addressed 3, but has fully endorsed 1 and 2.
Deny that?

I have expressed no opinion about profiteering or the kind of shells made in our factories.
There clearly was an issue early on, so a post of Munitions Minister was created and the problem solved.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:48 AM

Teribus, good to read that you enter the discussion. Let me start with your last point, most important to me: a "grateful nation", or any other feeling held by a "nation", is simply no longer a view adequate to the world of today. Those who indulge in such emotions are easy to exploit for nationalist agendas. (Sports events have been invented to canalize the desire for collective emotions, with considerable success, but sometimes of counterproductive effect.)—

Who decides what constitutes "Fair"?

A good question. I hope one day the UN Security Council will be replaced by a tribunal similar to the Hague Tribunal, to do it authoritatively. Until then, and well afterwards, the notion of a fair and acceptable peace is similar to the one of "good music": we cannot say how exactly to compose it, but often we know it when we hear it. In other words, it is an art. Actually it is as old as humankind; anthropologists say that the invention of language (= symbolic communication) was not so much an intellectual or physiological problem, but one of trusting each other's word - to a certain extent. The extent became larger and larger; now it simply has to extend beyond national borders. The main reason is our "globalized" society and economy. The second reason is the existence of weapons of mass destruction. The third one is the presence of mass media which can produce synchronized emotions in large groups in a very short time, compared to, say, the crusades of the Middle Ages. WWI symbolizes the disastrous potential of this era, and must therefore not be remembered as any kind of victory for anyone.

Of the details of diplomacy before 1911, the following seem important to me:

1. France and Britain considered Germany a threat on a worldwide scale, i.o.w. a rival for ruling the waves and colonies. Belgium was not an object of the war, it was important only as a pawn in the propaganda game. The scenarios were prepared long before 1914 and the war crimes of German troops in Belgium.
2. Polititians, monarchs, and newspaper editors publicly fueled outrage on the other side, respectively, depriving peace advocates of good arguments against their "hawks".

The second effect is particularly relevant today. The current Iran affair is much more difficult to treat, but success now seems possible. Sanctions and military threat are necessary instruments, legitimate and efficient if used in a context of fair peace offers, as mentioned above: fair also in the eyes of reasonably-minded Iranians. Needless to say that the tackling of the Iran crises was and is far from perfect; I use this example to demonstrate that war is rarely the only option.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 10:50 AM

"Jim, I have only expressed 3 views about WW1."
That is a blatant lie
You have claimed that soldiers went willingly and knew what they were fighting for.
When facts were produced to the contrary, you denied them to the extent to calling veterans who said otherwise "liars".
You claimed that the 14 aspects of recruiting that you were given were my inventions.
You claimed that the "It'll be all over by Christmas" was another of my inventions
You'll be telling us next that your only making the claims you have because "somebody told me to say it" - oh, too late, you already have!!
Personally, I don't give a shit one way or the other whether the war was well led (though it transpires that it wasn't)
It was an obscene war for European political and economic domination for which millions of young lives were sacrificed.
Just thought you'd like a reminder of one of your postings
"There are a lot of programmes coming up you will seriously want to avoid!"
Hee-hee-hee.
By the way - Kitchener was such an embarrassment to the British establishment that there where accusations flying around at the time, still given credence in some quarters that the ship the Orkneys in which he drowned, was deliberately sunk to put him out of harms way.
Blackadder's Stephen Fry look-alike had it just about right - a military bully and buffoon.
Now please stop polluting this forum with your dishonesty
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 14 - 01:45 PM

You claimed that the "It'll be all over by Christmas" was another of my inventions

Not true. Of course it was not.
I just explained to you that it never came from the government and was certainly never a government promise.

You have claimed that soldiers went willingly and knew what they were fighting for.
Yes, that is the 2nd of my stated views, and it is true for the majority.
That is the view of historians, and also endorsed by the programmes.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 02:45 AM

Grishka:

Your first two paragraphs are just fluff, particularly the second. If there is one thing that we have learned since its creation the UN is incapable of doing anything "authoritatively" and I would just love to witness the bun fight that would surround deciding who would sit on this proposed Tribunal to determine what was "fair" in any dispute between nations. By the way where would this tribunal acquire the means with which to enforce its findings?

Governments did not create sport, sports teams, or events to "canalize" anything. Mankind's natural "tribalism" does that all on its own.

Left to the individual, in the UK, considering how things have been manipulated, within the next ten to twenty years the generations whose sacrifice we promised never to forget, will be completely forgotten and that is why, on the 11th day, of the 11th Month of each year at 11 o'clock for a period of 2 minutes everything should fall still and silent, and if our children ask us why we should tell them. Of course that can only happen if it is organised nationally.


"Of the details of diplomacy before 1911, the following seem important to me:

1: France and Britain considered Germany a threat on a worldwide scale, i.o.w. a rival for ruling the waves and colonies. Belgium was not an object of the war, it was important only as a pawn in the propaganda game. The scenarios were prepared long before 1914 and the war crimes of German troops in Belgium.

2: Politicians, monarchs, and newspaper editors publicly fueled outrage on the other side, respectively, depriving peace advocates of good arguments against their "hawks"."

Both I think are fair statements in general, but neither Great Britain or France went to war with Germany because they viewed her as a rival for either "ruling the waves" or with regard to Germany's ambitions regarding her lack of colonies. Germany declared war on France because of matters happening in the east and because of France's military alliance with Russia. Britain declared war on Germany because Germany invaded and intended the annexation of Belgium (The Security Council of UN today would call for similar action and did in recent times with respect to the Iraqi invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990).

By the way who in Great Britain in the period 1904 to 1914 would you describe as being "HAWKISH"? From my point of view it would appear that in Great Britain at that time you had only "isolationists" on one side and those who had the integrity to honour Great Britain's long standing Treaty obligations on the other - very different story in Germany.

Christmas:
The only person on this thread who has come out and repeatedly peddled lies and myth and attempted to present them as fact is yourself. Your latest:

"Kitchener was such an embarrassment to the British establishment that there where accusations flying around at the time, still given credence in some quarters that the ship the Orkneys in which he drowned, was deliberately sunk to put him out of harms way."

HMS Hampshire was sunk when she struck one of the mines laid by U-75 on the 28th May 1916. How very clever of the British establishment to contact the German navy and get them to oblige in such a fashion in the middle of such a bitter war between the countries. The wreck of HMS Hampshire I know very well along with the clear evidence of what caused her to sink and the evidence of at least three diving operations carried out on the wreck subsequent to her loss.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 03:19 AM

"Not true. Of course it was not."
For ***** sake Keith, the only response you can make to nowadays is to deny what you have written and when you are challenged, to scurry behind a carefully edited selection of quotes from a carefully selected bunch of 'historians', which in themselves are a total waste of time as they have been so misrepresented by your distortions as to contradict what they have actually said (as in the case of Gary Sheffield, who is an advisor to the programmes which have cut the legs from under all your arguments to date)
The 'Christmas' claim was not a Government statement, but neither was it just a rumour among the troops - it was part of the recruitment campaign that conned young men into giving their lives for 'their Empire'.
That, like every other recruitment campaign throughout history, is what statements and lies like that are designed to do.
Of course - you never mentioned any of this in your earlier postings, did you - after all, you have told us that you only made claims on - what was it?
"1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;
3: That the British army was not badly led."
You're a lying little bollix Keith, and so bad at it you are unable to stick to your own story
Keep on being "infallible" - it's what makes you what you are!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 04:06 AM

but neither was it just a rumour among the troops - it was part of the recruitment campaign
No it was not.

only response you can make to nowadays is to deny what you have written
I never have.

to scurry behind a carefully edited selection of quotes from a carefully selected bunch of 'historians'
Not selected at all.
There are none I have rejected.
You have found none because there are none.

Gary Sheffield, who is an advisor to the programmes which have cut the legs from under all your arguments to date
Not just Sheffield.
The programmes are "made in conjunction with The Open University" AND THEY ENDORSE MY VIEWS! (1 and 2. 3 not addressed yet.)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 04:12 AM

06 Dec 13 - 02:55 PM

Jim, your "extract" is by an Oxford historian and it 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: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 05:47 AM

Teribus, about national honourings we must agree to disagree.

If there is one thing that we have learned since its creation the UN is incapable of doing anything "authoritatively" and I would just love to witness the bun fight that would surround deciding who would sit on this proposed Tribunal to determine what was "fair" in any dispute between nations.

The former League of Nations was as you describe; the UN is still a long way to go, but - and that is the point - it has slowly gained standing, due to a slowly rising worldwide consciousness of its necessity. I mentioned three reasons which were already clearly visible in WWI, a fourth one became apparent since: the world climate and environment is in jeopardy. Consciousness must increase much more quickly in the near future. The Hague Tribunal was declared impossible by many pessimists as well, now it exists.

By the way where would this tribunal acquire the means with which to enforce its findings?

In the end, we need a literal World Police. Until then, exactly like the current Security Council, the Tribunal will rely on national governments, but with much more moral authority. Not fluffy dreaming, but necessity.

Governments did not create sport, sports teams, or events to "canalize" anything. Mankind's natural "tribalism" does that all on its own.

I was not thinking of governments; these often represent the opposite tendency: to risk real wars. Some wars in South America were even said to have been triggered by football games. Triggered, not caused.—

neither Great Britain or France went to war with Germany because they viewed her as a rival for either "ruling the waves" or with regard to Germany's ambitions regarding her lack of colonies.

Many writers are convinced that they did; rivalry in industrial performance is mentioned as a third motive (and compared to present-day China). I do not know whether this is true - we will read more in the course of this year. For my point, it suffices that they did not do enough to allay the suspicion, in a way that reasonably-minded Germans could have used as an argument against their hawks. Same vice-versa.

Iraq/Kuwait: yet another example of the very questionable moral position of the West and other powers, even though Saddam Hussein's personal villainy was beyond doubt (aptly compared to Hitler's). My UN Tribunal would have intervened much earlier, and so should the international community of peace thinkers, now known as the "Bloggers' Tribunal". No power? A lot, already now!

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 08:27 AM

Grishka, I do not believe that you have any idea of life in the times we are discussing. How would British or French views and assurances to the Germans be transmitted in a way that all those reasonably-minded Germans could then have used as an argument against their hawks?

Perhaps you think that they could all have listened to British or French news and current affairs programmes on the radio? (They couldn't as there were no such broadcasts at that time BBC started Broadcasting in October 1922).

Perhaps the British and the French could have broadcast their views in German newspapers? (Conveniently ignoring of course that what appeared in those newspapers was strictly under the control of the German Government)

The League of Nations was a joke because they failed to act in accordance with its founding principles - they were all too keen to avoid war at any price

The United Nations is generally regarded as a useless talking shop again because it fails to act in accordance with its founding principles. It is an organisation without a spine or even the vaguest inkling of moral integrity an organisation that has no authority whatsoever (Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq, etc, etc are all milestones that mark how useless it is)

The Haig Tribunal like the other organisations is only as good as the actions of those who have signed up for it and ratified it - they are damned few.

A literal World Police?? Not a hope in hell, any group of states who gather to act as such will suffer vilification from such as your community of peace thinkers if they happen to disagree with what the World Police have been empowered to do.

"neither Great Britain or France went to war with Germany because they viewed her as a rival for either "ruling the waves" or with regard to Germany's ambitions regarding her lack of colonies."

Unfortunately for those writers of yours who think that is what they did the statement in italics above remains in record as being the fact of the matter - your writers are merely expressing their own opinion and an opinion that is not supported by any of the correspondence between principals or any report written at the time. I can furnish many examples of Belgian Sovereignty being discussed between the British, the French and the Germans as representing a Casus Belli but not one relating to German Naval Power (Which in terms of building power Great Britain could always out pace Germany) or Germany's colonial ambitions which by 1904 had reached their zenith (the world had nowhere left for colonisation, German or otherwise).

In the case of Iraq and Kuwait your Tribunal would have intervened earlier to do what exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 09:21 AM

"Jim, your "extract" is by an Oxford historian and it makes clear that "over by Christmas was never a promise."
It was a recruiting ploy you dipstick - a con to send men to their deaths.
The "liar" we recorded told us that it had appeared in the heavily censored press and that the same was said by officers - a strong reason for immediate unrest among recruits was that it was proved to be a lie.
So piss off and stop evading the fact that your arguments are all dead in the water so far.
Answer some of the claims you have made that have been shot down in flames - the 'wonderful' leadership will do for a start
Defeat at Mons, wrong shells sent by the bullying Colonel Blimp in charge, the Somme would be a picnic.
Otherwise - go stuff yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 09:39 AM

No claim of mine has been "shot down."

Here again is what was said by the Oxford historian found by YOU!

"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: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 09:55 AM

Musket:

The truth about your Red Caps (Military Police - of whom there were only 3 Officers; 508 Regulars; 253 reserves in August 1914)

"Each divisional establishment included an Assistant Provost Marshal (usually a captain) and 25 NCOs of the MMP. Corps headquarters had a small detachment of MFP men. The APMs on lines of communications duties had even fewer men. As far as provost duties were concerned, no instructions existed as to what these might be, and they had to be defined and acted on as they became apparent. In France these mainly included the manning of 'stragglers' posts', traffic control, dealing with crime committed by British soldiers, the control of civilians within the battle area, handling prisoners of war, and patrolling rear areas and ports.

Of these, perhaps the operation of stragglers' posts has become the least understood, giving rise to the legend of the Redcap, pistol in hand, forcing shell-shocked Tommies forward to certain death. The facts paint an entirely different picture. Stragglers' posts or battle-stops, as they were sometimes called, were collecting points behind the front lines where prisoners of war were taken over from the infantry, runners and message-carriers were checked and directed.

Walking wounded from Regimental Aid Posts were directed to casualty collecting stations for evacuation, and 'stragglers' were dealt with. This last-named duty involved halting soldiers who were obviously neither casualties, signalers or runners, re-arming and equipping them if necessary, and sending them forward to rejoin their units, individually or in groups.

With so few MMP or MFP men available, this type of work was mostly done by 'trench police' or 'battle police', men from a division's cavalry squadron or cyclist company, regimental police or corps cavalry, who also directed traffic in communication trenches. All worked under the direction of the divisional APM.

Later in the war, a typical division in the line employed over 250 officers and men on provost duties within its area. They manned four straggler posts, provided an MP presence at the casualty collection post, operated various road traffic control posts and a number of mobile traffic patrols."

So there is another one of your cherished myths exposed or exploded. There again perhaps you have got substantiated accounts of those Red Caps forcing men to go "over the top" - but I rather tend to doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 09:58 AM

How would British or French views and assurances to the Germans be transmitted in a way that all those reasonably-minded Germans could then have used as an argument against their hawks?

You seem to have even less of an idea about those times than I. Short answer, as I gave before: newspapers. France and Germany have had a very intense relation for centuries; news, like people, traveled very quickly and without effective censorship. (In fact there was a substantial left-wing movement in Germany, profoundly critical of militarism, but eventually feeling deprived of arguments [besides being bullied by the nationalists - not by the government alone]. See e.g. the election of 1912 and the subsequent events.) News from Britain were and are studied eagerly on the continent as well; the other direction seemed to be somewhat blocked, by lack of interest.

The League of Nations was a joke because they failed to act in accordance with its founding principles

The reason was of course that all actors had their own agendas, and the consciousness for world-wide issues was underdeveloped. My impression is that it is constantly improving, though not as quickly as it should. Anyway, we have no other option, for the four reasons I gave, and many others (- think of trade regulations, research, internet spying, fight against monopolies and crime including tax evasion, copyright, ...). The idea of strong and strong-minded nations is the real joke nowadays.

A "literal World Police" differs from any self-appointed (and thus rightly vilified) one by its democratic legitimation and rule of law. A long way, but there is no other one.

Kaiser's fleet etc.: not my own theory; let those discuss who think they have the information. We agreed that the war was not about Belgium, otherwise it would have been best to let the German army pass through it, against payment of a reasonable fee for the road damages ... haha.

Kuwait: sorry, too much of a digression.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 10:10 AM

Over by Christmas??

Ah but did they say which Christmas?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 12:31 PM

"Here again is what was said by the Oxford historian found by YOU!"
The soldiers were lying again - no change there then?
Unlike you, I do not hide behind the claims of 'historians' - they wren't there - especially if they are contradicted by actual word-of-mouth evidence.
The reference to newspaper claims and men being told so by their superiors appear on various links on the web, Tommy Kenny's statement is only a personal confirmation.
Not been "shot down - are you serious - the only way you can make such a claim is by ignoring the facts put before you - in this case by Paxman's Programmes - one more time wrong shells, sending soldiers in unprepared, racketeering, dishonest recruitment... and all the other jingoistic bollocks you have pontificated on.
Why do you insist on spoiling these threads for others with your lies and distortions - does it give you the buzz you're obviously not getting elsewhere?   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Feb 14 - 12:39 PM

You construct your version of events on the 50 year old recollection of a sample of ONE out of MILLIONS!
I read History. ("Those historians should know better")

I have only ever claimed,
1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;
3: That the British army was not badly led.

The programmes endorse fully 1 and 2.
Deny that Jim?
(3 not addressed yet.)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 02:29 AM

Grishka:

I had no idea that British and French newspapers of the early 1900s had such such a wide circulation and enjoyed such popularity in Germany. Were they translated and printed in German? For them to have the effect and the circulation they would require I would suppose that they would have to have been - But of course they weren't. By the way if the German Reichstag according to your 1912 election link was so against the military autocracy of those who ruled the German Empire of the day, and they couldn't avert the war, who was it that had to read all these non-existent German versions of the British Press to alter what was going to happen?

The First World War came about because of what happened in Sarajevo, and the Austro-Hungarian and Serbian reactions to that incident. It did not come about because of any "naval race", it did not come about because the world had run out of places available for German colonisation and it did not come about because of concerns related to the industrial or manufacturing capability of the major European powers. It came about because an Austrian Archduke and heir to the throne was murdered on the 28th June and what happened in the month that followed - events over which Great Britain and France had absolutely no control whatsoever.

The actual time line from Peace to War in those summer days of 1914 was so short that no British newspaper articles were ever going to influence foreign policy of any other European power. Great Britain did go to great lengths to make Germany clearly aware of what are now commonly referred to as "red lines" were - and Germany chose to ignore them. Germany's mechanism and requirements initiated by mobilisation of her forces meant that those "red lines" would automatically be crossed, all the other parties (The Austro-Hungarians, the French, the Russians, the Serbs and the British) could all reverse the process once mobilisation had been ordered - the Germans couldn't.

The League of Nations was a joke because all the actors had their own agendas - exactly the same can be said and demonstrated about the United Nations. Your "literal World Police" would be responsible and accountable to? The United Nations or this Tribunal that you proposed? Now what makes you think that the Tribunal members would not have their own agendas? Count out the number of democratic countries in the world today and you will find that they are represented in the UN as a minority (You get a fair idea of how ludicrous the UN is when countries such as Libya and Zimbabwe are made chair of the UN committee on Human Rights - utterly ridiculous, and it serves to make the organisation a laughing stock.)

Your "literal World Police", no-one would give it any resources, manpower or material, of course in the "talking shop" much would be promised, nothing would be delivered, those in dispute would not only ignore it but actively engage it were it ever to attempt to enforce any of your Tribunals rulings. Those are the realities that would have meant that in the case of Iraq and Kuwait and in Syria your Tribunal, and its "literal World Police" would have been powerless to intervene and therefore able to do nothing.

The Kaiser's Fleet? Great Britain could always outmatch Germany's shipbuilding programme. If this was indeed a factor then surely Britain would have started the war earlier in order to guarantee her victory? That would have made more sense wouldn't it? After all it was in 1906 with the launching of HMS Dreadnought that Great Britain's naval superiority in terms of numbers of ships shrank overnight to that of one ship, and it was her mentor and advocate Jackie Fisher who stated in a letter in 1912 that:

Moderation in war is imbecility - hit first, hit hard and keep on hitting.

Not exactly the words of a man who would advocate giving the Germans time to catch up so that the playing field was level before taking them on.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:00 AM

"I have only ever claimed,
1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;
3: That the British army was not badly led"
A lie repeated remains I lie and an idiot repeating that lie remains an idiot.
I outlined what you supported - lying about it only compounds your idiocy
And no - both programmes highlighted the idiocy of the military leadership and both dealt in depth with the dishonesty and ruthlessness of the eventually failed recruiting drive which made sure that the British people certainly did not know why they were fighting.
"I read History"
Utter bollocks - it's been long established that the nearest you come to reading is cut-'n -pastes, and you appear not to read them properly
I'd join Terrytoon in his bar-room-table-top war games if I were you - at least you'll have a fellow idiot to talk to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:08 AM

I do not lie Jim.
If I have claimed anything else, produce it.

BOTH PROGRAMMES ENDORSE MY VIEWS.
1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;
(3: That the British army was not badly led )

DO YOU DENY THAT JIM??????????????????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:11 AM

""Jim, your "extract" is by an Oxford historian and it makes clear that "over by Christmas was never a promise."
It was a recruiting ploy you dipstick - a con to send men to their deaths."

Now let's take a look at how ridiculous what appears above in italics actually is.

"over by Christmas" was a recruiting ploy? OK then show us the recruiting posters from the time that state this. Of course "The man who just makes up shit" cannot do that because they simply do not exist. They do not exist because no-one in Government and no-one in the British Armed Forces believed for one nano-second that it would be "over by Christmas". Keith has quite correctly attributed where this popular misconception came from and it most certainly was not from any "official" source, or from any recruiting campaign.

"a con to send men to their deaths" Is that what Governments and military leaders think when they send their forces off to fight? Is that their aim, of course they know full well that that is what will happen, but they send those men off in the sincere belief that the bulk of the dying will be done by the enemy - if they did not believe that then they wouldn't send them off in the first place.

Mons: Outnumbered two-to-one in terms of men and artillery the British fought a successful retreat and held up the advance of the German Army in front of them. For every British soldier that died at Mons three Germans were killed.

Le Cateau: Again the British although being forced to retreat against superior German numbers still prevented a German breakout, prevented the Germans from outflanking the French armies to the east and again delayed the advance of the German Army.

Marne: Against a larger German force the combined British and French Armies defeated the Germans and brought the German Schlieffen Plan as modified by Moltke to a grinding halt. The essential key to the entire German strategy for fighting this war was to achieve a swift victory in the West over the British and the French, this defeat on the Marne for the German army killed off any hope of that. Germany was now committed and forced to fight a war of attrition on two fronts, the one thing that Germany had sought to avoid at all costs.

Fast forward a couple of years to 1916 and the -

Somme: Some truths about the Battle of the Somme
- Haig did not want to fight it but was ordered to do so by the French who commanded the Allied armies.
- Greatest number of casualties suffered by the British Army ever in one day.
- Ground was taken, objectives were made in the course of the campaign and pressure was taken off the French.
- British losses were severe, but very important lessons were learned
- Most important and significant of all was that after the Battle of the Somme the Germans finally began to realise that they could not win on the Western Front, because they had suffered too and while Great Britain and the French could replenish their losses the Germans fighting on two fronts could not.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:46 AM

"How about your view of the most decisive battle?"
"I would argue that the single most decisive battle came two years earlier, on the Somme." (Dr. Gary Sheffield, left wing military historian)
http://www.historynet.com/interview-with-military-historian-gary-sheffield.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:15 AM

Teribus,

I had no idea that British and French newspapers of the early 1900s had such such a wide circulation and enjoyed such popularity in Germany. Were they translated and printed in German?

You do not seem to know much about the Continent at all, neither about the history of mass media. For centuries, there have been hosts of so-called correspondents in all capitals, who read all the local newspapers and journals, and also had/have their own sources of information, to report them to their home media, translated or summarized. Furthermore, many international travelers were able to spread factual news quickly, so that these could not be censored effectively. Such news included statements from foreign statesmen, and the opinions of the leading foreign media. (Publishers' own opinions were a different matter: consistently socialist propaganda in print was indeed forbidden in Germany, as opposed to France.) Non-nationalist press products existed in all countries and had many readers, but in the end, they caved in without being forced physically. The same applies to the powerful Social Democratic Party of Germany, as you have read.

All countries involved had factions of differing goals and priorities, often not really thought through (- "sleepwalkers" and "donkeys"). The only autocrat was the tsar, and in the end his power proved very limited as well.

Your ideas about international politics are from the 19th century altogether. Of course, everybody has her or his own agenda; the art of civilization is to make people cooperate. Progress exists, because it is seen to be necessary, as I elaborated. Whenever it lags behind the other aspects of human interaction, disasters like the WWs are imminent.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:49 AM

You know that you said what I claimed Keith - in among what you said
My description of having recorded Tommy Kenny, your calling him a liar - Your denial of the list of reasons for enlisting, your introduction of Max Hastings, the quotes from the McGill book.... all have been removed from this thread
Everything prior to the 1st of December has been removed by the administrators - months of postings
You must havebeen as awre of this as the rest of us have,
If you are using this to claim you didn't say what you have said - you are a spinelessly stupid liar to deny it in public.
As I said - your whole case has been shot down in flames and all you can to is walk away from it.
Christ - this forum needs to be protected from people whos use it the way you have.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 08:59 AM

Jim, the earlier debate was on the Armistice thread.
Nothing has been removed.
I have not claimed anything but my 3 stated views.
DO YOU DENY THAT THE PROGRAMMES ENDORSE BOTH THOSE ADDRESSED?????

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 09:23 AM

Grishka,

Of all the populations in all the major powers in Europe in the summer of 1914 none embraced the prospect of war as enthusiastically as the Germans. There were some 3,600 different newspapers in Germany pandering to various political party lines and class distinctions, those of the SDP started out as anti-war for as long as the conflict seemed to be restricted to Austria and Serbia, but as soon as news of Russia's mobilisation appeared those same newspapers changed their tune.

Throughout the first three weeks of July the level of reporting of foreign news in German newspapers was heavily restricted, according to Jeffrey Verhey (The Spirit of 1914 - Miltarism, Myth and Mobilisation in Germany - Cambridge University Press) So it would not have mattered very much what was being thought elsewhere, it would not have been reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:03 AM

Teribus, good to see that you caught up with your reading. Now remember that I was talking about the years before 1914. Indeed, German society "changed its tune" in a way that cannot be justified, but understood as a lesson to the whole world for the future. Besides, do not confuse militarism with military dictatorship - entirely different notions!

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 11:42 AM

So Jim, months of discussion was not deleted by the administrators.
Once again, you were wrong and I was right, as usual.

You now have no excuse not to produce all those claims I never made.
Bad luck.

Now,
DO YOU DENY THAT THE PROGRAMMES ENDORSED BOTH OF MY VIEWS THAT WERE ADDRESSED?????

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 01:41 PM

DO YOU DENY THAT THE PROGRAMMES ENDORSED BOTH OF MY VIEWS THAT WERE ADDRESSED?????

No need to shout, confirmed idiot( by your own system of logic & research). If he doesn't, I certainly do. You need yo work on your English comprehension, if nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 03:26 PM

I did not shout the first few times I asked and was ignored.
How can you agree or deny if you have not seen the programmes Greg.
It shows that your opinion is worthless.
I ask Jim again,
DO YOU DENY THAT THE PROGRAMMES ENDORSED BOTH OF MY VIEWS THAT WERE ADDRESSED????

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Feb 14 - 05:00 PM

if you have not seen the programmes Greg.

How do you know I have not seen the programs (a.k.a. programmes), and/or are not aware of their content, oh confirmed idiot?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 01:46 AM

If you had you would have mentioned it?
Are you claiming that you have, and denying that my views were endorsed?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 04:40 AM

Let me explain it in simple terms for an idiot to understand Greg.

Jim knows that if he denies it I will immediately produce quotes that will prove him wrong.
That is why he tries to pretend it is not happening, and why I keep taunting him with it.

He will now be hoping that you will take the bullet for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 07:07 AM

DO YOU DENY THAT THE PROGRAMMES ENDORSED BOTH OF MY VIEWS THAT WERE ADDRESSED?????
Of course they were't - not in the slightest degree
You claimed that the war was well led
The first programme dealt with the Mons fiasco - the fact that the British Government sent troops there to be slaughtered, humiliated and finally forced to retreat, a premature action by a Government "sleepwalking into war" as one of the professional historians entitled his book.
Both programmes made it clear that the Mons fiasco showed that the premature knee-jerk reaction of the British military had totally misjudged German military strength and that rather than send in the undersized, under-trained and totally unprepared existing army, it was necessary to create one capable of putting up a fight rather - it took 18 months to come to terms with this fact, before they copped on and introduced compulsory conscription.
The second programme dealt with Kitchener's blunder in providing the wrong shells and his proffering his resignation over the affair, eventually having to be prepared.
The end of programme two showed how Britain was totally misjudge the resistance of the Germans on the Somme, how troops, led on to believing that they would only need "umbrellas as cover" by (heavily censored and manipulated) press reports and by the same being told to them by their officers and were cut down by massive resistance.
The British people's understanding of and commitment to the war.
That the "war would be over by Christmas was one of the pieces of misinformation put out by both the (heavily censored and manipulated) press and by the officers in charge.
The last programme also dealt with the uncontrolled profiteering of landlords and businesses which was only acted on when people were thrown out of their homes and began to mount protests - where does this fit into a "well conducted " war?
What part of any of this "ENDORSED" one single one of your views.
As you seem totally incapable of handling anything larger than a cut-'n-paste" I'll deal with the people's consciousness of what they were fighting for later.
I will also deal with your lie about never commenting on anything else in full - and thoroughly enjoy doing so.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 08:06 AM

By the way - don't fart-arse around by trying to disprove the finding of the programmes by skulking behind 'Expert witnesses'
You said they back up your jingoistic theories - they don't.
This is addressed to Keith and the Chocolate Soldier with his pub-back-room war games
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 09:05 AM

I claimed that the army was well led, because that is what military historians say.
I am not so arrogant as to think I know better.
I do know that Mons was no fiasco.
The programmes have not addressed the army and its leadership.

That leaves two of my stated views, both of which are endorsed in both programmes.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 09:12 AM

BOTH PROGRAMMES ENDORSE MY VIEWS.
1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;

"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."

"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"

Deny that Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 09:28 AM

"I claimed that the army was well led, because that is what military historians say."
The ones you have selected do (or one of them does - will go into the fact that the only historian who backs your claims about leadership is the one doing a study on General Hague - the rest say nothing of substance on the matter.
"I am not so arrogant as to think I know better"
Good - you know nothing beyond your cut-'n-pastes and you don't understand them fully!
Are you really admitting not to being 'infallible' about something - a move in the right direction at least!
"The programmes have not addressed the army and its leadership."
The programmes addressed the fact that the officers and Kitcheners recruiters misled the soldiers on the duration of the war and the ease in which the Somme would be fought - crap leadership.
The upper echelons of the military should have been well aware of the impossibility of Mons and should have advised against it - they didn't and thousands of men lost their lives in meaningless slaughter.
The Battle of Loos was a similar failure
"French had already been criticised before the battle and lost his remaining support in both the Government and Army as a result of the British failure at Loos and his perceived poor handling of his reserve divisions in the battle.[19] He was replaced by Haig as Commander of the British Expeditionary Force in December 1915.[20]"
The Programmes haven't dealt with Loos yet - next week possibly
Crap leadership from the very top to the officers on the ground telling porkies.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 10:30 AM

In have not selected any historians.
You can find none because there are none.

The programmes addressed the fact that the officers and Kitcheners recruiters misled the soldiers on the duration of the war and the ease in which the Somme would be fought

No they did not.
You just made that up.

The upper echelons of the military should have been well aware of the impossibility of Mons and should have advised against it

You mean they should have asked the Germans not to attack them with overwhelming numbers?

Even Niall Ferguson, the one Historian who thinks a German victory would have been a good outcome, acknowledges that the Germans would have won in 1914 but for the BEF.

the officers on the ground telling porkies.

A lie and a slander against brave men Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 10:31 AM

BOTH PROGRAMMES ENDORSE MY VIEWS.
1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;

"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."

"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"

Deny that Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 14 - 02:04 PM

You called me liar for saying I only made my 3 claims.
You have failed to produce one more.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:29 AM

Musket (Darwin Thread!)
I notice your mate Sheffield was back-pedalling in the paper this morning.

Sheffield published this, 9th Feb 2014.

" but by refusing to set the commemorations into the context of the origins of the war and the aggression of the Central Powers, this is exactly what it has done. Merely commemorating the sacrifice of British troops without explaining why they died tacitly gives support to the dominant popular view that the war was futile and the deaths meaningless. So does the fact that the original programme of official commemorations included defeats such as Gallipoli and the First Day on the Somme, but omitted the great victories of 1918 that won the war, such as Amiens and the breaking of the Hindenburg Line."

" It is hard to overestimate the extent to which the idea of the war being 'futile' and the battles meaningless bloodbaths conducted by callous and criminally incompetent generals is (to use an appropriate word) 'entrenched'. In a two-decade career as a public historian, putting forward alternative views on television, radio and in the press, I have become well aware that daring to suggest that Blackadder Goes Forth is not actually a documentary brings forth paroxysms of anger."
http://www.historytoday.com/gary-sheffield/great-war-was-just-war

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 02:32 AM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 04:06 AM

"You have failed to produce one more."
Now you are lying again
You have tried to to wriggle out of all your claims by my having mistakenly confused two thread - they are part of the same argument
You claimed that troops went to war with the 'Land of hope and Glory' and @Gallant little Belgium' jingoistic bullshit under their belts and that something like 80 percent of them returned with the same opinions.
That was your statement and you trawled up tabloid journalist to back your arguments
You claimed that they knew what they were fighting for and you claimed that the list of reasons I presented for joining up was my own invention
Again - you used your tabloid journalist and a single quote from a veteran's notebook to make your case.
You called the soldier we recorded a "liar" because his account of things didn't match up with your own
I produced a large piece written by a wounded veteran after the battle of Loos - Patrick McGill - you ignored it because it didn't match up with your agenda
You did the same with all the soldiers who fought and wrote about their experiences - Sassoon, Owen - even established historians like Liddel- Hart - all "liars, romantics and revisionists".
"The war will be over by Christmas", "land fit for heroes to live in" "white feathers and other recruiting methods" "soldiers diaries", moral in the trenches, the war being a struggle between empires, who was to blame for the war, Belgian atrocities, recruiting posters
All this and more you have argued - all about World War one, whatever thread they were on.
How can you possibly claim you have only argued on three points - are you ****** totally insane?
You have contradicted the views of others on all these points and more, on this thread and the Armistice one - all WW1 and all part of your twisted jingoistic agenda.
These programmes have totally destroyed all your arguments on every single point you have made - you have now retreated to three of them (your own personal Alamo) and are attempting to save face (as you always do) by denying facts that are scuppering your arguments week-by-week.
Despite claiming that you have deeply "studied WW1", you have yet to provide one shred of your having a personal knowledge or even interest in the subject - nothing from your own reading - every singly one hastily gathered cut-'n-pastes.
Your performance on all these threads are little more than an egotistical display of knowledge that you do not possess - you have even claimed "infallibility" one one of your subjects and referred to your arguments as "casting pearls before swine" - you are a meglomanic nutter.
DO NOT CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE ARGUED ON - your arguments you have retreated to are apparently the ones you believe you can bullshit your way out of- though Paxman and his crew manage to whip the carpet from under your feet every time he opens his mouth.
Wonder what tomorrow will bring - the Loos armaments blunder by Haig maybe?
You are obviously intending to ruin all the threads you appear on with your arrogance and ignorance - now you are making te a Mudcat version of the old Blackpool magazine 'Billy's weekly Liar'

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 04:26 AM

Paxman and his crew manage to whip the carpet from under your feet every time he opens his mouth.

"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."

"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"

In those 2 quotes, spoken slowly and carefully to camera in the programmes, "Paxman and his crew" (The Open University) endorse two of my three viewpoints, which really are all I have claimed in this whole debate.
Do not just call that a lie.
Find one.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 04:45 AM

same History Today piece. (Title "Great War Was A just War")

"She was responding to the journalist and historian Max Hastings, who had stated that most historians held Germany and Austria-Hungary primarily responsible for the outbreak of the First World War. While recently there has been an attempt to spread the blame, particularly by pinning responsibility on Russia, this indeed remains the mainstream position among serious historians. In the debate over war guilt, what happened next is often ignored. However the conflict started, Germany took full advantage to carry out a war of conquest and aggression. Britain's First World War was a war of national survival, a defensive conflict fought at huge cost against an aggressive enemy bent on achieving hegemony in Europe."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 06:18 AM

"Find one."
You are the only one who persistently indulges in cherry-picking favourable out-of-context quotes to make your shambolic case - this has been pointed out to you on many occasions
You have been given many points arising from the programme which has shown the war to have been prematurely misconceived (Mons), poorly supplied (Mons and the Somme) and dishonestly promoted by lying propaganda - that has been the main thrust of both programmes so far - you have totally refused to to respond to that fact, indulging in snippets which you claim make your case - they don't - what you are indulging in are diversion tactics to draw away from the main conclusions
The war was a struggle between two dying Empires, troops were sent into murderous battle untrained and inadequately armed, Both Kitchener and French, ("French had already been criticised before the battle and lost his remaining support in both the Government and Army as a result of the British failure at Loos"), officers and the press lied to the men on the possible duration of the war, men were conned and pressurised into joining up by distorted propaganda and moral blackmail, sixteen Christians were executed because of their religious convictions, the star recruiter for the slaughter became a millionaire overnight profiteering on young mans lives, landlords and businesses leeched on the families of fighting servicemen... they are the salient points to have come out of the programme so far - not your cherry-picked cut-'n-pastes DENY THAT!!!
You have openly lied about what you have passed comment on now you are trying to snatch some sort of victory from utter defeat of your Jingoistic crap
Now piss off and let the rest of us have an intelligent discussion - you tub-thumping moron
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Feb 14 - 06:36 AM

What's all that bollocks about people saying the war had to be fought?

Judging today's enlightenment and reasoning by yesterday's propaganda again are we Keith?

By today's standards the government would be in the dog house with the public for failing to sort issues through what Churchill called "jaw jaw not war war." So would the German government. The Kaiser wouldn't have the power he wielded in today's Europe. Look how democracy in the east of Europe is only slowly progressing because fearing and supporting dictators is still so natural. Many Russians follow Putin despite his oppression of them. He gets away with homophobia whilst portraying himself as a gay icon for fucks sake. We tend to be more sophisticated in the west. Hence you can't pass modern judgements on historical values.

To judge by today's standards is false. For instance, propaganda would have been easier in those days as most people were naturally gullible. The high numbers of people attending church and believing all that mind fuck being a prime example of how impressionable people were in those days.