Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]


BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

DigiTrad:
CHRISTMAS 1914
CHRISTMAS IN THE TRENCHES


Related threads:
(origins) Origins: Christmas in the Trenches (McCutcheon) (71)
Lyr Add: Christmas 1914 (Cormac MacConnell) (34)
Christmas Truce (5)
Lyr Req: Christmas in the Trenches (J McCutcheon) (13)
The Christmas Truce (14)
WW 1 christmas song (16) (closed)
Lyr Req: A Silent Night (Christmas 1915) (20)
Lyr Req: Christmas in the trenches (9)
(origins) Origins: Song about Xmas & WWI (3) (closed)
Xmas in the Trenches Survivor Dies (41)
Musical Question - Christmas, 1914 (14)
Lyr Req: Christmas day 1960something? / 1914 (3) (closed)
Chords Req: Christmas in the Trenches (20)
Lyr Req: Belleau Wood (Garth Brooks) (23)
Lyr Req: Christmas in the Trenches (4) (closed)


bobad 08 Jan 14 - 08:05 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 08:00 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 07:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 07:24 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 14 - 07:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 07:10 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 14 - 06:17 AM
McGrath of Harlow 08 Jan 14 - 05:57 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Jan 14 - 05:32 AM
GUEST,Musket 08 Jan 14 - 04:50 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 14 - 04:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 04:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 03:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Jan 14 - 03:30 AM
GUEST,Musket 08 Jan 14 - 01:30 AM
Greg F. 07 Jan 14 - 05:35 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 01:44 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 01:38 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Jan 14 - 01:05 PM
GUEST,Musket 07 Jan 14 - 12:31 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 14 - 12:16 PM
McGrath of Harlow 07 Jan 14 - 11:57 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 14 - 10:52 AM
Allan C. 07 Jan 14 - 10:37 AM
Greg F. 07 Jan 14 - 10:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 10:03 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 09:22 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 14 - 08:14 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 06:31 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 14 - 06:30 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 06:25 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 14 - 05:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 04:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 04:46 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 14 - 04:44 AM
GUEST,Musket MC 07 Jan 14 - 04:41 AM
GUEST,Grishka 07 Jan 14 - 04:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 04:04 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 14 - 03:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 03:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Jan 14 - 03:14 AM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Jan 14 - 05:54 PM
Greg F. 06 Jan 14 - 05:08 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 14 - 04:26 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 14 - 04:01 PM
McGrath of Harlow 06 Jan 14 - 02:56 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 14 - 12:25 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Jan 14 - 12:20 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 14 - 12:14 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 14 - 11:11 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: bobad
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 08:05 AM

"Looming First World War anniversary sparks ideological battle over conflict's merits and blame"

Jill Lawless, Associated Press


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 08:00 AM

Jim, re your last post, Max Hastings is still an acclaimed military historian.
I showed you that the Guardian refers to him as that so what is your opinion worth.

In amongst all that tosh you posted and I alone read, there was one obscure historian who questioned that Britain should have gone to war.

No other historian now says that, and that is why none of you have found one.

No historian would challenge that the British people overwhelmingly believed the war just and necessary, and that is why none of you have found one.

No military historian would challenge that the British Army was generally well led, and that is why none of you have found one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 07:27 AM

Professor Gary Sheffield is one of Britain's foremost military historians. He specialises in Britain at war, 1914-45, and is the author of a number of acclaimed histories, including the best-selling Forgotten Victory: The First World War – Myths and Realities (2001) and The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army (2011), which was chosen as a military book of the year by The Times and was shortlisted for the Duke of Westminster's Medal for Military Literature. In 2003, he shared the Templer Medal for Military Literature for his contribution to The British General Staff: Innovation and Reform (2002). His other works include Douglas Haig: War Diaries and Letters (edited with John Bourne, 2005); Leadership in the Trenches: Officer-Man Relations, Morale and Discipline in The British Army in the Era of the First World War (2000). He is working on a study of the British and Dominion soldier in the Second World War, and, with Dr John Bourne, on a scholarly edition of the First World War papers of General Sir Henry Rawlinson.

A Fellow of both the Royal Historical Society and the Royal Society of Arts, he was educated at the University of Leeds (BA, MA) and gained his PhD from King's College, London. He currently holds the Chair of War Studies at the University of Birmingham, and was formerly Land Warfare Historian on the Higher Command and Staff Course at the Joint Services Staff College, where his students included many of today's most senior generals, admirals and air marshals. Professor Sheffield often appears on television and radio, and writes regularly for the press. He sits on the Advisory Board of the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute, and is Regimental Historian of The Rifles.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 07:24 AM

"Gary Sheffield has established himself as one of the foremost authorities on the British Army of the First World War."
Profesor Saul David, University of Buckingham.
http://www.garysheffield-historian.com/

Jim who?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 07:20 AM

"Kevin, it may not be an exact Science, but if all the research leads to the same conclusion you can not dismiss it."
As often as you repeat this lie, it in no way backs your claims, this This includes Gary Sheffield, which has been pointed out to you and you have now decided to ignore.
Wonder what happened to Max Miller, or whatever the name of that journalist is you kept describing as a historian.
You've had your list of living historians - you said they were too long and complicated to read and understand - must have been a pretty long list for YOU not to be able to read and understand it (chortle)
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 07:10 AM

Kevin, it may not be an exact Science, but if all the research leads to the same conclusion you can not dismiss it.

Musket, I am not being selective in who I quote. That is all there is. THAT IS WHY CAN'T NONE OF YOU CAN SELECT AN ALTERNATIVE?

Jim, I am sure the renowned and acclaimed historian Dr. Gary Sheffield is pissing himself that you think him a fraud.
Name a living historian you do approve of!

Dave, your link does not refer to the work of one single living historians. What is so good about it? Is it not just some random person's uninformed opinions?

The fact remains, I have produced numerous quotes from many historians contradicting the old, discredited version, and no-one has managed to find a single living historian still supporting it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 06:17 AM

"Historical academic study is not some kind of exact science. "
Historical academic study, when done openly and without agenda, is an invaluable guide to the detail of the past - general truths seldom get turned on their head by such study - if ever.
Historical study is given a bad name when it is used by zealots like Keith to push an agenda - in his case - Britain never does and has never done anything wrong.
I posted a correction which appears to have gone astray, to my previous posting which should read
"World War TWOwas the consequence of the mishandling of the peace brought
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 05:57 AM

Historical academic study is not some kind of exact science. The judgements made by academic historians shouldn't be treated as if they were precise measurements. They are opinions, based on available information and are always provisional.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 05:32 AM

Very good article here on historical revisionism. Not that I would have taken any notice of anything by Michael Gove. Particularly printed in the Daily Mail. Some people would though, apparently...

DtG


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:50 AM

The real me is dismayed that these debates fall to this level, and I am guilty of exacerbating it, but being polite whilst doling it out doesn't make it any less abusive. To be honest, I still see my posts as a reaction, not a starting point.

Your attachment to a selected number of sources and proclaiming that any debate has to take them as read is not encouraging debate. I have read most of your sources, and before this and the other thread started. I too am fascinated by military history.

But I cannot accept selective sources as full stop "official so there" accounts. You do this in every thread where someone else notes a figure, statistic or source, you go out of your way to either find something to challenge it (good idea and not knocking it in principle) or misinterpret it, (again, perspective adds to debate.). But then you dig your heels in, which is where the debate turns to ridicule. I fail to see any alternative.

How you would deal with some real life conflicts in sources I don't know. As an aside, I have two reports on my desk, both December publications and both acknowledged by Dept of Health as the "official" figures. One set (Dr Foster) puts the hospital I am sat in as one of the best performers in the country with regard to preventable mortality. The other, (SHMI) reckons it is one of the worst. Using the same raw data, the same weighting etc. I suppose people waving "truth" at me washes off after a while.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:21 AM

I have become sick to the stomach of Keith's one-man 'patriotic' nit-picking attempts to apportion blame for and efforts to whitewash the horrors and lies surrounding the mindless carnage that was World War One.
His arguments, when looked ate, are based on two 'witnesses' a tabloid journalist an a military historian who is employed by the Army to teach history (Gary Sheffield) - all the others may have made passing comments on the subject, but are no more than passing references to various points on our understanding of some aspects on the war, but boiled down, his 'star witnesses are a Daily Mail journalist and a British Army employee.
One of his 'witnesses' has actually written a book describing Britain as having "sleepwalked into World War One".
Max Hastings has been described as "weak on the causes of World War One" by a real historian - (a point Keith has refused to respond to to date).
Sheffield's argument is based on the entirely false premise that the popular misconception is that war was fought over "trivial issues".
"I was influenced by what amounted to a "national perception" of the Great War as an utterly futile conflict, fought over trivial issues."
Nobody seriously argues that the war was "trivial" except flag-wavers of the Keith school of non-thought who put it down to a humanitarian gesture to help "poor little Belgium", a genocidal regime whose crimes the world didn't even acknowledge, let alone attempt to prevent, or the assassination of an Arch-Duke.
As far I I understand it, the war was a clash between Empires for economic and political domination - nothing more or less than that, and undisputed by any historian, including Gary Sheffield.
World War was the consequence of the mishandling of the peace brought
attained by the heroes who risked and gave their lives for a hard-won victory - that mishandling included the appeasement and sometimes open support of Hitler and his Nazi monsters who could and should have been stopped by Britain and the Allies - but weren't.
Keith has once again attempted to make this latter fact "off topic"; we are apparently being told that soldiers who fight wars should have no say in why they are fought and what the consequences are.
Keith claims that "all historians" support his view - in fact no historian supports his view as to why men joined up or why the war was fought - none whatever.
In fact, the long document he has described as "unreadable" makes the point that it is both wrong and stupid to attempt to apportion blame for the war as all were a responsible, albeit to different degrees.
It was little more than five years of horror, where mainly working men on both sides were set to slaughter each other in the mud of Europe to maintain Imperial political and economic dominance of the world markets - it turned out to the beginning of the end of those Empires - its early death-throes.
As many people have said, we may have won the war, but the people who fought it lost the peace - that is what needs to be discussed in the coming year - no who was to blame for it all.
Personally, my interest in this, and all wars is peripheral.
As a pacifist (sort of) I regard all wars as evil and avoidable.
My mother's mother's husband died on the Somme; her second husband used to frighten the life out of me as a child with his horrific scars from being burned by mustard gas.
My father's brother, my Uncle Gerry, was a war hero in world war two, decorated for bravery as a commando attached to a tank regiment.
He was among those who entered the concentration camps and witnessed the real horrors of war.
He never spoke about it, and we never knew of his military record, other than to see him 'jump' in a military parachute display in a Liverpool park when I was a youth.
He was elevated enormously in my estimation when I found that he was later court martialed for refusing to be sent to participate in the (little-talked-about) Greek Civil war- he said he was horrified by the photographs of soldiers carrying the heads of Greek partisans in order to collect a bounty on them.
As I said, I'm sick of garbage from people like Keith who turn these wars into fights between 'goodies and baddies'
I agree with the feller who said that patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels, usually cowardly and dishonest ones with an axe to grind.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 04:11 AM

I posted this quote on the other thread.

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 03:40 AM

Musket, you explain exactly how I feel most of the time.

I do not understand why you feel that about me.
The only views I expressed were that Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught, the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that, and that the British army was not badly led.

Debatable but not inflammatory.

The rest of my contribution has just been backing those views with quotes from recognised and acclaimed historians.
Why does that make you angry?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 03:30 AM

I have quoted several military historians about the significance of the Somme.
You have the retention of a goldfish Greg.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 01:30 AM

Maybe Kevin, but when exasperation sets in, abuse can be somewhat cathartic.

Anyway, when debate fails in its aim, what is left? Just a simple non equivocal way of saying there is little point in trying to educate pork?

Damn, there I go again....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 05:35 PM

but most military historians would challenge that

Nonsense, Keith. As has been amply demonstrated. Your repeating your BS won't make it true.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 01:44 PM

the outcome of episodes such as the Somme attack, in which enormous losses were sustained for absolutely no gain does not leave open the possibility that objectively the tactics involved were anything other than disastrous and mistaken.

That may be your view Kevin, but most military historians would challenge that, for instance the two commissioned to write for the BBC history site.
I have quoted and linked to it several times.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 01:38 PM

Kevin.
The factt is, large numbers of men did volunteer in the early part of the war. Whether they were misled into doing that or not is a subjective judgement, not a "fact" - basically it comes down to whether you ggree with their choice or not

We know from research done on letters, diaries and surveys of veterans that they overwhelmingly believed and continued to believe that the war was both right and necessary.

That it WAS right an necessary is disputable, but the overwhelming consensus among historians is that it was.
That happens to be my view too.
Anyone can disagree, but the historians are not all stupid cunts so I should not be dismissed in that way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 01:05 PM

Nothing two-faced or open to interpretation about it perhaps, but it's a totally irrelevant insult. What is significant in a discussion isn't whether we like somebody or not, it's whether we agree with them or not. We might think someone is a total bastard, and yet completely right, or that they are are lovely, and completely wrong.

Personal insults are about as in place as much as they would be in court id the prosecuting counsel ended his summing up by saying "and moreover my lord, the accused has bad breath".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 12:31 PM

Nothing two faced or open to interpretation about calling someone a cunt. It's playing with a straight bat, showing the maker's name. Still the best way to score a boundary.

The insults begin when people cannot debate. The insults begin when the awful carnage due to poor decision making and callous disregard for your own soldiers is portrayed as necessary sacrifice.

I think you might call it appropriate reaction.




BAARRRHHHH!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 12:16 PM

By the way Keith
Just checked my facts to make sure I hadn't remembered wrongly
I may have been mistaken about when exactly timing of Lloyd George's statement, it was made when you said and it was totally reneged on.
I have no doubt you will attempt to score some sick point on this, but it does not alter in any way the fact that the men who fought were totally betrayed by the government who sent them to die.
The fact that you have refused even to address that betrayal sums up completely the dishonest of your case
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 11:57 AM

The factt is, large numbers of men did volunteer in the early part of the war. Whether they were misled into doing that or not is a subjective judgement, not a "fact" - basically it comes down to whether you ggree with their choice or not. Equally true, even larger numbers of men did not volunteer but were later in the war compelled to join as conscripts whatever their wishes. But those kind of issues aren't ones where the views of academic historians are partiularly relevant.

The suggestion that there was no choice for Britain but to go to war in 1914 is very dubious indeed. Germany did not declare war on Britain, and there was no indication whatsoever of any wish to do so. What is true is that Germany did attack France, and invade Belgium in the course of doing so. Failing to declare war might have meant evading treaty commitments - but then invading Belgium involved Germany in not complying with treaty commitments. All countries break treaties when it suits them. Britain has definitely done so. Declaring war was a matter of choice.

Once again, it's not a matter of what academic historians decide, but of a judgement about what was the right thing to do - which is coloured by our knowledge of what the consequences were of the decision made. (There is an ambiguity in the the term "right" involved here. A choice that is "right" in one sense may well be catstrophically wrong in the other sense.)

As for the question as to the competence of the military command, while it may be that historians can bring to bear on it a fuller understanding of how the relevant decisions were made, and that could make it more possible to see them as rational, the outcome of episodes such as the Somme attack, in which enormous losses were sustained for absolutely no gain does not leave open the possibility that objectively the tactics involved were anything other than disastrous and mistaken.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 10:52 AM

"You are immersed in all that far-left propaganda Jim.
Your actual knowledge of the war period is trivial."
An accusation of ignorance is the usual response of being driven into a corner and having no answer

War to end all wars - originated by H G Wells as a disparaging in a book with a similar name
It became popular during the war and was attributed to both Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson
It was used throughout the war and was said to have been treated with disparagement by the British people
Acknowledgement of its use as a slogan was confirmed by the following comment following the war.
"Field-Marshal Earl Wavell said despondently of the Paris Peace Conference: "After the 'war to end war', they seem to have been in Paris at making the 'Peace to end Peace'".

It was never a general aspiration - it started life as an acid comment before the war began and was taken up as a slogan to persuade people to go.
"A land fit for heroes to live in" was a pledge made by the coalition government to the soldiers returning home.
While it was never a slogan during the war, the promise of a better life for those who fought was implied throughout the war and finally articulated in a speech by Lloyd George in 1918.
What treatment those returning received "is not extreme left propaganda" - it is exactly as I have set out.
Your refusal to debate the fact that they were betrayed and the Government of the day flirted with the fascists underlines your extremism.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Allan C.
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 10:37 AM

One thing is perfectly clear: the two of you are foremost in the field of beating a dead horse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 10:29 AM

all that far-left propaganda

Is that supposed to be amusing?

Jesus continues to weep.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 10:03 AM

You are immersed in all that far-left propaganda Jim.
Your actual knowledge of the war period is trivial.

At least now you know that,
The "land fit for heroes" pledge was made at the end of the war.

"War to end wars" was a general hope and aspiration, not a promise made by anyone to anyone, and certainly not by government to recruits.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 09:22 AM

"A world fit for heroes to live in" was never adhered to by the British authorities - it was never intended to - it was a recruiting lie which appeared on recruiting literature -

Of course it wasn't!


"What is our task? To make Britain a fit country for heroes to live in." David Lloyd George (Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor) 1863-1945. Speech at Wolverhampton, Nov. 23, 1918, quoted in The Times, Nov. 25, 1918. (The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations" by Tony Augarde.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

We have failed to respond honestly to two essential factors relating to soldiers volunteering to fight in Word War One
"A world fit for heroes to live in" was never adhered to by the British authorities - it was never intended to - it was a recruiting lie which appeared on recruiting literature - you have been give links to such literature.
"A war to end wars" was also a part of the propaganda campaigns, which was tightly controlled and instigated by those responsible for propaganda.
Troops were sent immediately to Ireland to fight - they had been brutilised by their experiences in the trenches and terrorised the population of Ireland for two years - their reputation of having done so is fully documented and remains as a lasting smear on the British reputation nearly a century later.
The responsibility for this lies entirely with the British authorities who sent them to fight in such conditions and failed to repatriate them to their promised "land fit for heroes to live in"
Many miners who fought returned to pay cuts and increased hours in the abominable conditions of the mines.
The government responded to their protests by sending their comrades from the trenches to violently suppress any actions on the part of dissenting miners.
That suppression took place was assisted by members of the newly formed British Fascist Party who smashed up soup kitchens and beat up protesting miners.
Industrial unrest was met with armed resistance by government troops and police and lasted from 1919 to the mid twenties, a number of fatalities caused by military intervention were recorded in Scotland, Yorkshire, London and elsewhere.
Protests to the following Great Depression were also suppressed violently, including with military intervention.
Elsewhere, the Fascists were allowed to develop their organisations without opposition, other than that organised by ordinary people - those protests were also met with violent opposition from Government forces.
The leaders of the Fascist groups and supporters of German fascism came predominantly from the upper echelons of British society - peers of the realm, prominent industrialists and businessmen, even a monarch.
The monarch who openly befriended "Herr Hitler" was forced to abdicate, not because f his support for fascism, but because he married a divorcee
The Government did nothing to stop the irse of Fascism in Britain and they allowed German Fascism to rearm - they totally ignored the persecution of the Jews.
Those opposing the growth of Fascism in Europe were criminalised and attacked by the police - those who went to Spain were giver criminal records, ostracised and blacklisted.
Britain continued to appease German Fascism to the eve of the war - even after the invasions of Poland and Czechoslovakia, the British Prime Minister came back waving a piece of paper declaring "peace in our time".
This was "the land fit for heroes" that those who fought in the trenches were promised
Which part of this is inaccurate, and why are such an appalling broken promises not part of a discussion on why men fought
Are you really suggesting that Governments should be allowed to get away with making promises in order to get men to join up then producing such returns on those promises?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 06:31 AM

I should expand briefly to save time later.

The "land fit for heroes" pledge was made at the end of the war.

"War to end wars" was a public aspiration, not a promise made by anyone and certainly not by government.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 06:30 AM

Two quick points
Are you aware that whenever you are faced with questions you are unable to answer you scream "thread drift" and claim that your opponent (all of us) has only raised those questions because wwe have "post the argument".
I wish Muskie wi#ould stop calling you a "c**t", which is a rather unpleasant sexist term which actually means a part of the female anatomy which is essential to the life of all of us and at one time or another has given most of us a great deal of pleasure.
I can't conceive (pun intended) of anything further in description of your evil self
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 06:25 AM

Those who volunteered were promised "a land fit for heroes to live in" - yes or no?
No.

Did they get a "land fit for heroes to live in"
Yes or no?

No.

They were promised that World War One would be "a war to end wars" - yes or no?

No.

Was World War One "a war to end wars" -yes or no?

No

If neither of these promises where fulfilled the volunteers were tricked into joining - yes or no?

No.

Why are promises made to soldiers non part of this discussion - which is actually about the Christmas truce by the way, before you start hiding behind "thread drift" again.

No such promises were made.

You have been given the fact that even your own historians have stated that "the current view of history must be changed" - where have my arguments "failed"?

YOURS is "the current view of history must be changed"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 05:58 AM

Answer the question
Those who volunteered were promised "a land fit for heroes to live in" - yes or no?
Did they get a "land fit for heroes to live in"
Yes or no?
They were promised that World War One would be "a war to end wars" - yes or no?
Was World War One "a war to end wars" -yes or no?
If neither of these promises where fulfilled the volunteers were tricked into joining - yes or no?
Why are promises made to soldiers non part of this discussion - which is actually about the Christmas truce by the way, before you start hiding behind "thread drift" again.
You have been given the fact that even your own historians have stated that "the current view of history must be changed" - where have my arguments "failed"?
I don't for one minute expect a single answer to any of this - which is fine - your dishonesty in deliberately and openly refusing to respond to salient points because they smash your entire stance to smithereens is proof enough that you are little more than an extremist prosletiser
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 04:54 AM

The post war years are part of the discussion on this subject

I disagree, and will not be joining in.
You alone have raised it, but you always try to change the subject when your arguments fail.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 04:46 AM

What is your obsession with Farage all about?
Why must you call me names like "cunt" and why all the other shit?
And why have you left out all the other historians I have quoted at length in support of my views, and why can't any of you find even one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 04:44 AM

"I would be happy discuss the post war years with you, and I think we would find much common ground."
I'm not interested in discussing anything with you here - you are a lying no-mark who appears to know nothing about anything
The post war years are part of the discussion on this subject - why man went to war, what they were promised, whether those promises where kept.
You have been given two more reasons why they went, to add to the fourteen you have already been given - you either denied or accused me of inventing the first fourteen, you will ignore the two you have just been given - acid test to this - where they given? Where they fulfilled, yes or no
Nothing - why did I already know this?
All your historians havew admitted that the present thinking on World War one "needs to be changed?"
You arwe claiming that present thinking on World War One "agrees with me".
You are an extremeist nutter whose views have always coincided with those of extremist right-wing organisations (would you like me to link to to your openly supporting claims from an extremist organisation, directly lifted from their web-site) - no - I didn't think so.
Please go and find a Beir Keller and organise a rally - stop polluting this site with your extremism.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket MC
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 04:41 AM

In the blueeeee. Ccoorrrnnneeerrrrrr!!!!!

Michael Gove
Max Hastings
Keith A Hole of Hertford
Nigel Farage

in the rreeeedddddd cooorrrnneeerrrr!!!!!!!!

Baldrick
Respectable reality


On a serious note Keith, you ask who people can't debate properly. I reckon they can, I certainly can. You are the one stifling it. Hence not taking you seriously at all...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 04:24 AM

Principally believing in a cause and joining up to fight for it are two different things (as we already found in the other thread). Propaganda and pressure are established methods of military leadership, and principally considered as justified as the campaign itself. In other words: as long as the war lasts, propaganda lies are accepted, and it is considered unpatriotic to expose them as such. See, for example, the re-election of George W. Bush.

After the war, and preferably before it, governments must be made responsible for their mistakes and negligence, even if (self-declared) "victorious". Often they will try to avoid this by prolonging the propaganda and thus conserving the spirit of warfare. If that works, the next war is imminent.

Most people have a desire to belong to a glorious nation and religion. This can be tolerated to some extent: there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being British, US American (WASP), German, Christian, or Muslim. The problem is that leaders exploit this feeling for particular agendas, often referring to traditions that cannot be approved of from a present-day point of view. We must resist such agendas in our own interest (not only to do justice to victims of crimes and criminal negligence committed by "our people").

It is a wonderful thing to be heir to rich cultures and strong feelings of identity. We can and should enjoy them without pretending to own any truth or righteousness collectively. If we want, we can be proud of them, to the extent that we have worked on them ourselves. Any excessive such pride is foolish.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 04:04 AM

I would be happy discuss the post war years with you, and I think we would find much common ground.

There are libraries of books about the events and "might have beens" in the years leading up to the war.
I am passing no opinion on that.

Once Germany unleashed its armies and invaded Belgium, Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught.
The British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 03:55 AM

"Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught?"
One of your historians said Britain "sleep-walked into war" - you said "all" modern historians agreed with you and have continually demanded that we produce one who doesn't - you have been given dozens.
"Jim just said, "I has been established and is now totally accepted that soldiers were persuaded and tricked into joining up""
They were and it is
They were promised "a land fit for heroes to live in' - they returned to twenty-one poverty, hunger deprivation, industrial strife, man against man, economic depression - and then another war.
They were also told world war one would be "a war to end all wars"
It took 21 years to establish that as a lie
What's not been established in those facts?
Britain "sleepwalked into the war, allowed Germany to re-arm, ignored the rise of 'conquered' Germany and criminalised those who attempted to stop Hiltler's rise to power
Can there be any greater betrayal than any of this?
You will not answer any of these FACTS but will continue to haggle over a battle you lost on day one by claiming non-statements by non-existent historians.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 03:16 AM

Greg, I was referring to the years of research from original, contemporary sources by dedicated and brilliant historians.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

So what?
I am just defending 3 views.
Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught?
The British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that?
The British army was not badly led?

Jim just said, "I has been established and is now totally accepted that soldiers were persuaded and tricked into joining up"

That is the opposite of the truth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 05:54 PM

So what? I think it very likely that most soldiers on both sides in every war are likely to feel that they are fighting on the right side. Insofar as they actually think about such things rather than about soldiering on and trying to survive and help their mates survive.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 05:08 PM

research apparently shows that the troops did not feel duped

Specifically what "research"? Your web surfing?

"Apparently"? Apparent to who other than yourself?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 04:26 PM

I will not believe "the general public" over historians.
Are there still any "traditional historians"
If so, why have none of you found even one?

Kevin, research apparently shows that the troops did not feel duped and did believe in what they were fighting for, just as they did when fighting the Nazis when conscription also became necessary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 04:01 PM

"Show me anyone else who think s that."
Oh - for ****'s sake
Your own historians think accept that this is the general view held by traditional historians and by the general public that is why they have insisted that things "must be changed" - read your own postings.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 02:56 PM

After 18 months conscription was brought in in Great Britain because the pool of volunteers had run out. If that had not been the case conscription would not have been imposed.

If history academics reach a judgement that mistaken tactics which resulted in enormous numbers of casualties for no gain were the result of decisions which were reasonable in the circumstances, that is interesting - but it does not alter the fact that these tactics were in fact the wrong tactics. And that is what matters, not the question whether or not individual blame should be given to the generals involved. They did of course escape any such blame at the time, and lived out their lives free from any adverse consequence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 12:25 PM

I has been established and is now totally accepted that soldiers were persuaded and tricked into joining up - so much so that 18 months after the war began the authorities were forced to admit that their recruiting campaign had failed

You just made that up Jim.
Show me anyone else who think s that.
I have shown exactly the opposite.

We could discuss the inter war years some time.
You would find I hold similar opinions to you on how veterans were treated.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 12:20 PM

(you quoted the wrong person, wrong gender by the way Keith, do keep up..)

Why do we have to guess?
Stop playing moronic muppet games and tell us who it is, if it is a real person!
Why can you people never just debate the issues without all this shit, abuse, personal attack,....
Just discuss!

You've been given them over and over again.
No.
I have been asking for them over and over again for ten weeks!

You have just been given statements by half a dozen of them


Not that old trick of putting up pages of text and pretending there is something hidden amongst it.
If you have one, just give a name and a quote like I do.
You can't do that though.
Right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Meant to add - you are now attempting to turn this into one of your circular arguments to avid the important fats.
I has been established and is now totally accepted that soldiers were persuaded and tricked into joining up - so much so that 18 months after the war began the authorities were forced to admit that their recruiting campaign had failed
The war was an Imperialist one between interested powers competing for international influence and markets (never contradicted, and even supported by your own 'historians and (and tabloid journalists)
The soldiers - those who survived - returned home and were treated like shit - sent to fight in Ireland and turned against their fellow workers who were fighting to survive,
British governments mishandled the peace and betrayed the people again y plunging them into yet another war
They did nothing to stop the rise of Hitler, rather, some of the prominent members encouraged him in his efforts to wipe out the Jews
Never gets more simple than that
Beware of circular arguments - you end up disappearing up your own jaxie
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 11:11 AM

"If that is true, where are all the "general view" historians?"
You've been given them over and over again.
You have just been given statements by half a dozen of them (one of them your own witness) and a fact sheet explaining the debate going on about the nuances of the war, which you have described as "readable (were you really a teacher - jeez)
You have ignored them all and continue to persist with your claim that
you haven't been given any
What's the weather like on the planet Zog?
Get help - maybe from your phantom voices or your non-existent historians
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 19 April 7:49 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.