BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 08:35 AM

I am not assuming that Keith is guilty of such a gross distortion.

Supposing one grants that, there are obviously any number of OTHER gross distortions he is guilty of.

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

In the essays and extracts we have available, we do not see how research has led to and supports a conclusion.
Other historians would not accept anything from a peer (rival) that could not be substantiated.

There really is a remarkable consensus that the views of Clark and Liddel Hart were wrong but are still pervasive.

I got into this by saying I did not like songs that portrayed the British soldier of WW1 as someone who did not know or understand what he was doing or why, and was just a dupe of the establishment.

I knew from my reading that historians had shown that not to be the case.
I also knew that historians did not regard the war as in any way futile, and that the army was generally well led.

For saying that, you have seen the kind of abuse I receive.
That is all they can do because none of them have any actual knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 09:47 AM

Is it not just some random person's uninformed opinions?


Yes it is. Michaels Gove's. Unfortunately his opinions were published in the Daily Mail and lots of people will believe him. The article I linked provided a very valid argument against what he published and linked to 2 x further such articles.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:00 AM

Did you try any of my links to the works of historians Dave?
I found them hard to reconcile with the piece in your link.
(Hastings is the only historian I am aware of who has in any way approved of Gove's outburst)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:31 AM

Michael Gove is an historian? Well I never...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:34 AM

I knew from my reading that historians had shown that not to be the case. I also knew that historians did not regard the war as in any way futile, and that the army was generally well led.

Sigh.

A few historians, Keith, certainly not all historians nor the majority of historians.

Once again, repeating nonsense, especially after its proven to be nonsense, still doesn't make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,keith
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:34 AM

says who?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,keith
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:37 AM

cross post.
Greg has made the same claim so many times I can't be bothered to rubbish it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:44 AM

None of us have reliable information about the conclusions of "all academic historians" who have carried out work in the Great War have reached (insofar as "reaching conclusions" in this sense is what historians in general do, which is questionable.)

I think Keith misunderstands what historical study consists of, and how much weight can be placed on the judgements historians may make at any specific time. Speculation is speculation, and is by definition subjective, whoever makes it.

Basically the relevant distinction is the same as that once made of good newspapers - "opinion is free, but facts are sacred". The facts assembled by historians are where we should be willing to defer (provisionally). The opinions are essentially just that, opinions.

There were several million British soldiers, and the suggestion that all of them were or were not dupes, or did or did not understand what was going on is a meaningless generalisation, whoever might make it, songwriter or historian. The most that can be said of such matters is that it can be proved that some of them held a particular opinion, on the basis of what they might have written or said. The only generalisation that can be made is that they had a very hard time of it and that they deserve our respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 10:48 AM

Presumably because you fail to rubbish it.

You say nobody can find a dissenting historian.

I mention Alan Clark.

You refine it to "living" historian.

Fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 11:30 AM

Yes, the current view, not that of the long dead.
Likewise in the question of the earth, flat or round.
Anyway, you said "she" was still alive.

Kevin.
There were several million British soldiers, and the suggestion that all of them were ...

Let's keep it on a grown up level.
All of them weren't anything.

Do you think the majority were dupes?
I have quoted many historians who say they have seen clear evidence from original sources that they were not, and no-one has produced a contradictory quote.
I think that makes it very plausible and only a fool would dismiss it.
Musket, Jim and Greg do dismiss it, with much abuse thrown in.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 11:35 AM

Now Sheffield has been moved from his position as a supporter of Keith's line, any takers on when we'll grt round to learning what Keith believes based on what he has read rather than his hifding behind carefully selected Cut-'n-pastes.
How exactly do you know what "all historians believe" if you have not read them, and are unable to read, let alone discuss the list you were given of what aspects of the war modern historians are studying.
Surely you are not going to claim that the half dozen you have presented constitute "all historians" - or maybe Britain only has half a dozen?
We really do need to know so this crisis in historical study.
And please do not claim that nobody has presented an alternative view - historians haven't changed their minds over the last few decades otherwise we would have heard about it - and the "incorrect version would no longer be taught in schools - as it is.
Now - you evidence about those "all historians" - I don't think!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 11:50 AM

Jim, has Sheffield ever said or written anything that contradicts my views.
No. You said he had, but you just made that up.
That is why there was no quote.

Here are the historians who I have quoted in support of my case.
Richard Holmes, Peter Hart, David Stephenson, Fritz Fischer, Dan Todman, Gary Sheffield, Max Hastings, Malcolm Brown, Stuart Halifax, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan, Tristram Hunter.
I will add "she" when we learn her name.
She must support me or musket would have given it.

Of course there are more.
Every university has a History dept. but not all write about WW1.

In the ten weeks of this debate, none of you have found one that contradicts me.
I will stop claiming "all" when you find one.
Fair enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 11:57 AM

I think Keith misunderstands what historical study consists of

Got it in one, Kevin. But that's not his only problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 12:04 PM

"Sheffield, though the most prominent contemporary defender of Haig, is by no means alone. Indeed, the consensus among serious modern historians of the Great War is that Haig is a much maligned man."

"Sheffield fairly points out that most criticism of Haig has come from war poets and satirists rather than historians or soldiers, or from the malicious memoirs of his enemies – above all those of his Prime Minister, Lloyd George, who detested him "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/8684706/The-Chief-Douglas-Haig-and-the-British-Army-by-Gary-Sheffield-review.html

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 12:12 PM

"Professor Gary Sheffield of the University of Wolverhampton, who was praised by Mr Gove for his recent study of Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force whose Western Front offensives cost nearly one million British lives, said it was not a question of ideology.

"Mr Gove's politics and mine are pretty different but the view he has put forward is right. What he was wrong about however is that there is a left-right split – there isn't," he said.

"The publicity that has been kicking off around the centenary has reflected the Black Adder point of view although he (Mr Gove) is wrong to single it out – it is satire not documentary."

Professor Sheffield said mainstream historians had been revising their opinions of the conflict over the past three decades overturning the "bad war" theory which had taken hold in the 1930s.

"The war was fought for defensive reasons and Europe would have been a very dark place if Germany had not been defeated. Imperial Germany wasn't as bad as Nazi Germany but it was bad enough," he said. "We don't want this year to be a jingoistic carnival of celebration but rather a sober understanding that what Britain was fighting for was important. It was a war against aggression," he added."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cambridge-history-professor-hits-back-at-michael-goves-ignorant-attack-9037502.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 12:29 PM

GREG, PLEASE READ THIS BIT IF NOTHING ELSE!!!!!!!

"Professor Sheffield said mainstream historians had been revising their opinions of the conflict over the past three decades overturning the "bad war" theory which had taken hold in the 1930s."

HE DOES NOT SAY "SOME" MAINSTREAM HISTORIANS.

HE DOES SAY "THE "BAD WAR" THEORY IS "OVERTURNED."

That is what I have been saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 12:35 PM

Kevin, if a History professor can say this, why does it make me wrong to go along with it.
Is he not well informed enough?
What makes you so sure he does not understand properly?

"The war was fought for defensive reasons and Europe would have been a very dark place if Germany had not been defeated. Imperial Germany wasn't as bad as Nazi Germany but it was bad enough," he said. "We don't want this year to be a jingoistic carnival of celebration but rather a sober understanding that what Britain was fighting for was important. It was a war against aggression," he added."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 12:37 PM

Jim, those quotes prove that you lied about Sheffield.
You also lied about BBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 12:44 PM

Sure wish there was some peace in THESE trenches.

I am not well versed in WW I. I am a child of a veteran of the Second World War. As a human being, I am aware of the burden that is implied on the sagacity of the human race that we have to name anything such as a war to be a 'world' war, but growing up I developed the opinion that the second of something was supposed to be a bigger and better version of the first, such as predicted by Gershwin's lampooning lyrics of 1927:

"We're in a bigger, better war
For your patriotic pastime.
We don't know what we're fighting for--
But we didn't know the last time!"

These lines, from Gershwin's original version of "Strike Up the Band" reflect a view that probably couldn't be reciprocated by Europe in the wake of the incredible losses on the many fronts of 1914-1918.

In my young ignorance I figured that World War I was a mere precursor with few lessons to offer, but the PBS series about The Great War set me straight in many ways:

The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century
I've linked to the historian page.

This series linked the events of the war to the politics and technologies of the times. They illustrated how the political lay of the land shifted radically and in unforeseen ways. One of the quotes from it was that if a man were to awake from a hibernation of four years to be told that the monarchies of Russia, Germany, and Austria Hungary were no more, the Ottoman Empire was finished, and millions from all parts of the world had perished, he would scarce be able to believe it.

As for Gershwin, he would not live to witness the truly bigger war, in 1940, but the words of "Strike up the Band" would be changed:


"We hope there'll be no other war
But if we are forced into one--
The flag that we'll be fighting for
Is the Red and White and Blue one!"

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 12:55 PM

No they don't- not entirely anyway
Margaret McMillan contradicts you on several points - you have been given that information and have chosen to ignore it, as is your wont - will check the others later.
That aside, not counting Max Hastings, who we have proved and you have already concede is not a historian , but a tabloid journalist - I make that 11 historians - out of how many, do you reckon (it is you who has persistently rejected evidence from 'non historians).
Where is there any reference to "all historians agreeing with you" as you persistently claim?
You have been given a list of historians who have been involved in WW1 study, and what aspect they are studying - you won't respond to that list because you claim it to be unreadable.
Where is there any reference to a sea change in the understanding and teaching of history on the scale you are suggesting.
Where is there any reference to such an important debate taking place.
Where is there one shred of evidence that, apart from the tiny handful you have carefully selected (out of context), there are any historians re-examining WW1 history?
WHERE IS THERE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT, APART FROM YOUR TINY, CAREFULLY SELECTED LIST - ANYBODY IS CONTEMPLATING SUCH AN IMPORTANT CHANGE IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY - IN OTHER WORDS - HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ALL HISTORIANS AGREE WITH YOUR OPINIONS - A VISITATION MAYBE - OR MAYBE THIS IS JUST ANOTHER OF THOSE FACT YOU ARE MAKING UP? - (links on a plain postcard please)?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 01:31 PM

KEITH: FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

HE DOES NOT SAY WHICH "MAINSTREAM HISTORIANS" NOR HOW MANY NOR DOES HE NAME THEM.

HE DOES NOT SAY WHICH HISTORIANS OR HOW MANY HAVE "OVERTURNED" "THE "BAD WAR THEORY" OR HOW THEY HAVE DONE SO.

HE OFFERS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, ONLY OWN OPINION, FOR THE CLAIMS HE MAKES.

I'm sure you could obtain a good, used brain for a modest outlay of cash, if you looked.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 02:51 PM

Keith
A progress report - not good news I'm afraid -
I'm over half way through your list of historians and so far not one single one of them "makes your case" - not one.
What we seem to have is that one historian, or maybe two, agrees with with your point, but either disagrees, or contradicts the other points, or maybe (haven't found one yet) maybe two of them coincide on two points, but either disagree or don't comment on the other.
You appear to have cobbled together a list of historians who may or may not agree with a single point you are claiming, and presented them as a united front who back all your claims.
On this basis you have claimed that "all historians agree with me". This appears to shatter your "historian" claims absolutely on the basis of the list you have provided so far.
I await with interest to see if you produce any historian who agrees with all your points - and if you can show that "all historians" do - welll - what's your favourite charity?
Would start ringing around the hospices now - dead in the water, I'm afraid.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 03:10 PM

Michael Gove and this Sheffield bloke in agreement.

I doubt that such an accolade adds to anyone's credibility.

Poor bugger.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 03:44 PM

"most criticism of Haig has come from war poets and satirists rather than historians or soldiers"

The point about the war about the war poets in this context is that they were soldiers. How far the kind of view of the war was the same kind of thing many soldiers felt or untypical is something which we just do not know, and can never know.

And the view in question is not that "they were dupes" but that the war was terrible, and they felt betrayed by their country in some ways, and also that they did not particularly trust their senior command to do the right thing, and that they felt some scorn for those who were organising the war from safe places far behind the front lines. Not untypical feelings among soldiers in most wars and in most armies.

And none of which would necessarily have meant that they might not have believed that they were fighting out of necessity, and that the other side were responsible for the war, or that felt a sense of patriotism. Whichever side they happened to be fighting on.

This is really a very silly thread. And rather a distasteful one.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 03:55 PM

Max Hastings, who we have proved and you have already concede is not a historian , but a tabloid journalist

He is an historian.
No-one outside this forum denies it.
That how he always decribed in print and the media, e.g. the Guardian.
Your opinion counts for nothing.

Those historians have all been referred to.
Why not search the threads. You must have let it go at the time.

Margaret Macmillan quoted here a few days ago.
"I did not say, as Mr Gove suggests, that British soldiers in the first world war were consciously fighting for western liberal order. They were just defending their homeland and fighting what they saw as German militarism."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 04:03 PM

How far the kind of view of the war was the same kind of thing many soldiers felt or untypical is something which we just do not know, and can never know.
Yes we can and do.

And the view in question is not that "they were dupes" but that the war was terrible,
Oh please! Who in the world would deny that?!

and they felt betrayed by their country in some ways, and also that they did not particularly trust their senior command to do the right thing, and that they felt some scorn for those who were organising the war from safe places far behind the front lines. Not untypical feelings among soldiers in most wars and in most armies.

Well apparently it was for British soldiers in that war.
That is what the historians say.
Why should I believe you over them?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 04:07 PM

Greg, earlier today you vilified me for saying "historians" not "some historians."

If Dr. Sheffield, Professor of History can say "mainstream historians" not "some mainstream histporians" so can I.

He is clear it is all of them and he should know more about it than Greg F!

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 05:03 PM

"Yes we can and do". I'm afraid that is not true and cannot possibly be true, and a moments thought should confirm that..

Whether we are historians or journalists or random members of the human race all we know and all we can know is what some people wrote and what some people said. We haven't even got the kind of suggestive evidence that social research and opinion polls and suchlike can gather about contemporary public opinion which can allow us to make tentative generalisations.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 05:50 PM

The historians say they have thousands of original documents such as letters and diaries, and surveys of vast numbers of veterans.

Someone should contact them and tell them that they do not know how to carry out research and do their job.

Jim, this quote earlier today is also Margaret Macmillan, as you would know if you read it.

"It was only at the end of the decade(1920s) that doubts crept in; the war had left a troubled world and the 1930s brought the threat of another great conflict. Increasingly, the Great War, as it was known, came to be seen as something that should never have happened and, still worse, that had settled nothing and destroyed much. Revisionist views of the war meshed with growing concerns in the democracies that another war was on its way. In 1934-35, nearly half the adult population of Britain voted for the peace ballot to show their support for the League of Nations and disarmament. Much of the great anti-war literature, including Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That, Wilfred Owen's poems and the play Journey's End, came out around this time. Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front was published to huge acclaim in 1929. Yet far more novels and memoirs at the time were either ambivalent about the rightness or otherwise of the war or, indeed, saw it as something that had had to be fought. And not everyone who had been in the war wanted to forget it. Millions joined veterans' associations, in part to recapture the camaraderie they had once felt."

"Now is surely the right time to challenge the accepted views. The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked. And was the war just a dreadful mistake or was it about something? At the time people on all sides thought they had a just cause. It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. British soldiers felt they were fighting for their country and its values; French, German or Russian soldiers felt much the same."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 14 - 07:31 PM

I am afraid you very much exaggerate the extent which sources like that could provide unambiguous information about such matters. For one thing all letters were subject to official censorship as well as self censorship.

I doubt very much if any competent historian would go further than to say that such evidence indicated that there were many soldiers who did not appear to have felt the same kind of things I summarised. We know that some definitely did believe they were being poorly led by those at the highest level, we don't know and cannot know how prevalent that view was. But it is not in itself the issue, which is rather whether the leadership at the top was making the right decisions.

As I said whether the generals were all cowards and all incompetent is neither particularly likely or particularly relevant. The point is the decisions they made and the consequences of those decisions.

The bottom line is that most people probably share my view that the price of the allied victory was to high. And moreover that the ultimate consequences of that victory were disastrous. And that is not in itself a view about history but rather about ethics and politics.

Speculation about whether and how things could have worked out differently and better is science fiction, not history. When we are making history it is appropriate to speculate about outcomes and shape our actions by it. But history when it is written is not about what didn't happen, it is about what did happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 02:44 AM

I am afraid you very much exaggerate the extent which sources like that could provide unambiguous information about such matters. For one thing all letters were subject to official censorship as well as self censorship.

No. I have no opinion. It is all these professors who are much exaggerating. Do you think they are not aware of those considerations?

I doubt very much if any competent historian would go further than to say that such evidence indicated that there were many soldiers who did not appear to have felt the same kind of things I summarised.

Your doubts are misplaced because they do. If you read the literally dozens of linked quotes I have provided over the last ten weeks you will see that.

The bottom line is that most people probably share my view that the price of the allied victory was to high.

Yes they do, but the specialists tell us that most people are wrong.
If you read the literally dozens of linked quotes I have provided over the last ten weeks you will see that.

But history when it is written is not about what didn't happen, it is about what did happen.

I think all those professors know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 03:00 AM

You could start with this link I provided yesterday, and many, many times before.
Prfessor Dr. Todman writing on the BBC History site.

"Sassoon and Wilfred Owen could be used to evoke an emotional reaction against war which engaged students and satisfied teachers, but which utterly misrepresented the feelings of most Britons who lived through the war years.

The extent to which this mythology was shared made it an attractive setting for television series and historical novels. Many jokes in the 1989 BBC TV series 'Blackadder Goes Forth' relied on the audience understanding that the war meant stupid generals, pointless attacks and universal death.

Similarly, authors such as Sebastian Faulks could rely on an emotional tenor of tragedy created by a wartime setting. Although works like Faulks' 'Birdsong' are fiction, audiences often believed that they communicated 'deeper truths' about the war, because they reflected their own misconceptions.

The self-reinforcing power of these myths gives them tremendous power. Since the 1980s, a boom in carefully conducted archival investigation has done much to uncover the war's complexity: how it was fought and won by the British army on the Western Front, how domestic support and dissent were encouraged and managed, and how the war was remembered.

Yet this academic research has had almost no impact on popular understanding."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/perceptions_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 04:21 AM

"Your opinion counts for nothing."
Neither is yours Keith
You have no overall backing for anything you have claimed - not one single 'witness' you have produced backs the overall case you are all demanding we disprove - not one.
Not even Max Hastings, the tabloid journalist, makes the case you are making - real historians have described his analysis of the causes of World War One as "weak" - but then again, he is only a tabloid journalist.
I have given you a preview of my skip through your list of witnesses - the others appear to produce exactly the same results - no comfort from any of them I'm afraid
You have built your entire case on sand - unless, of course, you'd like to show me something I've overlooked - won't hold my breath.
You have not even acknowledged my request for proof of your "all historians" claim, let along produced proof of your outrageously stupid statement - unless, of course, you'd like to show me something I've overlooked - won't hold my breath.
One again, just like your "all male Pakistanis" and Irish Famine arguments, you have produced nothing yourself, have hidden behind a team of "experts" and invented an entire scenario based on cut-'n-pastes which you have carefully extracted and taken out of context.
Smoke and mirrors that don't stand up under careful, or even casual scrutiny
All the out-of-context isolated hastily assembled quotes you produce do not in any way back up your all-embracing and nearly a century out-of-date claims - you will have to read a book in order to do that, and quite honestly, I can't see that happening in the near future - can you - honestly (both (reading and being honest) foreign concepts with you apparently?
As I said earlier, "for you, the war is over Tommy", but then again, you never really left the home front, did you?
Dismiss, Private A.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 04:38 AM

Interesting letter in yesterday's Indescribablyboring. (The only iPhone app newspaper that doesn't charge you for content if you must know. Paying them only encourages the buggers.)

Blows our jingo juggler out of the water.

Another one questions why we celebrate the start of the war, surely we should only note the end of it?

The answer to that question would also explain the reasons behind this revision of history to allow the government to give us something to celebrate.

Something rather distasteful, that nobody has anything to be proud of.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 05:26 AM

Jim.
Start with Hastings, Sheffield, Todman, and Brown.
Add in Prof saul David who described Sheffield as the "foremost authority" and Nigel Jones who described Hastings as our "leading military historian."
Malcolm Brown. How many do you want?

Not even Max Hastings, the tabloid journalist, makes the case you are making

Yes he doe. Exactly so, as do those above.

- real historians have described his analysis of the causes of World War One as "weak"

No they have not.

Musket.
There is no pay-wall on the Indie.
Let's have a look at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 05:55 AM

You have the request for proof - you are ignoring it
Denial or character reference just doesn't hack it
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 06:09 AM

You want us to start the whole thing again.
Great.
Give me the first 2 things you want proof of.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 07:11 AM

Don't want proof of anything other than your lying claims of your having support from and "all historians sharing your view"
Lie down Keith, your dead
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 09:46 AM

Well Jim, that is intrinsically unproveable.
However, disproving it would be the easiest thing in the world.
Just name one.

All of you together have been unable to do that in ten solid weeks of trying!

Absence of disproof is as good as proof in this case, but as I said yesterday, I will drop the claim the moment you find one.
Fair enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 09:56 AM

most criticism of Haig has come from war poets and satirists rather than historians or soldiers

Says who, other than Sheffield? Anmy actual evidence for this statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 09:59 AM

If Dr. Sheffield, Professor of History can say "mainstream historians" not "some mainstream histporians" so can I.

You sure can. And you're both being sloppy and offer no evidence to support what you say.

You and Sheffield can also most certainly say the world is flat. Still don't make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 10:04 AM

Absence of disproof is as good as proof in this case

Congratulations, Keith! Uou've outdone yourself! That is absolutely the most idiotic statement you've ever made, and it has some tough competition.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 10:45 AM

"Just name one."
You cannot be serious - so you can tell us that you have not really been claiming what you have been claiming over what feels like the last century.
You appear to be attempting to rescue a modicum of credibility from what has been your most disastrous debacles to date.
If you haven't got the good grace to bow out with a degree of dignity, please go and annoy somebody else, or pull the cat's tale, or whatever fractious children do to amuse themselves nowadays.
Piss off, I'm really too busy to play with you this afternoon - tomorrow maybe!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 11:16 AM

So, you still can not find one historian whose views contradict mine!
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 11:55 AM

Historians who would not agree with each thing you have said? Many of those you have quoted Keith, as demonstrated in this thread.

Historians who might agree with some of the things you have said?

Quite a lot, include some at least of those who you reject as irrelevant on account of the fact they have died.

For example it seems true enough that some soldiers on both sides believed passionately in the justice of their cause and believed that it was right to keep on fighting till the bitter end. Some saw it differently, on both sides.

It is also likely true enough that not all generals were cowards and fools and that some of the decisions they made were sensible. It is also true that they made sure to stay in safe places while they made those plans - it would be astonishing if the reverse was the case.

As for the responsibility for starting the war, The German Empire had a particular responsibility for that, though other countries played an important part in bringing it about. But the responsibility for continuing it after the initial attack had failed was shared very evenly between all.

After the failure of the Schlieffen Plan a ceasefire and armistice would have been possible and sensible. No efforts to bring it about were made, and no attempts were made to negotiate a ceasefire for the next four years.

Part of the background to the tragically partial Christmas Truce was the appeal by Pope Benedict XV for a general Christmas Truce (He described the war as "the suicide of Europe", a description that could hardly be improved upon) The Allies completely rejected it out of hand, and after some initial consideration, so did the Germans. If either side had declared support for it, or announced unilaterally that they were going to observe it., who knows what could have resulted.

Launching the war was indeed criminal, and Germany had a special role in that. But all parties played a role in ensuring that it continued so long.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: robomatic
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 12:26 PM

Letter from Europe:
100 Years After The Great War, Bad Guy is Still Elusive

The U. S. Military, (and probably EVERY military going back to before the Iliad) has a word for it:

CLUSTERFUKC

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 12:40 PM

Ya pronounce that fooksee?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 02:30 PM

"So, you still can not find one historian whose views contradict mine!
You lose."
I might have "lost" as you so competitively put it if you had actually produced a historian who supports your case - and whare on earth ale "all those historians"/
Must have all gone skiing!!
Pratt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 02:40 PM

Congrats.   Without a doubt the most dumbass thread in the history of Mudcat. How do I know? Because I qualify better than anyone on this thread as a MUDCAT HISTORIAN and MY Mudcat history is better than YOUR Mudcat history.

Geezizhchristonafuckincrutch.......

A couple of you are like little kids....Who the hell cares? A hundred years later, we're still involved in stupid wars and the ones which must fight the war can see it very differently than from those who will write the history. All history is philosophy as all reality is perceived.

Yeah dickheads, I know I don't have to read or even open this but for the sake of all of us here who remember far better and funnier days on the dear old 'Cat......Take this shit elsewhere. Like to some other website perhaps.

Spaw