BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 05:47 PM

And this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 05:49 PM

Finally.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 06:32 PM

"They do not always reach the same conclusions.

In this case they do."

And the fact that the establishment would dearly love to use the upcoming centenary as an opportunity for hysterical jingoistic self praise would never have influenced such upright pillars of society, nor of course would the prospect of inclusion in the next honours list.

It is, as has been said here, largely interpretation and opinion, but it is ridiculous to suggest that examination of just 25% of war diaries is sufficient for the level of certainty expressed, even if no selectivity were involved in choosing that number.

Nor is it reasonable to dismiss out of hand the diaries and writings of such erudite, informed, articulate and intelligent men as Owen and Sassoon, when their writings were based on personal experience of the trenches.

The rank and file were filled up with the propaganda hammered into them by everyone from the government down to their own wives and children.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 07:03 PM

No, the BBC were not wrong to do so. But neither am I wrong to be sceptical of their opinions. Facts can rarely be disputed. Opinions, using the old adage, are like arseholes. Everyone has one but they should rarely be displayed in public.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 01:51 AM

The opinions of historians are informed opinions, based on study and research.
More informed than mine or yours.
That is why bbc used historians, and not people off the street.
That is why universities use them to teach and research.
If it is OK for BBC to use the opinions of historians to tell the story, why is it wrong for me to believe them and put their views here.
What objective, rational reason do people here have to dismiss them?
Where do their alternative versions come from?

Troubadour, the "establishment" has no interest in history.
Historians have been complaining that the plans of the "establishment" government to commemorate the centenary do not incorporate the current understanding.

Do you really believe that historians are part of an establishment conspiracy to falsify the History of a century old war?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 02:44 AM

"The BBC moved the link. "

Strange observation Keith? After all, if you of all people say that can happen , it makes your stance that the rest of us are liars look a tad shaky.

After all, you are the one who's default position is to check if other contributors are lying before framing your next post. Sadly, your lack of search skills makes the accusation your default position. Not to mention the contempt it shows. Oh, and then complain when others throw your contempt back.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 03:42 AM

The link changed after I posted it yesterday.
I supplied links to the pieces in question as soon as I noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 04:56 AM

why is it wrong for me to believe them and put their views here.

Equally why is wrong for me not to believe them and put my views here? The opinions of historians are still opinions, not facts. Opinions can and always will be disputed.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 06:11 AM

Of course it is not wrong, but I do not understand it.
If I found myself disagreeing with people who know far more about the subject than I do, I would question my beliefs not theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 09:55 AM

Fair enough.

Most of us are intelligent enough to trust our analysis. Stop judging others by your own limitations.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
GBS

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 10:31 AM

If I found myself disagreeing with people who know far more about the subject than I do, I would question my beliefs not theirs.

In that case, its way past time you started questioning your "beliefs".

By the way, you can "believe" anything you wish, but that doesn't make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 11:59 AM

I did question my beliefs.
I used to believe what you still do.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 12:46 PM

Questioning is a process, Keith, not an end.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 01:51 PM

If I found myself disagreeing with people who know far more about the subject than I do, I would question my beliefs not theirs.

I am sure Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin knew far more about politics than I ever will but I have no doubts whatsoever that my beliefs are fairer.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 14 - 02:34 AM

Greg, you have finally said something I fully agree with.
I hope you and your friends will take it in board.

My views have developed over the years, inspired by the work and research of the most knowledgeable people in the country.
As result, my views are those of the historians.
For Musket's benefit, historians are the people who spend their working lives studying the work of previous historians and carrying out original research to expand and develop our knowledge.

People here have other views.
Not one historian can be found who thinks what they think, but they have each other, and they just know that all the historians are wrong.

(What do you call someone who refuses to stop believing a discredited belief however much evidence is put in front of them?
Fundamentalist?)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Jan 14 - 03:14 AM

Your favourite historian spent his working life issuing apologising to famous people for writing lies about them in the newspaper he edited. Many others spent their working lives in the commons chamber debating amendments to fruit labelling bills.

Talking of politics. I notice one of your UKIP politicians has said the recent floods are because we turned our backs on God and introduced gay marriage. I'm sure he researched it better than I could. After all, he's both a Christian and a politician. A dangerous fucker in both senses to be fair, but hey! We can't argue with experts eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jan 14 - 07:57 AM

I have never been a UKIP supporter as you know.
You lie in a desperate bid to discredit someone who you can not challenge.

I do not have a favourite historian, and none of those I have ever quoted or referred to have ever been in Parliament.

Just more lies.
You have nothing else.
You are pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jan 14 - 04:36 AM

BBC has put up some new stuff by other historians.

"A select group of well-educated soldier officers, including Wilfred Owen, came to view the war as one of pity and horror. This was a minority view but expressed through powerful and well-written poetry. In the 1960s a literary elite decided this was the most authentic view of the conflict because it chimed with their own anti-war feelings. This resulted in the publication of two key war poetry anthologies edited by Brian Gardner and Ian Parsons. These heavily featured Owen and other poets whose work seemed to suggest World War One had been futile.

4.
One voice among thousands
While Owen wrote powerful poetry, he was just one of 2,225 men and women from Britain and Ireland who had poems published during World War One. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z38rq6f

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jan 14 - 04:44 AM

20 January 2014 Last updated at 00:35
Lions and donkeys: 10 big myths about World War One debunked. (Dan Snow)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 04:17 AM

Next Monday BBC1

Launching the BBC's biggest and most ambitious season to commemorate the World War One Centenary, Britain's Great War, presented by Jeremy Paxman, and co-produced in partnership with The Open University, is a four-part landmark history series of how the First World War affected the lives of the British people and created what we know as modern Britain.

In the first episode, Jeremy Paxman traces the story of the dramatic early stages of the war: from stunned disbelief to the mass recruitment of volunteer soldiers. Fear of invasion grips the country, Boy Scouts guard bridges and spies are suspected everywhere. For the first time, British civilians are fired on by enemy ships and bombed from the air. Jeremy meets a 105-year-old eyewitness to the shelling of Hartlepool, who describes how she thought the Germans had landed.

The BBC's centenary programming will explain why the First World War happened, commemorate and remember those involved, shine a light on what it was like to live through this cataclysmic event in world history, and interrogate and debate just what its legacy has meant for modern society.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 04:22 AM

Jeremy Paxman, the presenter of the series, said: "The trouble with so much of our understanding of World War One is that it is seen through the prism of the prejudices of the hundred years which have followed it. It's an amazing and important story which deserves to be viewed afresh

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 05:02 AM

I was always amazed by the recollections of my Grandad - Wounded twice, including loosing the sight in one eye, sent back to the front twice. His memories were a combination of horrors at the hardships and fond memories of the comradeship. His proudest moment was winning a French civilian medal for rescuing a girl from a well!

This is why I believe it is not as cut and dried as good or bad. I am pretty sure most people who lived through it will have had a lot of mixed feelings and for anyone to paint it as black or white seems wrong.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 05:28 AM

I completely agree Dave.
None of the historians have described the war in terms of being "cut and dried, good or bad" or "black and white" and I have consciously avoided doing so.

Unlike Musket and Jim.
Their case has been unequivocal, with no concessions, and anyone who sees it any other way is a "fuckwit cunt."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 06:25 AM

In which case, Keith, that is fine by me. It did seem that you were saying it was cut and dried. Your actual phrase was

I have said that unless the historians are wrong, I am right.

I interpreted that as you were right that the war was supported by all and well led. I was saying that he truth is probably somewhere in between and different interpretations will lead to opinions ranging from the war was chalk to the war was cheese! Mind you, as you may remember from previous threads, I have been in trouble before for being able to see both sides of an argument and being able to agree with certain bits of each. I am sure the same will happen here ;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 07:07 AM

No historian claimed "supported by all."
Just a large majority.
The claim that the army was well led was qualified with acknowledgements that mistakes were made that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Jim, Musket and Greg rejected those views with contempt and abuse.
What do historians know compared to us?!
I accept them.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 07:25 AM

The claim that the army was well led was qualified with acknowledgements that mistakes were made that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.

I must have missed you posting that before. Or is this the first time of posting it? Apologies if you did make that clear before.

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 08:54 AM

I said I believed what the historians say, that the army was well led.
I supported that statements with links to examples of historians discussing that issue.

None ever denied that terrible mistakes were made, and described some.
I think you missed all those links.
Would you like me to repeat some?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 09:00 AM

I linked to this piece for instance.
It contains this, but please read the whole piece. Four minutes only.

"One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. Haig's decision to continue with the fighting at Passchendaele in 1917 after the opportunity for real gains had passed comes into this category. In some ways the British and other armies might have grasped the potential of technology earlier than they did. During the Somme, Haig and Rawlinson failed to understand the best way of using artillery"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 09:08 AM

that last was gary Sheffield.
This is dan Todman.
"Military historians have come to talk of a 'learning curve' for the British army on the Western Front. This should not, however, necessarily be taken to mean a smooth progression of expertise. Many soldiers, at all levels of command, made mistakes or misinterpreted their experiences.

Sometimes the wrong lessons were learned, or circumstances prevented the use of the most effective tactics. Given the high turnover of personnel, improvements could be hard to sustain. Yet we can point to individuals whose long term experience of battle allowed them to adapt to the demands of the Western Front. "

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 09:10 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/gallery_tactics_08.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 09:22 AM

Funnily enough, I read that one earlier! It is indeed a good piece and, in my opinion, even handed. It is still, however, an opinion. In the first paragraph it says

Many popular books, films and television programmes echo this belief. The casualty list - one million British Empire dead - and the bloody stalemate of the Western Front seem to add credence to this version of events. But there is another interpretation.

There is another interpretation being the key phrase here. I am not questioning that one opinion is that the army was well led. There is, however, an opposing viewpoint that the troops were indeed lions led by donkeys. I have no doubt in my mind that the truth is somewhere between and there is no point in arguing 'degrees of truth'.

I think it is also significant that the line "One undeniable fact is that Britain and its allies, not Germany, won the First World War." The old adage is that the victor writes the history books and I have serious doubts as to whether any victor would play up all the major mistakes made!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 09:29 AM

There is, however, an opposing viewpoint that the troops were indeed lions led by donkeys

There is, but not held by any current historian or military historian.
It is the non-historian view, which I suggest is because it is unsupported by the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 09:46 AM

There is, but not held by any current historian or military historian.

Same old bullshit, eh Kevin?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 10:11 AM

Not bullshit Greg.
Fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 10:20 AM

Was the British Army (including Empire troops) well led?

They certainly weren't the worst going by casualty figures both killed and wounded.

A tiny force at the start of the war, they were the only force at the end of it capable of withstanding the massive German assault brought about by the release of over a million German troops from the former eastern front and then followed that up with an offensive of their own that brought the war to an end.

They embraced new technology quicker than any of the other combatant nations and proved themselves to be great innovators and improvisers.

So on balance I would have to side towards the argument that states they were well led.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 10:40 AM

Fianl paragraph, Dr.Sheffield.
"Haig, however, was no technophobe. He encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 11:34 AM

Tell ya what, Keith- why don't you list each and every one of the "current historians" you've consulted in developing your thesis.

Then let us have the names of all "current historians" - worldwide, mind you, not just British - who have ever written on World War I.

Then we'll see just how spurious your nonsensical claim is.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 01:18 PM

Isn't it fascinating how Keith A Hole of Hertford manages to slowly reluctantly contradict his more silly claims and at the same time paint other contributors as being very one sided themselves. "Unlike Musket" has a ring of desperation about it. After all, my views are very down the middle on this, always have been and unless convinced otherwise, always will be.

Which means of course that the butcher of The Somme sending waves of men over the top to certain death needs factoring into any tosh about being well led. Which means the white feathers, propaganda and firing squads need factoring into any tosh about well informed volunteers.

Can't beat balance eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 01:34 PM

"Lions led by donkeys" is obviously an ideological slogan, meant to praise the common soldiers and blame (relative) failures on others, e.g. the Upper Class. It cannot possibly be true.

The only relevant dispute is about political justification. Bad politics resulting in warfare is condemnable, and would be so even if the military strategy had been optimal.

I have no doubt that some German military circles would have loved to dominate the world if deemed feasible. So would some military circles in most other countries, even today. If we were to accept "it's either them or us" (= our military leaders, not our people as a whole!), war would be inevitable, always. Fortunately, there is diplomacy. We must demand from our governments to excel in diplomacy, not allow them to profit from past false glory.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 03:02 PM

Greg, I have named many in the course of these threads.
I have also shown that the historians themselves say that all historians agree, and there is no outcry from dissenting historians.
How about you making me look ridiculous by naming just one?
You can't, because you are the bullshitter, not me.

Musket, you can believe your discredited myths if you want to, but not one single military historian agrees with you.
They might all be wrong, but I think it more likely that they are better informed even than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 05:45 PM

Greg, I have named many in the course of these threads.

You've mentioned perhaps half a dozen, all of them British.

I have also shown that the historians themselves say that all historians agree

Firstly, they say no such thing. Secondly, if they did say "all", it would be only their unsubstantiated opinion at best, and utter bullshit at worst.

Now, about that list of "all current historians" worldwide: I'm still waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 05:49 PM

Todman and Sheffield said all.
Now, about that list of one single dissenting historian.
I'm still waiting.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 14 - 08:07 PM

Todman and Sheffield said all.

Sorry, I was mistaken; its not half a dozen, its two. And you have provided no evidence to back up their opinions, nor have they.

It is YOUR thesis, Keith, so it is YOUR job to substantiate it, not mine. So far, you have failed to do so. Abysmally so.

So, get to it, or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 02:24 AM

Sorry, I was mistaken; its not half a dozen, its two. And you have provided no evidence to back up their opinions, nor have they.

No it is all.
I have quoted two renowned historians who say it is all.
The proof is that not one historian has objected to their blanket assertion.

And, you have provided no evidence at all in twelve weeks, because there isn't any.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 04:56 AM

If all historians did agree on something, I'd smell a rat. All North Korean historians agree the previous idiot in the inbred dynasty scored a series of holes in one on his first ever round of golf.

Luckily, even the historians Keith takes out of context put different perspectives on evidence as reading their output properly tends to show....

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 05:42 AM

If that is true Musket, put up an example.
Make it a really bad one why don't you?!

I have put nothing out of context, and in every case provided a link so that my extract could be seen in its intended context.

The fact that you have to lie says all anyone needs to know about the veracity of your case.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket practicing veracity
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 05:47 AM

Better than preaching it I suppose.

Yep, I most certainly do conform to facts. Do you?

That's a big word for a small argument me old duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 05:50 AM

If that is true Musket, put up an example.
Make it a really bad one for me why don't you?!

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 10:13 AM

OK, Keith, lets tackle this from yuour perspective, using your metnods.

Two people (ok, many more than two, but lets keep it simple) on this forum say you're a complete idiot. They also say that everyone thinks you're a complete idiot.

Therefore, QED, you are in fact a complete idiot.

'Nuf said.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 14 - 10:55 AM

They call me idiot for believing renowned, professional historians on the very specialism of those experts.
They believe they know more than professors who have made this their life's work.

I question their judgement.