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)


GUEST,Silas 30 Dec 13 - 08:07 AM
GUEST,Musket 30 Dec 13 - 08:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 13 - 08:09 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 13 - 09:01 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 13 - 09:03 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 13 - 09:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 13 - 09:58 AM
Penny S. 30 Dec 13 - 11:08 AM
GUEST,Musket 30 Dec 13 - 11:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 13 - 12:15 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 13 - 12:54 PM
GUEST,Musket 30 Dec 13 - 01:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 13 - 01:32 PM
catspaw49 30 Dec 13 - 02:43 PM
Jeri 30 Dec 13 - 02:47 PM
GUEST,Musket 30 Dec 13 - 05:19 PM
Greg F. 30 Dec 13 - 06:32 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 01:35 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 13 - 03:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 04:20 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 13 - 05:10 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 13 - 06:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 07:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 08:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 08:39 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 13 - 12:01 PM
GUEST,Musket 31 Dec 13 - 12:13 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 12:21 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 12:28 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 12:33 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 12:37 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 13 - 03:22 PM
GUEST,Troubadour 31 Dec 13 - 07:23 PM
GUEST 31 Dec 13 - 07:28 PM
GUEST 01 Jan 14 - 03:30 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 14 - 04:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 14 - 05:25 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 14 - 05:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 14 - 05:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 14 - 05:40 AM
GUEST,Eliza 01 Jan 14 - 06:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 14 - 07:48 AM
GUEST,Grishka 01 Jan 14 - 11:06 AM
GUEST,Musket 01 Jan 14 - 11:10 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 14 - 12:13 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 14 - 12:28 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 14 - 03:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 14 - 04:12 AM
GUEST,Musket 02 Jan 14 - 04:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 14 - 04:24 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: GUEST,Silas
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 08:07 AM

Well, they wern't actually marching towards our shore. Both sides demonise the enemy, always have done. There is no such thing as a 'gentlemans war', and the british, over the centuries have as bad a record or in some cases worse record than anyone else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 08:08 AM

Too true Eliza.

I think the point is though, that commanders on both sides didn't want fraternising as, regardless of political intentions of their leaders and indeed monarchs, both sides whipped up jingoism with propaganda regarding the behaviour of the other side.

For every story of German atrocities in nunneries, there were German stories of our lads evicting French towns for strategic purposes and putting the residents in concentration camps. Pictures of our concentration camps in The Transvaal were used to reinforce the view.

We don't know how much to believe, how much to take with a pinch of salt or indeed where the stories began.

Unless you visit the library in Hertford which appears to have a very definitive set of stories judging by the assertions of one of the residents.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 08:09 AM

Your claim about snipers seems nonsensical.
They were deployed all along the line anyway.
Why would they need moving?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 09:01 AM

"Over 6000 civilians including children were deliberately murdered in Belgium, and more in France."
Ten million Congolese non combatants were massacred by the Belgians in peacetime - the world did nothing - why should the world go to war over 6,000 deaths in wartime?
Just as the world stood silent then, you refuse to acknowledge that this consequence of Empire happened.
It is never the people who cause the wars who have to go out to fight them.
Wartime atrocities are the consequences of all wars, by both sides, they are never the causes of them
World War One - its reasons, the manner in which it was conducted and the carefully calculated loss of life was an atrocity in itself.
The sheer bestiality of sending men into face-to-face combat over pieces of strategically valueless territory and calculating each yard of advance by the expendable number of men is an atrocity.
These facts are now a fully accepted part of our history, whatever your career journalists may claim.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 09:03 AM

This appears to have transformed itself into another of Keith's campaigns that won't be over by next Christmas - just like that last one, which appears to be still slithering along in rude health.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 09:52 AM

Over 6000 civilians including children were deliberately murdered in Belgium, and more in France.
That is a fact and people were influenced by it, but Britain went to war because we had a treaty to defend Belgium, and Belgium and France were invaded, and our own security threatened.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 09:58 AM

These facts are now a fully accepted part of our history, whatever your career journalists may claim.

I have only cited professional historians.
Can you name one who accepts those "facts" about WW1?
Why not Jim?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 11:08 AM

There were those on our side who would not care for wounded German POWs in our field hospitals.
Source, my grandfather, an orderly in those hospitals. There were orderlies who would not go into the "German" tent.

Penny


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 11:37 AM

Differentiating between living and dead historians are we? I suppose dead ones can't be persuaded to rewrite history. Alan Clark may have been a Tory twit of the first order and a bit of a shagger to boot, but strange that nobody questioned his history books till rather recently.

There is a bit of a concerted effort to rewrite the history of WW1 to make us look well led angels and the Germans look like an earlier version of the Nazis.

The resiting of snipers at Xmas time is well documented. I read it in an article in The Week over Xmas in fact. The orders to prevent the men from fraternising with the enemy are mentioned in the sources Keith clings dearly to.

His rose tinted testicles seem to be selective as well as inaccurate.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 12:15 PM

Obviously fraternising was forbidden.
Are you suggesting there is some kind of conspiracy among living historians to lie about their findings?
That sounds a bit mad.
It is mad.
Are you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 12:54 PM

Are you quite sure you saw that sniper thing in The Week?
Which issue?
How did moving snipers prevent fraternising?
How would they know where to put them?
How would they know they were not best placed already?
It takes time to prepare a hide, so how long in advance?
It sounds a bit made up.
I have never heard of such a thing.
Why do you say it is "well documented" ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 01:06 PM

Xmas edition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 01:32 PM

Have you still got it.
Are you really sure?

Do they answer any of these questions?

How did they stop the snipers fraternising?
How did moving snipers prevent fraternising?
How would they know where to put them?
How would they know they were not best placed already?
It takes time to prepare a hide, so how long in advance?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 02:43 PM

If the folks on both sides in the trenches in 1914 would have analyzed all this as much as you people, they'd have all shot themselves. It was a bit of a break in a war that changed the way war was carried on. Everyone was just learning about the newer weapons and the means in which they used them.

Y'all will fight over whether gnat shit or ant shit smells worse.


Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 02:47 PM

Yeah, and they'll infest an otherwise OK thread to fight. I keep hoping somebody will float the idea of a suicide pact...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 05:19 PM

Absolutely no idea. I read something. You reckon I didn't. That makes you a fucking weird nutter.

You see them get on buses around here you know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 13 - 06:32 PM

Ain't either, 'Spaw - its termite shit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 01:35 AM

Musket, have you forgotten what it said already?
If it said Haig ordered snipers to be shifted around, it must have said how that would stop fraternising?
Why do you say the practice was "well documented?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 03:53 AM

"I have only cited professional historians."
You might do a little better if you actually read a couple of them instead of scrambling round the web and selecting the first thing that comes to hand to back up your jingoistic claims - and rejecting all the information that doesn't.
Your main informant, Max Hastings, is not a qualified historian, he is a journalist with an interest in World War One - his official entry in the Cambridge Biographical dictionary gives him as a "British writer, journalist and broadcaster" - no mention of him being a "historian".
If he is a "historian" he is a self-appointed one with no academic qualifications whatever.
His main claim to being a "historian" is by being a fellow of the Royal Historical Society - an organisation described thus:
"The Royal Historical Society (RHS), founded in 1868, is a United Kingdom society existing to promote and defend the scholarly study of the past. The Society is based at University College London. One strand of the Society's roots can be traced back to the 1838 foundation of the Camden Society, which merged with the Royal Historical Society in 1896."
There is no record of his having any academic historical qualifications whatever.
On the basis on the words of a 'historical journalist' writing nearly a century after the event you have attempted to turn history on its head.
You described the findings of B.H. Liddell Hartas as "revisionist" - Hart's track record reads thus:

"On the outbreak of World War I in 1914 Liddell Hart volunteered to become an officer in the Kings Own Yorkshire Light Infantry. He fought on the Western Front. Liddell Hart's front line experience was relatively brief, confined to two short spells in the autumn and winter of 1915, being sent home from the front after suffering concussive injuries from a shell burst. He was promoted to the rank of captain. He returned to the front for a third time in 1916, in time to participate in the Battle of the Somme. He was hit three times without serious injury before being badly gassed and sent out of the line on July 18, 1916.[4] His battalion was nearly wiped out on the first day of the offensive, a part of the 60,000 casualties suffered in the heaviest single day's loss in British history. The experiences he suffered on the Western Front profoundly affected him for the rest of his life.[5] Transferred to be Adjutant to Volunteer units in Stoud and Cambridge, he spent a great deal of time training new units.[6] During this time he wrote a several booklets on infantry drill and training, which came to the attention of General Sir Ivor Maxse. After the war he transferred to the Army Educational Corps and was given the opportunity to prepare a new edition of the Infantry Training Manual. In this manual Liddell Hart strove to instill the lessons of 1918, and carried on a correspondence with Maxse, a commanding officer during the Battle of Hamel and the Battle of Amiens.[7] These battles provided a practical demonstration of tactics for attacking an entrenched enemy."

You have rejected the opinions of soldiers who fought in WW1 (described as "liars and romantics" by you) - of other long-term and fully qualified historians - on the word of a Daily Mail columnist (his current main occupation).
Can you please go and read something for yourself and not continually hide behind a few cut-'n-pastes taken from a few much condensed articles posted on the net - Hastings is a self-appointed historical journalist - he is not a Historian - if anything, his claim to being a "historian" is an honourary one - sort of like the Beatles being given honourary fellowships at Oxford.
Even the review of his book on World War One by a fully qualified historian - in a fully recognised history publication - points out that, of the three books on the subject, Clifford's was "the weakest on the causes of World War One" - his interest in the subject centres around Military Tactics - (the boom - boom, bang-bang side of military journalism much beloved by all journalists - especially the tabloid ones like Clifford).
Clifford is not a historian, he is a journalist with an interest in military strategy and tactics.
Whether his interest qualifies him to challenge the findings of real historians remains to be seen - we will never know by scooping up convenient, out-of-context cut-'n-pastes to defend a somewhat quaintly out-of-date analysis of WW1.
ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE GO AND READ UP ON THE SUBJECTS YOU CHOOSE TO DOMINATE WITH YOUR IGNORANCE - THIS IS THE UMPTEENTH ONE YOU WILL HAVE DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO YET AGAIN   
Your nonsense stopped being taught when the sun set on the British Empire.
Even the official propaganda of the time made it quite clear why World War One was fought "For King and Country" - the official slogan.
There was never a question of Britain being involved for any other reason than self-interested motives of Empire - certainly not to come to the assistance of a nation led by genocidal mass murderers - that's what "Gallant Little Belgium" was - and that's official - not a matter of opinion!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 04:20 AM

Hastings is just one of the historians I cited.
(He has one prestigious awards fro his military history work, and as you say he is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society.)
If it was only him, you would have a case Jim, but remember all those other professional and academic historians who say the same.
You can find no living historian.

I have rejected nothing, but the people you mention were simply not representative.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 05:10 AM

Clifford is not a historian - he is a historical journalist
Your main argument is based on the word of a tabloid journalist
Go away and read a book
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 06:10 AM

Sorry - I meant Hastings - all tabloid journalists look the same to me.
You are now entering all of threads you insist on dominating, not on your own knowledge, but solely on the supposed arguments of "experts" - you bring neither information, or even interest of your own, and when you are driven into all the corners you have been, you scurry behind supposed expertise of others - offering no defence of your own.
When you make your horrific "all male Pakistanis "are implanted perverts you invented statements from so-called experts who never made such a statement, and would have been prosecuted under the race hatred laws if they had.
You based much of your Irish Famine arguments on an "expert" who was saying the opposite to what you were claiming, and swept aside all other arguments as "revisionist" and "tainted by prejudice"
Your entire defence of the Israeli Government is based on the Official Israeli Government line, and you have admitted as much.
You are doing exactly the same here - coming with no fore-knowledge and making your argument purely on so-called "expertise" and "authority" of people who have no more right than the establshed historians (not to mention the soldiers you have dismissed as "liars" and "romantics" to be believed.
Until you show an interest in these subjects enough to have some knowledge of your own - enough to have read a book on the subject at least - you will continue to wreck thread after thread, as yo have done, with your ignorance and your desire to get across your extremist message, and in doing so, you maker these subjects little more than a platform for ideas that often show little different than the views of scum like the B.N.P.
If you want to be taken seriously and not just "Oh no, it's that nutter again" figure that you have become - fro crying out loud, read up on these topics - show some interest in them - stop bringing pre-set ideas and then attempting to substantiate them with quich raids on the web.
Stop behaving like a moron and stop treating the rest of us as if we were ignorant idiots.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 07:36 AM

These are the historians quoted in this discussion.
Richard Holmes, Peter Hart, David Stephenson, Fritz Fischer, Dan Todman, Gary Sheffield, Max Hastings, Malcolm Brown, Stuart Halifax, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan:

Gary Sheffield is an historian by any description, and he described Hastings as "Britain's leading military historian."

Forget Hastings and my case is still rock-solid.
You still can not find one living historian to support your case.
You are going to have a miserable 4 years as all those historians appear in the media saying just what I said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 08:20 AM

Musket, what is on the front cover of your "Xmas edition?"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 08:39 AM

Never mind Musket.
Here is your article.
http://theweek.com/article/index/254362/the-christmas-truce

No mention of Haig.
No mention of moving snipers or any such made up nonsense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 12:01 PM

"These are the historians quoted in this discussion."
To repeat - Max Hastings is not a historian - he is a journalist for a tabloid newspaper with an interest in military history.
What are you trying to mislead us about his qualifications - it is you who has insisted throughout that we can only believe the evidence of "real historians"
These are the "historians you have cited and have demanded that we abandon everything we believe and reject all the long standing and established historians.
None of them (apart from the tabloid journalist who you keep insisting is a historian, backs your arguments in any way, and even if they did, you have given no reason why their words is any better than anybody else's.
It certainly give you no grounds for claiming that the veterans whose experiences you have rejected out of hand were lying as you disgustingly accused them of - Tommy Kenny, Partrick McGill, Siegfried Sassoon, Liddell- Hart..... surely sewer-level, even by your appalling standards
You are the one who has constantly hidden behind "qualified historians" - now go and find some proper ones who back your case and can be trusted
Jim Carroll

Richard Holmes, Peter Hart, David Stephenson, Fritz Fischer, Dan Todman, Gary Sheffield, Max Hastings, Malcolm Brown, Stuart Halifax, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan:

Peter Hart specialised in Ireland and the IRA – no mention of WW1 in his CV
Richard Holmes is an establishment military historian with no speciality in World War One other than to present visual images of warfare in general
In June 1991 he was appointed Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, holding the post until February 1997.[16][17] In January 1994 he was appointed Honorary Colonel of the Southampton University Officer Training Corps,[18] and in that February, he was appointed Brigadier TA at Headquarters Land Command.[19] In 1995, he became Professor of Military and Security Studies at Cranfield.[6]
From 1997 until his retirement in 2000, Holmes was Director Reserve Forces and Cadets, as well as having the distinguished honour of being Britain's senior serving reservist.[20] In the 1998 New Year Honours he was promoted to Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) (Military Division).[21] From September 1999 to 1 February 2007 he was Colonel of the Regiment of thePrincess of Wales's Royal Regiment (successor to The Queen's and Royal Hampshire Regiments).[22] On 19 September 2000 he was awarded the Volunteer Reserves Service Medal.[23]

Fritz Fisher:
claimed that WW1 came out of Imperial expansionism on the part of Germany – ie – it was an Imperial war (as I have been saying – nothing else)
Dan Todman took his degree in economics – he taught history at Sandhurst – he is an establishment historian who taught on behalf of the British army - his career depends on his presenting the British army in the best light

Gary Sheffield agrees with Fisher that the war was an Imperialist conflict - a response to Germany's rocking the Imperial boat.
His main interest is the conduct of the war – not its causes

Max Hastings is a tabloid journalist

Malcolm Brown - no CV available – not the noted or particularly well-known historian you have been demanding from the rest of us

Stuart Halifax does not respond to any searches – a totally unknown historian.

Cartiona Pennell has written only about the British and Irish responses to the aftermath of WW1 – nowhere is there any evidence that her knowledge and opinions extend further.

I am a historian of 19th and 20th century British and Irish history with a particular focus on the social and cultural history of the First World War and British imperial activity in the Middle East since the 1880s. I am intrigued by the experiences of ordinary people and communities in global war, as well as the on-going (and often bloody) relationship between current conflict and the past, particularly in Ireland, Lebanon, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
I am also very interested in the relationship between war, experience, and memory.

"Pennell, Catriona (2012). A Kingdom United: Popular Responses to the Outbreak of the First World War in Britain and Ireland."

And last, but not least -
Margaret McMillan
Who wrote
"Europe did not have to go to war in the summer of 1914. MacMillan's skill as both a historian and a storyteller is to bring her narrative into a kind of slow-motion where we witness a horrible accident taking place before our very eyes. "Very little in history is inevitable," she surmises coolly. "Yet in 1914 Europe did walk over the cliff into a catastrophic conflict which was going to kill millions of its men, bleed its economies dry, shake empires and societies to pieces, and fatally undermine Europe's dominance of the world. The photographs of cheering crowds in the great capitals are misleading."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 12:13 PM

Not the full article but even the short non subscription version you supplied does indeed talk of both sides ordering snipers to discourage fraternisation over Xmas. The full version goes into more detail but never mind, you make yourself look pathetic enough posting a link that proves your " liar !" shit yo be what it is. Shit.

Try reading before being so quick to make yourself look good.



Of course , just as with white feathers, executions and the rest, we don't need the snipers specifically for Xmas if the soldiers are all there with their eyes wide open to the truth, do we?


zzzz


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 12:21 PM

If top historians say Hastings is our "leading military historian" why should anyone care what your opinion of him is!

"Stuart Halifax does not respond to any searches – a totally unknown historian."
That is funny Jim.
It was YOU who posted an extract of his work, which turned out to support my views not yours!
Remember now?
Search for Stuart HaLLifax.


Have you found one living historian who supports your views yet?
Why not Jim?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 12:28 PM

Google the text for source.


Peter Hart.
"But when I started the detailed research I began to realise that our communal understanding of the whole of the First World War has a strangely 'unfinished' aspect to it; why have the great battles of the earlier years seemed so futile in the public imagination and why are British High Command so denigrated?"



The late Richard Holmes was another.
From his obit.
Forty years on, in his book Tommy (2004), Holmes continued to repudiate the view, promoted by the war poets, that the troops of the First World War were poorly led. He also re-examined the enduring legends about the prevalence of shellshock, drunkenness in the trenches, and soldiers shot at dawn for cowardice or desertion, pointing out that 90 per cent of death sentences were commuted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 12:33 PM

Military historian Malcolm Brown wrote a book I have about the Somme.
The famous historian Richard Holmes said of it in The Times Literary Supplement, "If you can buy only one book on the Somme, it should be Malcolm Brown's powerful and scholarly account."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 12:37 PM

Musket, that is the whole article.
I know artillery and sniping were used to dissuade fraternising.
All that other shit you posted was made up by you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 03:22 PM

"Max Hastings, military historian and ex-war reporter, chooses his favourite "

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2010/mar/14/10-best-books-war-max-hastings

If the Guardian says he is a war historian, who cares what the two muppets think!?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 07:23 PM

"I have rejected nothing, but the people you mention were simply not representative."

The people he mentioned, with many others, served amid the mud, and the blood and the bullets, were wounded and returned, eventually either invalided out or killed, and according to you they know less than a journalist writing 70 years after.

Jesus fuckng wept, now I know just how stupid you are!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 13 - 07:28 PM

"You still can not find one living historian to support your case."

Ninety six years after it ended there isn't a living historian who knows at first hand what went on.

Well Bugger me! WHAT A SURPRISE!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 03:30 AM

Now that those who saw action in the Second World War are reaching their twilight years, we can look forward to partisan cleansing of history there too.

The establishment waited for the veterans from the first war to die off before rewriting history to see jingoism and poor military leadership in a sanitised light.

It seems to work too, judging by the gullibility shown on this and similar threads by someone who claims to have read plenty yet demonstrates no understanding.

Fascinating.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 04:34 AM

"Have you found one living historian who supports your views yet?"
Our education system supports the popular view of history - the history - our established and fully qualified historians have written he history of World War One - it has been a done deal for half a century.
You have presented a minute handful of totally unknown 'historians' and a scabloid journalist - most, apart from the journalist, who in no way back up what you say (go and read what they do have to say) - and suggest we take a quantum leap back to the jingoistic propaganda which conned millions of young men to sacrifice their lives for a dead and discredited Empire - yeah sure - where do I sign!!!!
I'm delighted you actually own a book - I suggest you read it before you put it on the Oxfam pile.
You have a list of who your 'distinguished historians' are and aren't and what they do and don't have to say n a subject that was peripheral to their (unknown) skills - they say nothing resembling your pathetically quaint flag-waving.
You are continuing to present your scabloid journalist (your main and only witness to your claims) as a 'historian' - he isn't - he is a journalist for a scabloid newspaper - which more-or-less sums yup your case .
You have been given masses of long accepted information from respectable and fully accredited sources - you have rejected them all.
You have described historians like Liddell Hart and Trevelyan as 'revisionists and romantics' and soldiers who fought I the war and gave their experiences as "liars" - Sasson, Liddell Hart, Robert Graves, Patrick MacGill - eve poor old Tommy Kenny, the Liverpool docker who lied about his age to join up and got his ears blown off for his (in his own words) "totally misguided stupidity in believeing the bastards lies".
You insult them, you insult genuine historians who have worked over the intervenient period to make sense of a bloody and greed-inspired conflict that robbed millions of young man of their lives and their health - you insult our intelligence by expecting anybody to take up your antiquated cause
Dream on
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 05:25 AM

You chumps do not understand History.
Do you believe that historical knowledge seeps away every day?
Modern historians have the work of previous historians to build on PLUS the fruits of continuing research and information not previously available.

Jim mentions education.
Here is a piece from The Times Educational Supplement offering guidance to teachers.
You should read it, but you won't so I will provide some extracts.
Please at least read those.
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storyCode=6373287


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 05:33 AM

"If we accept that the purpose of remembering the First World War is to learn about the horrors of war, we are not teaching it as it was but rather as we presume it to have been. In other words, we have accepted that the conflict is not a historical event to be dissected and understood, but a moral lesson to be recalled. That is profoundly dangerous.

Teachers often complain about market ideology being poured into their classrooms, but it is equally as dogmatic to maintain that the only possible lesson to be learned from the 1914-18 hostilities is about the horrors of war. In fact, if the centenary is to be truly historical, the First World War needs to be considered in far greater depth, and the myths that have grown up around it challenged.

I would like to take aim at three here: first, that it was, without question, an unjust and imperialist war; second, that war poets such as Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen provide a representative response of soldiers to the conflict; and third, that the generals of the First World War were ignorant and callous butchers who had no regard for their men. All three of these myths appear to be deeply embedded in too many of our schools and in too much of our culture."

"The service experience of European soldiers ought also to be re-examined. Few British children can have made it through school without at least one English or history lesson on "the war poets", the teacher sonorously intoning Owen's immortal phrase, "you would not tell with such high zest/to children ardent for some desperate glory/the old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est/Pro patria mori".

This bitter anger at the futility of it all is sold as the authentic voice of the front-line soldier. Except it probably wasn't the majority view at all. Martin Stephen, a former high master of St Paul's private school in London, who completed a doctorate on the war poets, interviewed hundreds of First World War veterans in the 1970s and found not one who had a copy of work by the famous war poets or endorsed the views in that poetry."


"Many of the men Stephen interviewed were outraged by the patronising attitude of later generations that they had been mere cannon fodder, ignorant of the causes of the war and maltreated. They were clear why they had fought and satisfied that the war had been worthwhile. Nor had their experience been as unremittingly dreadful as some historians and polemicists claimed: 80 per cent of enlisted men came home again, and although most communities in the country bore some loss, there are villages in England where there is no war memorial because every man returned."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 05:37 AM

"Stephen concluded that the Owen and Sassoon view took hold not because it represented real Tommies but because it reflected the shock of a middle class unused to war. Taking Owen as the "average" British soldier is like assuming that the Guardian letters page of 2003 provides an authentic representation of life in the armed forces in Iraq."

"Much of the negative image of Haig and his generals was created by a small group of historians, beginning with Basil Liddell Hart, who served under Haig in the war but later turned on him. Liddell Hart's haughty disdain for his former commander had a profound influence on the left-wing agitprop of the 1960s, and the myths of imperialist war and ignorant generals were grist to the mill.

This view has been challenged, and challenged strongly. Gary Sheffield wrote Forgotten Victory more than a decade ago, comprehensively deconstructing the myths of the Great War. Yet the group of actors, writers and musicians behind the No Glory in War campaign seeking to influence the centenary celebrations can still get significant play with their views, unchanged from that 1960s liberal consensus. When Brian Eno says that the war was "a total disaster that was unnecessary and destroyed a generation", he speaks for many, even if the historical record simply does not support such a claim."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 05:40 AM

The First World War was an infinitely more complex historical phenomenon than British popular memory makes it. Instead of being approached with caution and examined - and learned from - as a multilayered event, it has become almost a "fixed point" in the historical calendar, a vision of war not as it was but as we think it should be taught.

This is neither desirable nor wise: it cheapens the contributions of those who served in full knowledge of what their service meant; it makes generals who may have been slow to learn but were ultimately highly effective into callous villains; and it substitutes an easy, allegedly historical lesson for a much harder set of truths.

The centenary of the First World War must not be a chauvinistic cavalcade but nor should it be a pacifist's parade. We should hope for an open, honest debate about the multifaceted meanings of this war, the diversity of the experiences of those who fought in it, and what lessons we can draw from it today. The rattle of the machine guns has long since fallen silent, but a fierce contest between popular memory and historical evidence is still taking place in the trenches of Flanders, on the sands of Gallipoli and on the alpine slopes of the Austro-Italian war.

Because of that battle, we should hope that this centenary leads to a profound public conversation about the First World War, challenging received wisdoms and raising uncomfortable truths. If it does, that may be the most suitable commemoration of the fallen we can make


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 06:12 AM

May I humbly say that Keith's last post is an excellent, well-balanced summary? All historical events have myriad viewpoints and interpretations. 'Complex' and 'multi-layered' is the right way to approach them. As a teacher, I was pleased to see the National Curriculum bring in more evidential and first-hand accounts from the period studied, and informed opinions encouraged, rather than swallowing whole the received standpoint issued by old textbooks. I have listened to both my father and my grandfather (who survived the trenches with minor wounds, non-removable shrapnel and loss of part of his hand) and their accounts of both Wars IMO were infinitely valuable. Both these brave men were completely against fraternising with the enemy, and neither viewed their respective War service with resentment or bitterness, only great pride. (I heartily wish I had questioned them more thoroughly during their lives, as of course their memories are now lost.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 07:48 AM

according to you they know less than a journalist writing 70 years after.
Jesus fuckng wept, now I know just how stupid you are!


So, I am stupid because I read and learn from history (not "journalists")!
I am in good company.
The Times Ed.
Stupid?
The BBC. Their history site has commissioned Sheffield and Todman to tell the true story and debunk the myths.
Stupid?

So here we are.
You have not read the work of one living historian and reject all their work.
You think you are all so clever and call people stupid because they take the trouble to seek out the truth.

You are all too stupid to learn.
I am happy for you to stew in your ignorance.
How you are going to hate the next 4 years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 11:06 AM

Keith's contribution of 01 Jan 14 - 05:40 AM is of course copy-and-pasted from a "London-based comprehensive teacher John Blake", as Google readily tells us. A man of poetic English, this being the main contrast to primitive Keith.

No question that history is a complex matter, much more so than many including Keith tend to think. The main controversial point is whether "those who served" did so "in full knowledge of what their service meant". As I commented earlier: if matters appear very complex even for us with hindsight, how on earth could they have been fully transparent to "those who served"?!

I do not want to "cheapen" or criticize soldiers who felt they were doing their duty. The idea of honouring them, however, would imply that we approve of the sort of power gambling that led to the war, by the governments of all the large countries involved (- sorry for repeating). I definitely do not approve of that, particularly not for today and tomorrow; that is the political aspect of it. I protest against any government or other power gamblers seizing real or imagined heroes of the past for their own agenda.

At Xmas 1914, everybody realized that the initial plans "home by Christmas" had failed. It was therefore imaginable that peace negotiations took place, as had in previous wars, so that it was reasonable to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. This time, however, those in power decided to raise the stakes to "the winner takes it all", presumably because their propaganda machines had been more efficient than planned - everybody now having access to newspapers.

We do not wish to fall victim to such propaganda again and again. Not by persons who support our own governments, not by anybody else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 11:10 AM

I'll order the Union Jack bunting. Can't wait.

The last time I read anything in TES, it was advocating Brain Gym for Clapton's sake.

All and any links to all and anything is a link to opinion.

It takes human evaluation to sort the wheat from the chaff. Keith rattles on about education yet fails to use the education he was given. Just pointing to views of others who happen to be paid to give opinions isn't exactly helpful.

But I am of the opinion he isn't trying to be objective.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 12:13 PM

"Have you found one living historian who supports your views yet?
By the way - all living historians support - the traditional view (not mine - the one that is fully accepted by both historians and educationists) - I would have thought that would have been blindingly obvious, except of course - you don't read - not even your own cut-'n-pastes.
At least one of your revisionist historians (correct use of the term - one who revises the accepted facts in the light of new considerations) has said that 'the current view of World War One must be altered' - this has been echoed by your Daily Mail journalist Therefore, until the views of the tiny minority you have hastily sought out are fully accepted, the traditional se of facts remain unchanged.
Unless you are able to supply any evidence whatever that such a change is taking place, the situation remains unaltered
There has been little response to your 'historian' and journalist's claims so far - don't you think we would have had some evidence of this radical change of view if there had been one.
So far these pronouncements have been greeted with silence - apart from the history journals writer pointing out that Max Clifford's - (whoops - I meant Hastings of course - these tabloid writers are beginning to confuse me) - book is weak on the causes of World War One (do you intend to respond to this statement)
Don't suppose for one minute that you'll respond to this with anything more than stupid denials - but that's something else that remains unaltered.

"Stuart Hallifax"
Might have had better luck if you'd spelled it properly in the first place.
From a book review of 2007 - nothing to do with the history of WW1 - just the effect it had on life in Britain his thesis was on "the experiences and attitudes of civilians in Essex during the First World War, 1914-1918"
If he was successful in his studies he is now a seasoned historian of 9 years standing in the effects of domestic life in Britain.
"Stuart Hallifax is a DPhil student at The Queen's College, Oxford studying the effect of the First World War on life in Britain."
These is little information on his skills as a historian - apart from self-promoting blogs.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 12:28 PM

"So, I am stupid because I read and learn from history (not "journalists")!"
But you don't read from anything Keith - you seek out, cut and paste (not even bothering to read them properly) - you wouldn't be putting up names that bear no resemblance to your jingoism if you did
You now appear to be lifting direct quotes from the web and claiming them as your own - or did you just forget to put in the quotation marks from your posting - entirely filched from 'The First Casualty; truth'
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 03:55 AM

You are obviously not going to respond with anything resembling a sane explanation of your insane claims
I suggest you take a serious look at your behaviour on this forum - which has led to your deliberately flooding and destroying thread after thread with your fanaticism.
Here, on the basis of a few cut-'n-pastes, gathered to fit a preconceive stance on a subject you have on knowledge whatever (despite claims of it being your "lifelong study" you are now attempting to do what no historian (or even tabloid journalist) has done and single-handedly re-write the history of World War One as it is regarded by all historians and educationalists in Britain today.
While you may have pointed out some features of the subject that have been put under scrutiny by diverse, and not particularly distinguished or qualified historians (and a tabloid journalist) - you have redifined
THE CAUSES OF WORLD WAR ONE, COMPLETELY IGNORING THE NOW FULLY ACCEPTED IMPERIALIST NATURE OF THE CONFLICT
THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR AND HOW IT WAS LED
THE ATTITUDE OF THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT, WHY THEY VOLUNTEERED, THE NATURE OF THE PROPAGANDA WHICH LED THEM TO DO SO AND THEIR FEELINGS ON THEIR ASPIRATIONS, THEIR TREATMENT AND THEIR DISILLUSIONMENT - ALL FULLY DOCUMENTED MATTERS OF RECORD.
No single historian (or even tabloid journalist) has attempted to make the claims you have made here
A tiny handful of relatively unknown historians have, as I said, have questioned some aspects of the conflict and thrown them open for debate.
You have lumped them all together, and on the basis of a few hastily gathered cut-'n-pastes, have attempted to turn known history on its head and create a whole new historical scenario for the events all in total ignorance of the subject, and without ever having read a book
As far as I can see, your attitude displays signs of acute megalomania.
This is now happening repeatedly on this forum on virtually every topic you become involved in.
Please have some regard for those of us who do have some interest and a little knowledge in the subjects we contribute to.
If you are gong to continue to behave the way you do you will damage this forum ore than you have so far, which is not inconsiderable.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 04:12 AM

http://www.forumeerstewereldoorlog.nl/viewtopic.php?t=24650
Stuart Hallifax
Queen's College Oxford
Article 'Over by Christmas': British popular opinion and the short war in 1914"
published in First World War Studies
Vol.1, No. 2, October 2010 103-121
Published By: Routledge
Print ISSN: 1947-5020
Online ISSN: 1947-5039
Queen's College, Oxford

"The words and actions of civilians and leaders do not suggest that expectations of peace by Christmas were widespread, and they certainly did not spur the recruiting boom of late summer 1914."

"As part of the image of a nation unprepared for war, 'over by Christmas' is an iconic phrase that has become accepted as ubiquitous in and singular to 1914. It was neither. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 04:13 AM

I've worked it out Jim.

The more you write, the longer he trawls for dissenting views to cut and paste. Hence his quietness for a few posts.

I have to admit, I do say things that are backed up but I purposely say them in a way to have him show his true colours. My bad, but without exploring where Keith is coming from, his more dubious claims might be taken at face value and without challenge, truth gets lost in the fog.

I was delighted to see the Xmas sniper redeployment mentioned in the "box" in the article in The Week, as the non subscriber web version misses out the explanation box. There is another example regarding healthcare statistics, where reports are written ahead of verified data but such data is always available for research (Cochrane etc). Keith loves to wave "definitive" stories and reports as meaning " end of discussion. ". Thick bugger hasn't worked out yet that they are there to provoke debate, not stifle it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 04:24 AM

I am done with casting pearls before swine.
I used to think like you.
I read Sassoon and Graves and Remarque as a youth and still have Owen on my shelf.
I thought O What A lovely War brilliant.

Unlike all of you, I have continued my reading.
I know that those all myths have been debunked.

You can not find one single living historian to support your views., because your views are discredited.
They all support my views because that is where I got them.

You can call acclaimed and eminent historians "journalists" but who are you?
Empty headed, know nothings.
You can find no intelligent person to support that either!

So you bunch of ignorant twats can keep telling yourselves how clever you are, and how stupid historians are.
I have put the work of the historians before you.
You reject them just because of your prejudice and preconceptions.
Get on with it.


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: 26 April 3:41 AM 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.