BS: Christmas Truce (1914)

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 07:15 PM

if you had actually produced a historian who supports your case

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 07:23 PM

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

Really?
Which?
How?
Macmillan possibly about going to war, but probably not once the German offensive started.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 07:28 PM

Read and think about what you are reading. Don't just skim through stuff and tick off the bits you think fit.

Spaw is of course right.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 07:35 PM

"They were just defending their homeland and fighting what they saw as German militarism."

Or, more accurately, what they were TOLD was German militarism.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 07:37 PM

And repeatedly TOLD by government posters, government recruiters and their women folk "We don't want to lose you, but we think you ought to go"!

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 07:45 PM

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

No clown, you are the one making a case, so prove it!

Link to one historian, living or dead (we'll give you more leeway than you ever have), who agrees with every one of your points.

Include Alan Clark in that if you really want to impress. After all, he WAS closaer to the events under discussion than ANY of your "historians".

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 03:00 AM

Still waiting for reinforcements Private A Hole of Hertford?

Sorry, the top brass prefer your sacrifice on this one. You are on your own. Never mind, 100 years from now we will make sure people know we sent them anyway. After all, we don't want people thinking you weren't well led.


BAARRR!

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 04:25 AM

Keith obviously intends to continue to try to save face out of this shambles long after his credibility (what there ever was of it) trousers have fallen down to his ankles - long may he continue to do so.
It will make sure that he will never ever be taken seriously by anybody with any sense again on this forum.
Keep up the good work Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 05:28 AM

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

Simply false.
Put something up.

Troubadour
Link to one historian, living or dead (we'll give you more leeway than you ever have), who agrees with every one of your points.

I have, over and over again.
e.g. Hastings, Todman, Sheffield,...........................

Musket
Still waiting for reinforcements Private A Hole of Hertford?

No. The only support I have is from professors of History and other acclaimed professional Historians.
Sadly, there are none of those on the forum.

Jim, all those historians may be talking shit, in which case I am wrong.
If the historians know more about History than us, I am right and you lose.
I am happy to leave it there, and will enjoy seeing all your silly noses rubbed in your ignorance as the story unfolds over the next four years.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 06:30 AM

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

"There is much in the Government's commemoration plans that should be applauded, but I cannot approve of the decision, for political reasons, to take the path of least resistance by maintaining its non-judgmental stance. No one wants to see five years of German-bashing, but we run the risk of missing a (literally) once in a century opportunity to educate the public about the war. For the government to show leadership by showcasing the wealth of scholarly research that undermines the Blackadder view might be politically risky, but it is the right thing to do."
http://www.historytoday.com/gary-sheffield/great-war-was-just-war

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 06:31 AM

Thank you Mac!

Now if the rest of you are tired of this nonsense, allow Keith to have the pathetic last word because no one actually cares do they?

Now Keith, since there are so many fools and other sorts far below your advanced knowledge on THIS forum, supposedly about folk music, why not take all your wonderful thoughts and opinions elsewhere and fight with people who are at your high level on the dickwad meter?

Or just have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up!

Have a nice day.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 08:17 AM

"allow Keith to have the pathetic last word because no one actually cares do they?"
Amen to that
Seems to be his sole object in all these discussions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 08:21 AM

Thanks Spaw.
This debate started when I said I did not like a song because it patronised dead soldiers, saying they did not know why they fought and that they died for nothing.

I alone made their case for them, but only by using the findings of all the current historians of the period.

I do think they know better than all the muppets so stridently trying to shout me down.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 10:23 AM

Only one muppet here me old love.

Daddy? What did you do in the war? Even turning children against their fathers to cover up the incompetence and callous disregard.

Michael Gove even made the front cover of The Week this week. So at least you aren't on your own Keith. Another looney right merchant there to join you.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 10:34 AM

the findings of all the current historians of the period.

"All"? Beyond pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 10:36 AM

I was never on my own.
Everything I have ever claimed I have backed up with linked quotes from professors of History and other acclaimed historians.
None of you have found a single dissenting voice from anyone with any knowledge.
You just have each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 10:40 AM

Yes Greg.
All.
That is why in ten solid weeks not one of you have managed to find a single one.

Sheffield and Todman have made the same statement, and they are better placed to know the truth of it that Greg F!
Beyond pathetic Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 11:00 AM

"Sheffield and Todman have made the same statement,"
Down to two historians that agree with you now - nearly there Keith, only a couple to go before you arrive at none
Jim Carroll

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

No Jim, they all agree with me on the History.
Sheffield and Todman just confirmed that.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 12:32 PM

Well, stupid is as stupid does, Keith, And this pig ain't never gonna be able to carry a tune. Have fun revelling in your delusions.

Bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 12:41 PM

"Delusions" that you can find nothing against, but I can produce expert after expert to substantiate.
How can that be Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 03:19 AM

No-one delved into the diaries to get it straight from the horses mouth yet?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 03:33 AM

Yes.
They have been available for research off line for some years.
They form a large part of the archival evidence available to modern historians that was not available to their predecessors.

It is not "fashion" that has shaped the current understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 03:44 AM

No-one ON THIS DISCUSSION delved into the diaries to get it straight from the horses mouth yet?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 04:34 AM

"About 1.5 million diary pages are held by the National Archives and a fifth have been digitised so far."
"Some 25 volunteers scanned hundreds of boxes of diaries - which had been available for the public to view at the National Archive in Kew since the late 1960s - between January and December last year."

It would be a massive task to study sufficient to be able to make any assessments.
It is a task for professional historians.
They have been working on them for decades, and I have reported their findings here.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 04:53 AM

So, the answer is no then?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 05:02 AM

No from me.
The others on this discussion were not even prepared to read any history later than 1980, so I doubt they will either.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 06:03 AM

OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 06:30 AM

You can't say fairer than that.






Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 07:45 AM

I knew a bloke who has a speech impediment. He could not pronounce t or f. I said to him, "you can't say fairer than that".

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 14 - 07:36 AM

I hesitate to post and refresh this thread again, but in light of Keith's continuing insistance that all historians share his version of history it seems appropriate to point out at least one exception.

Christpher Clark is professor of Modern European History at the University of Cambridge, and author of "The Sleepwalkers: how Europe went to war". In a two page spread in today's Guardian he indicates that he disagrees with the suggestion that German aggression started the Great War, preferring to see the cause as "the consequence of interactions between the great powers, each willing to resort to violence in support of its interests."

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Jan 14 - 08:45 AM

If you are going to reignite the thread on the basis of historians who don't share Keith's establishment revision, we'll be here all bloody year.......

In the absence of his reply yet, let me guess it.

That's only one! I bet you can't find any others. Because there aren't any! I'm right, you're wrong and I have every historian on my side.

Apart from the one you just mentioned.

Oh, and the others.

Oh, everybody other than me is capable of reading and forming their own conclusions whereas I read the one offered and proclaim it as the definitive only explanation of the facts.

I am a model citizen.

Dribble

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jan 14 - 10:59 AM

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

I acknowledged that McMillan and others disputed that Germany bore sole responsibility, though most historians don't.

There is a scathing review of Clark's book here.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2012/09/lets-not-be-beastly-to-the-germans/

So, has anyone found any living historian who challenges any of my expressed views?
No.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 03:42 AM

Historians are professional experts in their field.
Bankers are professional experts in their field.
Clergymen are professional experts in their field.
Politicians are professional experts in their field.
Policemen are professional experts in their field.
Soldiers are professional experts in their field.

None of them are ever wrong.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 04:05 AM

As historians do not always agree, so they cannot all be right.

However, on the views I expressed there is a consensus.
They ALL agree.

They would have to ALL be wrong together.
Their evidence would all have to be false.
Otherwise, I am right.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 05:18 AM

They ALL agree

Christopher Clark "disagrees with the suggestion that German aggression started the Great War"

Some discrepancy here?

Anyway - If my previous post did not make it plain enough I will clarify. Everyone can be wrong. Even experts. Even when they are in the majority. To anyone who believes they are absolutely right I refer them to the previous sentence. Feel free to believe you are right but don't expect everyone else to believe it as well :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 06:19 AM

That was not one of my stated views.
I acknowledged that there is some (not much) debate about events leading up to the war.

The only views I expressed were that Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught, the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that, and that the British army was not badly led

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 06:26 AM

Everyone can be wrong. Even experts. Even when they are in the majority. To anyone who believes they are absolutely right I refer them to the previous sentence. Feel free to believe you are right but don't expect everyone else to believe it as well :-)

I agree with all that.
I just expressed my views, and pointed out that the historians agree.
That is how I came by my views.

I have been told not just that I am wrong, but that I am lying, that I am fuckwit, that I am a cunt, and much else just for stating those views.

We are all free to dismiss the work, research and findings of the historians, but where else should we go to learn about History?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 06:44 AM

Not by me, Keith! I believe your views, and those of any historians, are part of the picture but do not believe that they are definitive. I have explained in detail elsewhere but, for the record once again, I believe that all historians colour their findings in a way that suits them. There is no such thing as an unbiased view of history.

As to 'where else should we go to learn about History?'. Well, time and again we have proved that we do not not learn from history. The same mistakes are made over and over again. The study of history appears to be very academic and, as far as the real world goes, pretty pointless.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 06:53 AM

We may not learn lessons from History, but there is such a thing as History?

Our knowledge of History is constantly evolving.
My view is the current understanding of those who study it.
Of course they might all be wrong, but do you not need a reason to dismiss their findings?
What reason does anyone have to believe that the Historians are wrong and they are right?

Where does the non-historian version of History come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 07:47 AM

What reason does anyone have to believe that the Historians are wrong and they are right?

I have no idea about anyone else. For myself I will say, once again, there is no such thing as an unbiased view of history. No right, no wrong. Historians, and everyone else for that matter, work to their own agenda and within their own remit.

Nelson Mandela was a freedom fighter.
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.
In the 1980's industrial action by the miners brought the country to it's knees.
In the 1980's action against the miners by the government brought the country to it's knees.
Oswald Moseley was a visionary who wanted the best for England.
Oswald Moseley was a fascist traitor.


Need I go on?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 08:06 AM

Mandella, the miners' strike, and Mosley are controversial issues.
Historians deal with known facts, and form opinions from the evidence available.
They do not always reach the same conclusions.

In this case they do.
Who knows better?
Where does that other "knowledge" come from?

Is there an analogy with the creation debate?
Most people in the world still believe in the supernatural, mythological version of that History that used to be held by the best brains.

The experts are now almost unanimous that there was no supernatural intervention, but most people prefer the old, discredited stories.

I can only say to them that knowledge has moved on.
They can only say that experts can be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 08:12 AM

Oy Co co opted Messiah.

I was a miner and the only thing I brought to my knees was myself on a Saturday night in Worksop Miners Welfare.....

Surgeons may disagree between themselves, but as they are proper trained professionals, it would be folly to disagree with their suggestions, although you might disagree with the need.

Historians are people who call themselves historians. They might teach or study history, but there is no competence criteria, as the subject is too broad and subjective. The ability to look at something and comment on what you conclude from it is sufficient. Hence newspaper hacks and politicians use the term and nobody kicks up a fuss.

However, putting them on a pedestal of real experts is where Keith's naive view of the world takes a tumble. The only difference between Keith and them, or me and them for that matter is that they have considered a bit more evidence and we have to separate the evidence they present from their opinion of it. Once we do that, we too can hold a view that is valid.

Unless you struggle with the thought process, eh Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 08:19 AM

>i>Historians deal with known facts, and form opinions...

...Who knows better?

That is the whole point. They do not know. They have opinions. OK - Those opinions may be formed from facts but the opinions themselves are NOT facts. They can never be stated as such.

Some things can be stated as facts. XXXX men died in a battle on such and such a date. Some things cannot be stated as fact. The battle was due to poor leadership / enemy aggression / imperialist action. These are opinions. There is a HUGE difference.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 10:34 AM

So History in unknowable?

There is evidence in original source material.
Some Historians may put more weight on this or that bit and come to different conclusions.
In this case the evidence leads them all to the same conclusion.

What evidence are the "mudcat" conclusions based on?
Why do you call me a cunt just because I base my views on the findings of historians Musket?
Where do yours come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 10:43 AM

Dave, I am not sure what we are debating.
I have never said the historians are right and Mudcat members wrong.

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

Musket seems to say that there is no such thing as a historian!
What should we call someone whose working life is devoted to studying and researching History Musket?
Why does that not make them more knowledgeable than you or me?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 10:43 AM

Did I call you a cunt? Many apologies.

A cunt is actually useful.

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 10:48 AM

So History in unknowable?

No it isn't. It is very knowable and very interpretable (Is that a word?)

Once again, opinion, even expert opinion, is not fact. Stating that the British Army was well led in WW1 as a fact is wrong. It is an opinion, regardless of how many people say it is so.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 03:03 PM

I put this to you Dave.
The BBC seeks to inform the public about WW1 through pages on its History site.
To do that, they commissioned historians to write it.
As a result, they provide a version in line with my views.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/

Were the BBC wrong to use historians to write the history?
What should they have done?

Subject: RE: BS: Christmas Truce (1914)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 05:42 PM

after several years, BBC have changed the links!
Use this.

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