BS: Armistice Day (debate)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 13 - 10:49 AM

The one and only thing you have ever produced is a link to a resources site that does not include anything from any historian.

Aha. As I thought. As far as you are concerned,The British Library does not contain anything from any historian.

Please re-read post of 06 Dec 13 - 02:17 PM

Thanks, fuckwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket as in pick up thy
Date: 07 Dec 13 - 12:53 PM

I haven't decided which Viz character Keith A hole of Hertford reminds me of, but I certainly get a mental image of the comic when I read his waffle.

Could be Mr Logic, or possibly the tall one out of Real Ale Twats.

Although when he and the worm start agreeing on things, they remind me mostly of the self righteous brothers from Harry Enfield and chums off the telly.

Sorry, lost interest in the debate. You can't educate pork.




Just landed at the hotel, which isn't a great distance from Hertford. Wouldn't it be funny if Keith came to the gig tonight? The covers include Maginot Waltz and Curtains of Old Joe's House. Best research the intros just in case he pays good money to see us...

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 07 Dec 13 - 01:08 PM

He is quite clear that the punishment was an outrage.

Neither, I'm afraid. Hastings wrote that the sentence for Turing conformed to the law then in force. Similar laws existed in most other countries, regarded unjustified only since the 1970s. If apologies for those laws are due, they should be made in the name of all those countries and to all homosexuals - obviously not what Cameron had in mind. The only interpretation left is that exceptions from laws should be made for war heroes; not a good statement for a PM who is supposed to claim that the wars of his country are fought precisely for the rule of law. To illustrate the emotions in the 1950s, imagine the allegation were pedosexual acts. Homosexuality was then considered equally dangerous and disgusting, falsely, as we now believe.

Understanding articles in the Daily Mail seems to overstrain many Mudcatters. I do not think they are lying, since that would require knowledge of the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 13 - 01:36 PM

Homosexuality was then considered equally dangerous and disgusting, falsely, as we now believe.

Correction: as SOME OF US now believe.

Especially in light of some of the Neanderthal comments on this and other threads

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 13 - 03:39 PM

As I thought. As far as you are concerned,The British Library does not contain anything from any historian.

The site you linked to does not Greg, so why did you link to it?

Let's try once more Greg.
Name just one historian whose work you are familiar with.
Just one.
Surely you can manage just one Greg dear.
You SURELY can not be THAT ignorant!
Can you Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Dec 13 - 05:42 PM

The site you linked to does not Greg, so why did you link to it?

Excuse me???

The "site" is the catalogue of the entire collection of the Britisth Library.

You are obviously a complete ignorant moron as well as a flaming fuckwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 13 - 06:05 PM

The British Library does not contain anything from any historian.

The site you linked to does not Greg, so why did you link to it?

Let's try once more Greg.
Name just one historian whose work you are familiar with.
Just one.
Surely you can manage just one Greg dear.
You SURELY can not be THAT ignorant!
Can you Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Dec 13 - 03:35 AM

Allow me to help.

Me!

If a retired newspaper editor can call himself a historian, so can I!

(Here, you weren't the one who dropped his glass, sending beer and shards all over the back of the hall last night were you? Seriously, the compere knew him and referred to clumsy Keith. I had to chuckle.)

Decent breakfast, decent walk, interesting town. Never been here before, but wary of the locals. Going by our resident idiot, I hope there isn't a commune of the buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 13 - 04:43 AM

Besides being a retired editor, he has presented historical documentaries for the BBC and is the author of many books, including Bomber Command which earned the Somerset Maugham Award for non-fiction in 1980. Both Overlord and The Battle for the Falklands won the Yorkshire Post Book of the Year prize. He was named Journalist of the Year and Reporter of the Year at the 1982 British Press Awards, and Editor of the Year in 1988. In 2010 he received the Royal United Services Institute's Westminster Medal for his "lifelong contribution to military literature", and the same year the Edgar Wallace Award from the London Press Club.[2]

In 2012 he was awarded the US$100,000 Pritzker Military Library Literature Award, a lifetime achievement award for military writing, which includes an honorarium, citation and medallion, sponsored by the Chicago-based Tawani Foundation.[4]

Hastings is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, and the Royal Historical Society. He was President of the Campaign to Protect Rural England from 2002–2007.

In his 2007 book Nemesis: The Battle for Japan, 1944–45 (also known as Retribution in the United States), the chapter on Australia's role in the last year of the Pacific War was criticised by the Returned and Services League of Australia and one of the historians at the Australian War Memorial for, among other things, allegedly exaggerating discontent in the Australian Army during this period.[5]

Hastings currently writes a column for the Daily Mail but often contributes articles to other publications such as The Guardian, The Sunday Times and The New York Review of Books.

And you Muppet?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 13 - 09:09 AM

Keith: Please re-read post of 06 Dec 13 - 02:17 PM

Thanks, fuckwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 13 - 09:14 AM

How many times must i read it Greg?

Meanwhile, let's try once more.
Name just one historian whose work you are familiar with.
Just one.
Surely you can manage just one Greg dear.
You SURELY can not be THAT ignorant!
Can you Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 13 - 09:18 AM

How many times must i read it Greg?

Until you comprehend it.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 13 - 10:20 AM

It is complete bollocks Greg, but I comprehended that the first time.

Now please Greg.
Name just one historian whose work you are familiar with.
Just one.
Surely you can manage just one Greg dear.
You SURELY can not be THAT ignorant!
Can you Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket
Date: 08 Dec 13 - 06:17 PM

Fuckwit? No. I told you. You either remind me of Mr Logic or the tall fat one out of real ale twats. If you must join in the Viz name game, Terry Fuckwit doesn't fit you as he wanders all over the place whereas you are like a dog with a bone.

Thanks for joining in the game though.

Regarding historian credentials, I have had lots of posts published on Mudcat.org if that helps? Never lost an argument yet either for that matter.

Max "nice work if you can get it" Hastings has never won an argument with me yet.









One day, I am going to have to come clean. I enjoy his work to be fair. His conclusions can be interesting but his style is readable. His attention to detail isn't bad either. I just take his revision of the main thrust with a healthy pinch of salt.

Must be awful to have to take everything you read on the chin? Makes you somewhat vulnerable.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 13 - 09:18 PM

It is complete bollocks Greg, but I comprehended that the first time.

See? Now there's your problem. It hardly bollocks. Now, be a good boy & read it again - this time for comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 02:16 AM

Musket, if it was only Hastings I would be sceptical too.
It is not.
He has only just produced work on WW1, but other historians have been making the same points for years.
I know because I have followed the debate, which is now over.
You are hopelessly out of touch and still believing discredited myths.
Have a read through the BBC history site for instance.

Greg, I comprehend your post perfectly, but it is bollocks.
What is your problem with comprehending this?
Name just one historian whose work you are familiar with.
Just one.
Surely you can manage just one Greg dear.
You SURELY can not be THAT ignorant!
Can you Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 06:44 AM

Look, to be serious for once (and once only) you were the one putting Max Hastings up as the oracle. I merely responded. You are the one who found half a dozen historians who were kind to the military leadership and political opinion forming, not me. You are the one who said any dissent from that view stems from "Oh what a lovely war!" and "Blackadder."

I reckon that my taking the piss is being somewhat polite, don't you? Your research and conclusions in other fields, medical being the latest example, do you no justice and leave me thinking you are narrow minded and trawling for evidence of your position rather than evidence to form a position.

Ok. Back to the real debate.

Finding evidence to support preconception. "Helping" society since 32 AD.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 07:04 AM

were the one putting Max Hastings up as the oracle.
Not true.
He was just the first one I happened to mention.
He is new to the subject (ww1)

The historians have been saying this for decades now.
That is why none of you can find one that disagrees.

You still believe outdated, discredited myths.
I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 07:42 AM

Would all of you please state what single statement you find controversial? As for Keith's earlier statements, most are moot:

Well led? Could have been better, could have been worse.
Soldiers motivated? Many were, many were not.
Soldiers well informed and of mature judgment? Of course not - how could they.

Remains the crucial point. In my words: Have the British government, diplomacy, and other authorities done everything that could have been reasonably expected of them to prevent the wars? The same question can be asked about France, presumably with the same answer.

National pride is not as condemnable a feeling as jingoism, but it can be as dangerous and foolish. I am proud of my own personal achievements, and ashamed of my personal failures.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 07:54 AM

Why could WW1 soldiers not be as well informed as WW2 soldiers?
No-one ever claims they knew not why they fought.
The claim against WW1 soldiers is false for the majority.
Their letters and diaries give the lie to that slander.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 08:16 AM

Why could WW1 soldiers not be as well informed as WW2 soldiers?

In all wars, and in the periods in between, people are subjected to propaganda, however subtle. You, Keith, seem to be blissfully unaware of subtle but efficient means of propaganda, so let me tell you that nobody has sufficient and sufficiently unbiased information - not even the NSA nowadays!

Also, mature judgment can only be expected from more mature citizens - when the majority of these fails, we cannot blame the young soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 08:27 AM

Did they not know that German armies were streaming across Europe towards the English Channel?
Did they not know about the treaty with Belgium?

They did, it was fact not propaganda, and that is why so many were willing to fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 09:26 AM

Did they not know that German armies were streaming across Europe towards the English Channel?
Did they not know about the treaty with Belgium?

They did, and it was correct. (In France, the argument was even simpler: Germans were invading the country.) What they did not know is how these conditions had come about, and what political alternatives there had been.

German soldiers had been told that they were preventively acting against domination by Britain and France, plus a pan-Slavic conspiracy, and given similarly selective information (by persons of authority who should have known better).

In other words: I would not discuss about soldiers in that context at all. Discuss governments, newspapers, churches, and other forces of society. Take the Iraq war as an example for some aspects - we still remember it.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 09:36 AM

Did they not know that German armies were streaming across Europe towards the English Channel?
Did they not know about the treaty with Belgium?

As you say, they did.
This was not "selective information" or propaganda.
It was fact, and the main reasons so many stepped forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 10:44 AM

Bloody hell, for someone who reckons he knows a bit about warfare, he has turned on his allies now...

See Grishka?   

Easier to disagree with him from the outset because he has a complete no surrender stance on every small detail of every bit of prejudice he can substantiate by his trusty sword Google.

Yes Keith, it was all fact. Now.. Here's a ball. Run and play.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 11:45 AM

Facts selected for propaganda purposes. For instance, they were rarely told about the questionable human rights records of their allies (and in fact of their own country). Is that really so difficult to understand?

And do you claim British soldiers were experts on European politics? My grandmother (not representative, but principally pro-British) told me they did not know anything - even less than French soldiers, who knew little enough. The newspapers could tell us what they liked, and spare us what they disliked.

Nowadays we have the Internet, but still, when someone tells us Saddam has done xxxx and possessed yyyy weapons, soldiers will shout hurray - it is their job, not their necessarily their personal character.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 11:54 AM

Not facts selected for propaganda.
The German invasions and the treaty were the reason for the declaration of war.
No selection.

No country had a good "human rights record" in those days.
Germany was massacring thousands of civilians in Belgium.
None could compete with that, or their genocide in Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 12:13 PM

If I were seen as anybody's ally here, that would be a gross misunderstanding. In all my posts I took the same stance, clearly distinct from the others'. Anybody is welcome to challenge my statements, but please be specific. I do not enjoy partisan fights where the sides are preset wholesale.

Those who cannot read Mudcat messages or short newspaper articles have a hard time declaring themselves expert historians. And making one grammatical error in a two-words French sentence does not add to one's authority either. (I make mistakes as well, but I do not claim such expertise.)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 04:12 PM

I claim no expertise in French grammar, and never make an issue of anyone's mistakes unless relevant to the subject.
I do appreciate being able to debate and disagree with someone without any abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 02:54 AM

Here are some quotes from the WW1 historians commissioned to write for the BBC History site.

Notwithstanding the enormous casualty lists, in 1918 many Britons thought they had achieved a miraculous deliverance from an evil enemy. They celebrated a remarkable military victory and national survival. For those who had served in the trenches, and for those left at home, the war experience encompassed not only horror, frustration and sorrow, but also triumph, pride, camaraderie and even enjoyment,

Far from being fought over trivial issues, World War One must be seen in the context of an attempt by an aggressive, militarist state to establish hegemony over Europe, extinguishing democracy as a by-product. To argue that the world of 1919 was worse than that of 1914 is to miss the point. A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket grinning
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 03:47 AM

Come on, you love rolling with the pigs really..

Ok. Back to the rambling bollocks about soldiers knowing what they were doing...

Anyone for a bit of Voltaire?

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

We can all come up with astounding quotes Keith. The difference is, some of us can draw conclusions from them...... If you look closely, I am sure that somewhere on the BBC website, you can find a quote or two by profound philosophers.

If we played top trumps, I'd win pitching French philosophers above little Englander newspaper hacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 04:10 AM

We can all come up with astounding quotes Keith.
You can't Muppet.
Neither can Greg.
You just can't find anyone to support your claims.
Funny that.

I am sure that somewhere on the BBC website, you can find a quote or two by profound philosophers.

Yes.
I have put up lots already.
It is you who can't find a thing that supports your claims.
It is as if they are just myths.
Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 04:40 AM

Keith,

I claim no expertise in French grammar, and never make an issue of anyone's mistakes unless relevant to the subject.

That was my (minor) point: an expert in continental politics must certainly be able to read documents in French; in your case indications (not proofs) are to the contrary.

My main criticism was that neither you nor Musket look like good readers at all, judging from this very thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 04:53 AM

I'll have you know I have read you alright Grishka.

Annoying little twat who is so far up his own arse he looks beyond reality to see if it can fit into what only he can understand.

Am I getting warm?

Anyway, Keith will tell you that we don't have to read foreign accounts cos we won!

Une plaie sur vos maisons

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 05:08 AM

Grishka, please suggest an historian of any nationality who you think might alter my perception.
My step daughter is fluent in French and translations are easily achieved anyway.
Where might I start please.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 05:49 AM

Keith, as I wrote, my knowledge of history and historians is not anything extraordinary. The dispute here is not really about facts, but about interpretation and, most of all, about present-day feelings.

Assume you were in a fire brigade who have extinguished a large fire in a factory. Many of your comrades were killed because of poisons that were stored in the building without sufficient security measures. You may well say "Gosh, we're glad we did it!", but if the factory owner says "We can be really proud of our village!" - what would you reply?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 05:55 AM

He'd google a few newspaper hacks before replying, silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 06:05 AM

. The dispute here is not really about facts, but about interpretation

I have not needed to interpret the statements of the historians.
They are unequivocal.
The historians interpret the data, but since they all agree on the issues in question, that must be unequivocal too.

and, most of all, about present-day feelings.

NO!
Feelings are subjective.
They are irrelevant in establishing historical fact.
The muppets' argument IS based solely on their "feelings."
That makes them worthless.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 06:32 AM

Please, gentlemen, tell us what exact point you believe to be controversial. In my view, the question is whether on occasions like Armistice Day, countries should be proud of their past - a matter of feeling, for sure. (Fortunately, the officials of France and Germany have learned a lot.)

A statement like "X knew why he fought" is not precise enough to be discussed in one piece. "X was convinced to be serving his country" is more specific, and probably true for most soldiers of most countries. "The government had never had a better option" is quite a different statement; see my post of 09 Dec 13 - 07:42 AM.

Treaties as such are no moral justification. (Think of the Soviet Union invading Czechoslovakia in 1968, formally justified by the Warsaw treaty.)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket amazed
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 06:35 AM

Two legs good. Four legs bad.
Two legs good. Four legs bad.
Two legs good. Four legs bad.

"I don't need to interpret what I read." Should that be "I don't know how to interpret what I read." ??

I don't have to think I get journalists to do it for me.

Have you any idea at all how utterly preposterous your statement above is? This is Mudcat. Mudcat is where people put their views, borne of assessing and interpreting, adding their life experience and knowledge, applying it to form a view.

You are way out of your league sonny.

Here's a ball. Now run and play.




Mind you, go too far and you get to Grishka territory which is so off the wall, you forget what he is trying to say in the first place....

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 06:44 AM

"Of the 5 million+ men who made up the British Armed Forces (1 in 4 of the male population) roughly half were volunteers"

Putting aside your record of absolute belief that the UK and US military have always been and still are models of rectitude, and only the enemy ever did any evil act, would you like to break that two and a half million volunteers down for us into

1. Genuine volunteers to the rank and file (exclude officers and NCOs)
2. Volunteers bullied into it by white feather merchants.
3. Volunteers considered literate by the army (i.e. able to write their own names)
4. Volunteers influenced by mates who volunteered.

There's an old army saying "A volunteer is a bloke that misunderstood the question".

I have seen nothing that proves that all, or even most, fall into category number 1, just the opinion of a genuine example of the worst kind of so called "patriot".

I love my country, but not "right or wrong", and when it's wrong I bloody well shout about it. YMMV, K A of H's certainly does.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 07:20 AM

"In other words: I would not discuss about soldiers in that context at all. Discuss governments, newspapers, churches, and other forces of society. Take the Iraq war as an example for some aspects - we still remember it. "

Waste of breath Grishka.

He only has his mantra "Britain = good, Germany = evil, anybody who disagrees = stupid".

From there it's just a selection process. Find a few with like minded prejudice and ignore all others.

He's the same on every topic, hijacking those which don't relate to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 07:26 AM

"I do appreciate being able to debate and disagree with someone without any abuse."

Try reading your posts now and then. If you don't want abuse don't dish out so much of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 07:50 AM

I don't have to think I get journalists to do it for me.

You can think about WW1 as much as you like, but you can not think up what happened back then.

That requires research, which most of us can not do.
That is where historians come in.

The correct statement is "I don't have to do years of research, I get historians to do it for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 07:52 AM

would you like to break that two and a half million volunteers down for us into

The historians have done just that by studying thousands of letters, diaries and documents from the time.
Their findings are unequivocal that most believed in what they were doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 08:11 AM

It is not a waste of typing effort, since misconceptions about nations are very common (- as about religion etc.). In my opinion, countries can never be right or wrong, but officials can, and others who claim to speak on behalf of a nation.

(BTW, is "does not add to one's authority either" an abuse?)

(BTW2, has Chris Clark been mentioned?)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 08:43 AM

I just found Chris Clark having been mentioned in the message from Jim Carroll of 18 Nov 13 - 03:37 AM, some seven pages ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 08:57 AM

(BTW, is "does not add to one's authority either" an abuse?

No it is fair comment.
No offence taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 10:54 AM

Ah.. Fair comment or abuse. How do you distinguish between the two Keith?

Just curious.

Oh, by the way. My youngest sent a photo of him on holiday the other day. What I enjoyed most was his T shirt. It had a cartoon of Nigel Farage in a strait jacket, singing "Don't stop me now! I'm having such a good time."

All this European integration Keith. It must really piss you off, what with your sense of "history" and all that. Remember that retired Colonel who ambushed Ted Heath and gave him a white feather after he pushed for the common market? It's one thing living in the past. It's another to imagine the past was what you want it to be rather than what it was...

What I don't understand is how you can read an account you are told is accurate and believe it based on liking the outcome, yet you are told the figures public services use and you refute them on the basis of the bloke telling you.

Remembering games, and daisy chains and laughs.
Got to keep the loonies on the path.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 13 - 02:37 PM

yet you are told the figures public services use and you refute them on the basis of the bloke telling you.
That is the complete OPPOSITE of the truth!!

A bloke, YOU, told me a figure, and I checked with the Health Protection Agency and found you were wrong.
I was not surprised

It's another to imagine the past was what you want it to be rather than what it was...

That Is YOU not me!
I find out what the past was from the historians.
You believe myths that no historian believes because it fits your preconceptions.

There is History and there is myth.
I believe the historians.
You, monumentally arrogant egoist that you are, actually believe you know more about WW1 than WW1 historians!!
You know more about health than the HPA!
You are beyond parody.
So funny but your hubris hides it from you.
I am so enjoying this "debate."