 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Armistice Day (debate)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,musket giggling Date: 11 Dec 13 - 03:42 PM Bloody hell. He's cutting and pasting his own words from elsewhere now. Must be an apprentice historian. Your post above was significant Keith. It is post number 600. 600.. On one day in The Somme, that was a significant number. For a sustained battle raging for ages, that is the number of allied soldiers killed per second, as a result of being well led. You've got some face, that's all I can say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Dec 13 - 04:16 PM I cut and paste YOUR words you giggling buffoon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,musket drooling Date: 12 Dec 13 - 01:25 AM Really? hubris is a big word. I don't use big words when trying to get facts into your thick skull. Ignorance is a plausible excuse and I wouldn't want to give you an easy get out. 600. At the time of WW1 there were still people alive who remembered another example of well led slaughter. It was cold last night so I put a cardigan on. That's what got me thinking. Military strategy eh? You couldn't make it up. Ok YOU could. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 02:06 AM trying to get facts into your thick skull. You have no facts. Only politically motivated feelings. You believe myths to justify your preconceptions. I get my facts from the hard evidence produced by research. That is what the historians deal in. You believe your myths. I believe the professional historians. You actually think you know more than them! You are a drooling, giggling numpty. Bbut please don't stop. Humiliation is a cure for hubris.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 13 - 04:20 AM "I believe the professional historians." You still have not put up anything on what your "professional historians" said to back your disgusting claims that the millions who died did so willingly in defence of a country which had massacred 10,000,0000 of its colonial citizens You insult the British people by suggesting that they would give their lives for such a cause and you don't say much for a government which would ignore the deaths of so many Belgian colonials and go to war for a far lesser number of Belgians (a number that had been greatly exaggerated and distorted for recruiting propaganda - you've been given the facts of this and have chosen to ignore them. You are continuing to either ignore or dismiss the facts of the bullying and distorting recruiting campaigns - the facts that that campaign failed in 1916 and was replaced by compulsory conscription - and the facts that history and society in general now recognise the war as being an imperial dispute Prior to WW1 it was openly referred to as "The Great Imperial War" - the museum commemorating it is titled The Imperial War Museum - it was a dispute between Imperial powers over world domination, nothing less - all else were a fore-running incidentals to the main event. You have yet to produce single single shred of evidence to your claims on recruitment - everything you have produced indicated that what you have been given here is now rejected by historians as jingoistic garbage - even by your tame historical journalist who, as has been pointed out by proper historians is 'somewhat weak on the causes of WW1' You have once again dominated a thread with your self-confessed ignorance by inventing statements on their behalf to prove a point they haven't expressed an opinion on. You seem to be determined that this now familiar display by you, "will not be over by Christmas", just like WW1 - but there again, in your spectacularly stupid fashion, you have even denied this commonly known phrase which is now used worldwide to describe naivety based on misinformation and ignorance of fact. You appear to thrive on self-humiliation. Jim Carroll Sorry there are so many big wards in this - perhaps you can get a friend to explain it too you - a 'proper historian' maybe!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 04:28 AM They fought to defend Europe including Britain from a nasty aggressive and cruel regime whose armies were rampaging towards the coast massacring thousands of innocent civilians as they went. Why would they not. Do you think they were ignorant of those facts or uncaring? Historical research reveals that they both knew and cared. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,Musket Date: 12 Dec 13 - 04:40 AM Anyone reckon this thread will be over by Christmas? Wonderful that Keith A. hole of Hertford accuses me of "political feelings." Politicians are people who cling onto a publication and throw it in peoples's faces as the oracle to justify their shaky position. Remind you of anyone? In 1915, over 2000 soldiers had their lives extended by a week because the government wanted a show of force for the newspapers to report, needing a load of soldiers to march down The Mall on Empire Day to lift spirits. I've got a picture of my old Mum on an Empire Day picnic her Sunday School arranged. Naw, we never conditioned people, never indulged in propaganda, never invented the word jingoism...... But.. Did we do justice to a whole generation of impressionable men and their families? Discuss. Yes Keith, we've heard your borrowed view. Either assess your pretty books or accept you don't seem to represent the consensus here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 04:47 AM and the facts that history and society in general now recognise the war as being an imperial dispute No. they do not. Prior to WW1 it was openly referred to as "The Great Imperial War" Huh?! - the museum commemorating it is titled The Imperial War Museum - It was originally called "The National War Museum." The name was changed to recognise the contribution of countries of the empire. Prof Dr Gary Sheffield. "Growing up in England in the 1960s and 1970s, I was influenced by what amounted to a "national perception" of the Great War as an utterly futile conflict, fought over trivial issues. It was only when I began serious reading as an undergraduate that I realized how wrong this idea was. In particular, I was struck by the views of German historian Fritz Fischer, who argued that Germany had gone to war in a bid for world power—the events of July 1914 were the occasion rather than the cause of the war. I simplify Fischer's arguments, of course, and I don't accept them in their entirety, but at the very least he pointed to an expansionist, militaristic tendency among German policy makers." http://www.historynet.com/interview-with-military-historian-gary-sheffield.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 04:52 AM accept you don't seem to represent the consensus here. I do accept that. The consensus happens to be wrong. You still believe the old discredited myths. I used to as well. I was in good company. See Sheffield's comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 13 - 05:13 AM The literature of the War was documented as The Great Imperial War - it was undisputed war between Imperial powers. To suggest that Britain went to war to defend a country that slaughtered one third more of its own colonial people than the Nazis did Jews is a disgusting insult to the intelligence of those who fought and died and an insult on the Governance of Britain - acknowledge that fact or disprove it. You should take the hint that once again you are alone here - are you (once again) the only sane inhabitant of the asylum? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 06:04 AM Jim, I showed you the Daily Mirror headlines on the day war was declared. It made clear that the reason was the invasion of Belgium and our treaty obligation. Everyone would have known that simple fact. The literature of the War was documented as The Great Imperial War Really? - it was undisputed war between Imperial powers. Because the European powers had empires obviously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 13 - 06:48 AM "Because the European powers had empires obviously" Which is all covered by what it is now known as THE FIRST WORLD WAR All your historians have acknowledged that fact - the only qualification being in placing the blame for which of them started it. I suggest you read Sheffield's view of the war - an antithesis of the "Blackadder Image" - which was a satirised account of the 'Poor Little Belgium"/Archduke Ferdinand assassination theory. He said that "Britain did not drift into the war" but responded to an Imperial power stepping out of line - he was right - this is what you have been persistently told from the beginning. The propaganda line put out by the government was that "poor little Belgium" was being raped by those "Nasty Huns" - you've been shown the posters to this effect. The actual atrocities taking place in Belgium were grossly exaggerated to gain support for this line - you've been given evidence for this also and have totally ignored it. The press reiterated this line because they supported the war and you are repeating it now as part of your anachronistic Jingoist flag-wagging. There were fourteen listed reasons for recruitment - all of them relevant and none of them prominent. The disillusionment that was rife among those both fighting in returning from the war has been an undisputed part of our literature and culture for nearly a century. All your historians support the view that it was an Imperial War, choosing only to differ on who started it. You have debased the memory of those who fought and died by suggesting they went "like lambs to the slaughter" on the basis of tub-thumping Jingoist (a word conjured up for the event and inseparable from WW1) recruiting propaganda. They died in defence of a genocidal Imperialist power - disgusting and utter garbage. You have dismissed actual word-of-mouth accounts by veterans as being "lies" or have ignored them altogether, pretending you haven't been given them. You have dismissed the great British poets who fought and wrote of their experiences, as "romantics" You have dismissed long-established historians such has Liddel Harte (who actually served in the war) as "revisionists". You have written off widely-held knowledge and evidence of the war as "not being written by historians" (your carefully selected "historians" maybe). On the basis of what? - opinions of so-called historians based on statements they have not made and opinions they do not hold or have not given. You continue to prove yourself the rabid right-wing nutter you have now firmly established yourself as. Far from debunking the 'Blackadder' image, you represent its most satirical caricatures perfectly "Darling". It appears that there might be another possible series in it based on you!! Rule Britannia Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 07:07 AM All bollocks Jim. My views coincide with the historians' because that is where I got them from. The old myths have been discredited by History. You are a dinosaur. A politically motivated dinosaur. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 12 Dec 13 - 07:42 AM "The historians interpret the data, but since they all agree on the issues in question, that must be unequivocal too." Who was it that stated just days ago that a consensus doesn't necessarily constitute proof of an argument? Are you foolish enough to believe that prejudices and pre-conceived ideology do not inform utterances of "experts", sometimes to the point of idiocy? Yours most certainly do! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 07:58 AM Who was it that stated just days ago that a consensus doesn't necessarily constitute proof of an argument? Yes. A consensus of uninformed people is worthless. Are you foolish enough to believe that prejudices and pre-conceived ideology do not inform utterances of "experts", sometimes to the point of idiocy? Yes I am The "utterances" of professional historians are informed by their research. Anything not substantiated would be exposed and rubbished by their rivals (peers.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST Date: 12 Dec 13 - 08:00 AM "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." Now I understand why you like them so much! Just like you, they simply dismiss what doesn't fit their POV. The first action of the whole pack was to rubbish the opinions of those war poets who catalogued the horror and futility. How many of those "letters, diaries and documents" went the same way, I wonder? It would be very interesting to look into that, but of course it wouldn't be allowed. Mustn't spoil the celebrations Old Sport! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST Date: 12 Dec 13 - 08:08 AM "Jim, I showed you the Daily Mirror headlines on the day war was declared. It made clear that the reason was the invasion of Belgium and our treaty obligation." Do you realise how stupid that sounds (it must be true, I read it in the DAILY MIRROR)? Are you for real? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Greg F. Date: 12 Dec 13 - 08:10 AM Their findings are unequivocal that most believed in what they were doing. Ah, but who, exactly, are "they"? Q:Are you foolish enough to believe that prejudices and pre-conceived ideology do not inform utterances of "experts", sometimes to the point of idiocy? A: Yes I am. [says Keith] Simply more evidence that you are, indeed, an idiot, if not a fuckwit. By the way,Keith, which University DID you take your degree in history from, anyhow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 08:11 AM but of course it wouldn't be allowed. Yes it would. The thousands held by the IWM are available for research and are being made available on line. There is no conspiracy of historians to fool us all with a faked history. You have to be mad to believe such a ludicrous construction. Why are you people so desperate to believe a lie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 08:16 AM I am a scientist not a historian Greg. And you? Do you realise how stupid that sounds (it must be true, I read it in the DAILY MIRROR)? It was true, but that was not the point. I produced it to show that everyone knew exactly why the country was going to war. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror01_01.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 13 - 08:25 AM "My views coincide with the historians' because that is where I got them from." No you didn't Keith otherwise you would have produced them - you haven't - you have just claimed you have. Where has one single historian dismissed all the reasons for men joining up in the way you have - they haven't - you made it up. You appear to be receiving voices in your ear telling you what to believe - you weren't interpreting at Mandela's funeral, where you - he's just said that he was getting the same messages? If you are not going to read a book, at least read your own cut-'n-pastes. You're a joke Keith and you're not going to let it be "all over by Christmas" because of your obsession with having the last word without actually saying anything Around 250 postings on this thread from to and you still haven't said anything - get a life Keith Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 08:36 AM Where has one single historian dismissed all the reasons for men joining up in the way you have I have not dismissed them. There were as many reasons for joining as there were men who joined, including all your 14. The historians tell us that the main reason for joining was to resist the German conquest, and defend Britain and Europe. Dr Dan Todman. "Sassoon and Wilfred Owen could be used to evoke an emotional reaction against war which engaged students and satisfied teachers, but which utterly misrepresented the feelings of most Britons who lived through the war years. The extent to which this mythology was shared made it an attractive setting for television series and historical novels." http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/perceptions_01.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 13 - 08:55 AM Your latest link makes the point perfectly Your evidence, such as it is, is based on the satements of historians a century after the event. You have dismissed contemporary accounts as "lies", "revisionism" and "romanticism" - all directed at those who actually experienced the war - they were there and they experienced the events. Dr Dan Todman is a Sandhurst graduate presenting the official army line on warfare a century after the event - on what gounds should we accept his word over those who were there - he is military mouthpiece - read his credentials. He would say what he says, wouldn't he? "There were as many reasons for joining as there were men who joined, including all your 14." Please stop lying - you have dismissed them all First you accused me of inventing them, then you said they were random opinions not given by official (read "carefully selected")historians You are suck-holing up to the establishment again Keith - it's the only thing you are consistent about. Now where are those statements about why soldiers joined? You are a joke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 09:10 AM Your evidence, such as it is, is based on the satements of historians a century after the event. Yes. I am the only one here who does that! You have dismissed contemporary accounts as "lies", "revisionism" and "romanticism" No. I have not. Dr Dan Todman Senior Lecturer I joined Queen Mary College, University of London in 2003. I did my first degree at LSE, for whom I made an embarrassingly brief appearance on University Challenge, and completed a PhD at Cambridge. I then taught at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. As well as my teaching and research, I run the School of History's School Liaison and Widening Participation programme. Research I work on the social, military and cultural history of Britain in both world wars, with a particular interest in intersection between home and fighting fronts and the remembrance of conflict. I am currently working on a major new history of Britain's Second World War, as well as undertaking research with my undergraduate students into London's experience of the First World War. Undergraduate teaching ◦Winning on the Western Front: the British Army 1914 -1919 ◦Exhibiting the First World War Postgraduate supervision I welcome applications from candidates wishing to undertake doctoral research in the areas above and the following areas: ◦the operational military history of British forces in either world war ◦contemporary remembrance of war and conflict ◦the oral history of wartime experiences and attitudes ◦military motivations and morale ◦the political framework of remembrance ◦'war culture' in Britain and the Empire, 1939-1945 Publications Books ◦D. Todman, The Great War, Myth and Memory The Great War: Myth and Memory, (London: Hambledon and London, 2005). ◦G. Sheffield and D. Todman, eds., (editor and chapter contributor), Command and Control on the Western Front, (Staplehurst: Spellmount, 2004). ◦Danchev and D. Todman, eds., War Diaries 1939-1945, Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2001). Articles ◦D. Todman, '"Sans peur et sans reproche": the retirement, death and mourning of Sir Douglas Haig 1918-1928', Journal of Military History, (October 2003). ◦Danchev and D. Todman, 'The Alanbrooke Diaries', Archives, (April 2002). ◦D. Todman, 'The reception of the Great War in the 1960s', Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 22, 1 (March 2002). Chapters ◦D. Todman, 'Defining Deaths: Richard Titmuss's Problems of Social Policy and the Meaning of Britain's Second World War' in N. Martin and P. Purseigle, eds, Aftermath: Memories of War in Europe, 1918, 1945, 1989 (Ashgate, forthcoming) ◦D. Todman, 'Representing the First World War in Britain: The 90th Anniversary of the Somme' in H. Herwig and M. Keren, eds., War Memory and Popular Culture (Ottawa, McFarland, 2009) ◦D. Todman, 'The First World War in Contemporary British Popular Culture' in H. Jones et al, eds., Uncovering the First World War (Amsterdam, Brill, 2008) Accolades My book, The Great War: Myth and Memory won the Times Higher Education Supplement Award for Best Young Academic Author in 2005. Membership of professional associations or societies I sit on the academic advisory panels for the Imperial War Museum's redesign of its 1914-18 galleries and its 'Lives of the Great War' citizen history project. Appearances in the media ◦The Show to End all Wars, BBC Radio 4 ◦Archive on 4: Remembrance, BBC Radio 4 ◦Timewatch: The Last Day of World War One, BBC 2 ◦Things We Forgot To Remember: The First World War, BBC Radio 4◦I have also written about the remembrance of the First World War 'The First World War in History' on OUCS World War 1 Centenary Open Educational Resources◦'How We Remember Them Today' in Opendemocracy◦'Misrepresentation of a Conflict?' in BBC History |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 09:14 AM Jim, do you claim to know more about the History of WW1 than WW1 historians? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 13 - 10:29 AM "Jim, do you claim to know more about the History of WW1 than WW1 historians? " No I don't - but I have read some of their books - you haven't, instead appear to rely entirely on carefully selected and half-digested cut-'n-pastes which you appear not to have understood or read, but merely selected because they seem to back your case I have no idea what you CV means other than he has a military background - what has he actually said that backs your case and again - why should we believe him over those who were there - oh - I forgot "soldiers tell lies" - it appears that insulting soldiers that fought in the war by calling them "liars" a century after the event is something you both have in common. Both Patrick Magill and Tommy Kenny described the compulsory pep talks they were forced to attend where an officer peddled the same line you are peddling here - and how many Tommys were put on a charge for humming 'Tell me the Old, Old Story' - some things never change! One thing is certain - should you ever get around to reading one of his 9or anybody's) books (perish the thought) and find they contradict the establishment line in any way, they will miraculously be transformed into a "revisionist" - just like that nice Irish lady historian who you were using to prove the "the Famine was nuffin to do with the British", and when it turned out she was saying just the opposite - whoosh - gone in a cloud of dust. There appears to be a hasty re-writing of certain aspects of WW1 in time for the coming centenary - perhaps 'Blackadder' has struck as deep as Swift's recipe for "how to prepare children of the poor for the table" had on the Irish question. Another certainty - until you actually get round to reading a couple of books you will continue to display yourself as the clown you really are. 253 and still climbing - and still not providing anything to back your claims. Ah well - It'll be all over by Christmas - I don't think!! As you were - carry on calling those who were there liars And have I mentioned it before - GO READ A BOOK - ANY BOOK. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 12 Dec 13 - 10:35 AM Could we all agree on the following statement: In 1914, many British soldiers (and other citizens, particularly younger ones) were convinced that their country was right to join the war. (In later years, the percentage dwindled, mainly because there were a lot more British casualties than originally expected. Note that this is not exactly the same as joyfully volunteering, but pretty well correlated. Note also that the same statements are true about most wars and most countries. Take the Vietnam war as another example: in Kennedy's time, only the communists were the villains; later on, the Văn Thiệu regime lost its reputation of sainthood as well, the sole cause being the rising US casualty numbers.) We may then concentrate on politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 11:08 AM Todman has no military background, except that he taught History at Sandhurst for a time. On the general issues which I have put up as my view, the Historians have been in agreement for decades. You accept they know more than you, so stop denying them. I have not been at all selective in my quotes. Follow the links. That is what the historians say. That is why you have found NOT ONE SINGLE HISTORIAN WHO SUPPORTS YOUR OLD AND DISCREDITED BELIEFS. Grishka, yes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 11:22 AM No I don't - but I have read some of their books Really Jim? Are you sure? Name one from the last 20 years that supports your myths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 13 - 11:49 AM "Todman has no military background, except that he taught History at Sandhurst for a time." That's what I said - an establishment historian - you don't get a job at Sandhurst unless you toe the official line - 'a pair of safe hands' as they say. "You accept they know more than you, so stop denying them." Denying who - like you, I have not read their books - I am nothing, just asking for proof as to why I should abandon what I believe to be true on the basis of what you have offered so far - precisely nothing. Lets see what we've got. We are told (not asked - "stop denying them") that we should abandon everything we know or have been told on the basis of a group of 'historians' none of us have read who are reiterating a line abandoned generally half a century ago. On this basis we are asked to join you (and them) in calling the soldiers who come up with accounts which contradict these 'historians' "liars" and dismiss writers, historians and some of England's finest poets who were either contemporaries of or extremely close to the events under the discussion - many of them actually participated in the events. The basis of your argument is not that you have read these (revisionist - go and look up the term before you use it again) accounts and accepted their arguments, but simply that they are "historians". You carefully select these 'historians' because they seem to bear out your jingoism, and you carefully choose the bits that seem to suit your arguments Nowhere have you presented a modicum of proof as to the correctness of their arguments - NOWHERE - we have to take their words and your distortions completely on trust. I cannot begin to imagine anything more mindless than the way you have interminably presented your case here. BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE YOU CLAIM THEY ARE HISTORIANS AND REJECT ALL OTHERS BECAUSE THEY ARE FALSE - REVISIONIST - ROMANTIC - LYING, ANTI-ESTABLISHMERNT MORONS Are you totally out of your mind? Where are the statements - where is your/their evidence - why should veterans like Sassoon go around poisoning the minds of children with romantic lies, why should soldiers like Tommy Kenny and Patrick Magill lie about their experiences - how could the history books, the schools, the writers, the social historians, and those simply interested in the subject got away with peddling all these lies for so long? Why the **** should we reject everything we know on the basis of a few new kids on the block without actually knowing what they have to say? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Dec 13 - 12:23 PM "BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE YOU CLAIM THEY ARE HISTORIANS AND REJECT ALL OTHERS BECAUSE THEY ARE FALSE " What others Jim? Name one. And also name one of the books you have read that supports the old discredited myths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 12 Dec 13 - 12:51 PM Jim, please reply to my post of 12 Dec 13 - 10:35 AM, so that we can agree that the exact motives of soldiers, with exact percentages, are no longer the topic of this thread. Young people of 1914 can be excused for believing that what the Daily Mail wrote was the whole story. (There is no point in blaming such a large collective of long-deceased people anyway.) We cannot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Dec 13 - 11:17 AM Jim, you have been posting elsewhere but missed this. "BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE YOU CLAIM THEY ARE HISTORIANS AND REJECT ALL OTHERS BECAUSE THEY ARE FALSE " What others Jim? Name one. And also name one of those books you have read that supports the old discredited myths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Dec 13 - 11:48 AM Also, which claimed historian is not really a historian? (Do be careful of opening yourself to a libel charge.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 13 - 01:31 PM "so that we can agree that the exact motives of soldiers, with exact percentages, are no longer the topic of this thread." Sorry Grishka Diverted by our resident moron - if this discussion is going to regain a semblance of common sense I suggest he is ignored until he puts up some sort of a justification for his jingoistic rantings - my intention anyway. Your statement is of course right and is included in the Wikipidia article that was put up right at the beginning of the thread Of course a considerable number were influenced by the carefully orchestrated propaganda at the beginning of the war - as you say, that happens in all wars. But all of the other listed reasons were factors in joining - unemployment, glamour, relief of boredom, belief that the war would be a short one, employers forcing employers to enlist having been promised that the rest of the work force would not be pressurised into joining. Wiki "The reasons for their enlistment cannot be pinned down to a single factor; enthusiasm and a war spirit certainly drove some, while for others unemployment prompted enlistment. Some employers forced men to join up, while occasionally Poor Law Guardians would also refuse to pay support for fit military-aged men. The timing of the recruiting boom in the wake of the news from Mons, though, suggests that men joined knowing that the war was dangerous and indeed many joined precisely because it seemed to be a threat to their home, district and country.[2]" At the beginning comradeship and the manipulation of friendship at home was a factor in enlistment - see The Pals Batallions. Wiki again "One early peculiarity was the formation of "Pals battalions": groups of men from the same factory, football team, bank or similar, joining and fighting together. The idea was first suggested at a public meeting by Lord Derby. Within three days, he oversaw enough volunteers sufficient for three battalions. Lord Kitchener gave official approval for the measure almost instantly and the response was impressive. Manchester raised fifteen specific 'Pals' battalions; one of the smallest was Accrington, in Lancashire, which raised one. The drawback of 'Pals' battalions was that a whole town could lose its military-aged menfolk in a single day." As time went on the ladies with their white feathers put pressure on those who had listed to join - even the Suffragettes agreed to cease their activities on the promise of female suffrage when the war was over. Music Hall stars such as Harry Lauder were persuaded to write and sing songs encouraging youngsters to join "To make man of you". Somewhere among the tsunami of links which have been given there is a chronological list of how the poster campaign was Reports from the front (see Patrick Magill) indicated that the patriotic fervour dissipated among many of the volunteers when faced with the brutalities of army life and the stark reality of trench warfare - Tommy Kenny was particularly vehement about this. By January 1916, 18 months after the launch of the recruiting campaign, British authorities was forced to admit that it had totally failed and they introduced compulsory conscription. Incidentally, the BBC has just announced that is planning a series of fifteen minute programmes on the history of WW1 which are intended to stretch over several years and cover all aspects of the conflict, both abroad and at home Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Dec 13 - 03:09 PM From the same Wiki page Jim. "The timing of the recruiting boom in the wake of the news from Mons (defeat and retreat), though, suggests that men joined knowing that the war was dangerous and indeed many joined precisely because it seemed to be a threat to their home, district and country." Now please Jim. "BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE YOU CLAIM THEY ARE HISTORIANS AND REJECT ALL OTHERS BECAUSE THEY ARE FALSE " What others Jim? Name one. Also name one of those books you have read that supports the old discredited myths. Also, which "claimed historians" are not really historians? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 13 - 03:21 PM Who the **** do you think you are Keith? You are a know-nothing troll who has refused to justify one single statement he has made. Don't you dare demand answers from anybody else when you refuse to answer one put to you. It is to be hoped that your trolling hasn't sent yet another subject crashing in flames with your fillibusting tactics. Do the decent thing and let those who are interested enough to actually make an effort to learn about the subjects they contribute to - please go away Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Dec 13 - 03:25 PM Why not give us some quotes from those books you read, and some of those "other" historians, instead of just Wikipedia Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Dec 13 - 03:31 PM You are a know-nothing troll who has refused to justify one single statement he has made. I have only stated 3 opinions, and backed them with numerous quotes from acclaimed professional historians specialising in that period. All you can do is deny that they are historians. "BELIEVE THEM BECAUSE YOU CLAIM THEY ARE HISTORIANS AND REJECT ALL OTHERS BECAUSE THEY ARE FALSE " What others Jim? Name one. Also name one of those books you have read that supports the old discredited myths. Also, which "claimed historians" are not really historians? Why not give us some quotes from those books you read, and some of those "other" historians, instead of just Wikipedia Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Dec 13 - 05:48 PM Now that we all agree about the main statement in my post of 12 Dec 13 - 10:35 AM (cf. also my message of 12 Dec 13 - 12:51 PM), we can split off that part for the purposes of this thread. In a mathematical formula: "most soldiers knew what the fought for" =Only the last statement, not containing rank and file soldiers, is still disputed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Dec 13 - 03:21 AM Only the last statement, not containing rank and file soldiers, is still disputed. Still disputed by a couple of lefties on Mudcat. Not disputed by experts in the field. Jim, why not give us some quotes from those books you read, or from some of those "other historians", instead of just Wikipedia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,Musket pointing and laughing Date: 14 Dec 13 - 03:35 AM Wow. Two comments from Keith A Hole of Hertford managed to stay in my head whilst getting up to date on this thread. He says he gets his opinion from historians. Strange, most people get their own opinion based on others. He reckons one bloke must be right because he taught at Sandhurst. That liberal hotbed of peaceniks eh? Senior soldiers must get a proper objective education if they are to pass their objective education onto smiling squaddies. I used to be in a civic club and one of our members was a teacher from the nearby Welbeck College. He resigned and went elsewhere because of his concern that the military sixth form were being conditioned into a version of how society ticks rather than reality. I too have a view you see. I get mine from analysis of all I encounter. Not a careful selection of revisionist takes on the situation. Keith appears to be unable to distinguish between the account and the analysis of that account. His pet historians may be able to describe an event but the reader doesn't have to accept their conclusion. Unless you have your opinion formed for you. ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 13 - 03:53 AM Last word from someone who sums all ths up perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnPD3eEUeBU Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Dec 13 - 04:55 AM He says he gets his opinion from historians. Strange, most people get their own opinion based on others. I disagree. Most people get their opinions on History from reading History. Intelligent people anyway. He reckons one bloke must be right because he taught at Sandhurst. I said no such thing. It was Jim who made an issue of it. Here is the rest of his story again. I joined Queen Mary College, University of London in 2003. I did my first degree at LSE, for whom I made an embarrassingly brief appearance on University Challenge, and completed a PhD at Cambridge. I then taught at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. As well as my teaching and research, I run the School of History's School Liaison and Widening Participation programme. Research I work on the social, military and cultural history of Britain in both world wars, with a particular interest in intersection between home and fighting fronts and the remembrance of conflict. I am currently working on a major new history of Britain's Second World War, as well as undertaking research with my undergraduate students into London's experience of the First World War. Undergraduate teaching ◦Winning on the Western Front: the British Army 1914 -1919 ◦Exhibiting the First World War Postgraduate supervision I welcome applications from candidates wishing to undertake doctoral research in the areas above and the following areas: ◦the operational military history of British forces in either world war ◦contemporary remembrance of war and conflict ◦the oral history of wartime experiences and attitudes ◦military motivations and morale ◦the political framework of remembrance ◦'war culture' in Britain and the Empire, 1939-1945 Publications Books ◦D. Todman, The Great War, Myth and Memory The Great War: Myth and Memory, (London: Hambledon and London, 2005). ◦G. Sheffield and D. Todman, eds., (editor and chapter contributor), Command and Control on the Western Front, (Staplehurst: Spellmount, 2004). ◦Danchev and D. Todman, eds., War Diaries 1939-1945, Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2001). Articles ◦D. Todman, '"Sans peur et sans reproche": the retirement, death and mourning of Sir Douglas Haig 1918-1928', Journal of Military History, (October 2003). ◦Danchev and D. Todman, 'The Alanbrooke Diaries', Archives, (April 2002). ◦D. Todman, 'The reception of the Great War in the 1960s', Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 22, 1 (March 2002). Chapters ◦D. Todman, 'Defining Deaths: Richard Titmuss's Problems of Social Policy and the Meaning of Britain's Second World War' in N. Martin and P. Purseigle, eds, Aftermath: Memories of War in Europe, 1918, 1945, 1989 (Ashgate, forthcoming) ◦D. Todman, 'Representing the First World War in Britain: The 90th Anniversary of the Somme' in H. Herwig and M. Keren, eds., War Memory and Popular Culture (Ottawa, McFarland, 2009) ◦D. Todman, 'The First World War in Contemporary British Popular Culture' in H. Jones et al, eds., Uncovering the First World War (Amsterdam, Brill, 2008) Accolades My book, The Great War: Myth and Memory won the Times Higher Education Supplement Award for Best Young Academic Author in 2005. Membership of professional associations or societies I sit on the academic advisory panels for the Imperial War Museum's redesign of its 1914-18 galleries and its 'Lives of the Great War' citizen history project. Appearances in the media ◦The Show to End all Wars, BBC Radio 4 ◦Archive on 4: Remembrance, BBC Radio 4 ◦Timewatch: The Last Day of World War One, BBC 2 ◦Things We Forgot To Remember: The First World War, BBC Radio 4◦I have also written about the remembrance of the First World War 'The First World War in History' on OUCS World War 1 Centenary Open Educational Resources◦'How We Remember Them Today' in Opendemocracy◦'Misrepresentation of a Conflict?' in BBC History |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Dec 13 - 04:59 AM Jim, instead of Henry Hall songs (!?) why not give us some quotes from those books you read, or from some of those "other historians", instead of just Wikipedia? Is it because you lied about all that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Dec 13 - 05:38 AM Keith, to my message ..."those reasons were true and the full story".you replied Still disputed by a couple of lefties on Mudcat.So here we are at the crucial point, most relevant not only for our judgment on history, but also for present-day politics, and political philosophy in general. Or even human behaviour in general: "X commits atrocities, Y reacts in righteous and adequate self-defence and defence of innocent victims" is very rarely the full story of anything. Wars are all the more suspicious as the gamble is with other people's lives; the risk for the gamblers is comparatively low. Think of Kaiser Wilhelm's comfortable retirement in Holland. Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" was considered news in the Anglophone world; I suspect continental historians knew the essence of it long before. Particularly, the "Rape of Belgium" never played the role in France that it played in the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Dec 13 - 06:38 AM You have been given masses of evidence from historians, journalists, writers and participants of the war by many contributors to this thread Keith - those who don't fit your squalid theories you have dismissed as "romantics" "revisionists" and liars - then you have gone on to claim that nobody apart from yourself has produced proof. Now that's what I call lying - a quality you are now recognised for throughout this forum. Why on earth should anybody make the effort to feed a troll who has abandoned any pretence of honest debate and appears to be using Mudcat to gain the attention he is obviously and understandably failing to get elsewhere I could supply a list of a dozen books and quotes, real or invented, to claim anything I wish - how on earth would you be able to tell the difference between the genuine and the invented. You don't read, you admit you are ignorant of the subjects you pollute, you don't have the courage to stand by your statements as your own, but scurry behind "experts" and "historians" which you have scrabbled to find on the net, and when you can't find anything, you simply make it up. You never produce valid, solid evidence for anything you claim and you invariably end up on your own (most of the time you start out on your own) You are a sad, destructive little man who seems to need the attention of others, but is not prepared to work for that attention. You have long since ceased to be an embarrassment, you are now little more than a figure of fun and a destructive pest. Have a nice Christmas and please pray for us "leftie" sinners JIm Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Dec 13 - 08:05 AM You have been given masses of evidence from historians, journalists, writers and participantsYou have been given masses of evidence from historians, journalists, writers and participants Not true. Just anon., unverified Wiki pages, and one participant out of 2 million. I alone have referenced actual historians of the event. - those who don't fit your squalid theories you have dismissed as "romantics" "revisionists" and liars Lie. I have not. And I have no theory. I just believe the historians. Only a deluded, egotistical fool would think he knew more than them. Like you two do. You don't read, you admit you are ignorant of the subjects you pollute, you don't have the courage to stand by your statements as your own, but scurry behind "experts" and "historians" I am not at all ignorant about thise. It is a lifelong interest of mine and I have read widely. That is why I know what the historians all say. You people know nothing. you never produce valid, solid evidence for anything you claim Lie. Everything I claimed is supported by the works of historians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,Musket Date: 14 Dec 13 - 09:06 AM One day Keith A Hole of Hertford is going to answer my question; is David Irvine a historian? The more he throws the title around as vindication of sanitising history, the more pertinent the question. Well? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate) From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Dec 13 - 09:21 AM Jim, this thread is not only for Keith. For example, I sense MtheGM reading attentively, who is a man of traditional English mindset, and appreciative of good manners. Try to convince him (if he is not yet). Write what exactly you are talking about. I cannot be too specific in debates about details, because I am neither an expert nor British. My general message is that national pride makes people easy prey for propaganda, and thus become losers while believing to have won. Leftist parties and governments can play on that piano as well as rightist ones. |
