BS: Armistice Day (debate)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 01:28 PM

Recent= a few days if anyone is interested.
I am. Put it up!

Now you suggest that Sir Max Hastings would write shit just to get published in the Mail.
You are desperate.
He is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 01:27 PM

Rap, there is also Gwynne Dyer's "War" which is on par with those you mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 01:23 PM

""What they are saying, and I am denying, is that our people fought a futile and pointless war, without knowing what it was supposed to be about, because they were such pathetic jingoistic dupes and dummies.

I find that a disgraceful and disgusting slander on their memory.""

As pretty a piece of answering what was never said as you have managed yet.

1. How much knowledge of international affairs do you suppose farm labourers and factory hands possessed at a time when only the wealthy had radios and only the well to do had any formal education beyond reading writing and arithmetic at the most basic level?

They weren't stupid, but they had this notion of the evil Hun drilled into them long before the war started.

Instead of reading the skewed interpretations and xenophobic rants of those self styled modern historians, try reading the accounts of the time as they were happening. There are plenty of books available, if you can be bothered.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,someone else
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 01:14 PM

Me really.

Recent= a few days if anyone is interested.

The problem as ever is that remembrance is noting that people died. It started out if the documentary on BBC2 last week is accurate, as celebrating how good we were at war. By the end of the second world war it had become a way of saying how fed up people are with war and killing. Commemorating subsequent conflict therefore is valid as the men dying now are not pushing an imperialist agenda, not protecting our shores from invasion and not making Col Blimp look good.

They are dying trying to protect innocent civilians from conflict in a humanitarian gesture in most cases. Very different from the gung ho jingoism the Tommies were bombarded with from the despatch box, from the pulpits, from the Kitchener posters, from the marches through their towns and villages followed by the recruiting sergeants.

Remembrance is about death. Whether the fallen believed in their cause or not. Attempts to say it is only about those who saw reason in war is a bit much. Especially for the millions caught up in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 12:35 PM

You will find no Daily Mail quote from me in any recent post, apart from that Hastings piece.
You know this, because you would have used it against me before.
You attempt to discredit me by telling lies about me.
Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket and Keith Show
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 12:33 PM

Sorry about this everyone.

Hastings fits the description of hack. Writing to the political and social colours of the rag paying your fee makes you a hack. Insisting you are writing as a historian makes you a disingenuous hack.

Why don't you cut and paste some David Irvine and have done with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 12:16 PM

You did not "analyse" anything.
Just made up shit about why in your worthless opinion people fought.

The Daily M*il." Oh. Many of his quotes did. Normally do in fact.
More lies.
I quoted 3 historians to support everything I have argued.
Count them.
Hastings was published both in the Telegraph and the Mail.
I quoted him not any newspaper or hack.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 11:06 AM

This disgraceful crap about it being a slur on the memory of the fallen when you analyse war. ...

Could have come straight from the appalling pages of the Hitler appeasing stain known as The Daily M*il." Oh. Many of his quotes did. Normally do in fact.

The more I read the more I sadly feel vindicated in being cynical when I read his posts.

Don't worry Keith, I can hear your usual two apologists typing their defence of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 10:45 AM

If you haven't experienced it, I suggest you read about it AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ. Here are some suggestions:

Grossman, Dave. On Combat.
Grossman, Dave. On Killing.
Keegan, John. The Face Of Battle.
Holmstedt, Kirsten. Band of Sisters.
Holmstedt, Kirsten. The Girls Come Marching Home.
S. L. A. Marshall. Pork Chop Hill.

But I doubt if you'll take my suggestions. Perhaps its better if you don't.

And for all of us who ARE experienced...thanks. You're the best there is.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 10:45 AM

Very sorry for the near-duplicate posts. (Long too!) I hope the second one is clearer and better written.

Few here think Allied involvement in World War 2 was pointless or jingoistic. But except for the fact that Hitler and the Nazis managed to be even viler than the Kaiser and his generals, a comparable German expansionism was the cause of the second installment as well. Poland in 1939 played roughly the role of Belgium in 1914.

The biggest difference was that by 1939 there'd been several years of warnings - and desperate attempts to avert the inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 10:26 AM

Obviously Keith is as knowledgeable about history as he is about science, evolution, and "Christians"[sic].

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 10:17 AM

last night Mike was watching a show about a group of researchers and veteran sailors who went out to the sites were the Hood and Bismarck were sunk during WWII and sent submersibles to observe the wrecks.

Not just Bristish sailors, but German survivors as well. Men who had been 18 years old and had grown up with the rise of Nazism. Men who had cheered when the Hood sank and now returned with a better understanding of what they had done and all saluted those who were lost. Like the monument at Gallipoli dedicated to ALL those who died.

I think that we can take a lesson from their example. Regardless of the causes... it is the fighting men and women who bear the brunt of the cost of war... and those unfortunate civilians caught in the path. We can acknowledge that sacrifice.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Will Fly
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 10:16 AM

It's interesting to recall that the plot of "The Riddle Of The Sands", by the Irish writer Erskine Childers, is based on the concept of Germany using the channels between the Baltic Islands as grouping and embarking points for wave upon wave of barges to be towed to the UK as part of an invasion programme.

"The Riddle Of The Sands" was written in 1910 so, presumably, German's intentions or possible intentions were common knowledge at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 10:13 AM

But no-one is saying that.
What they are saying, and I am denying, is that our people fought a futile and pointless war, without knowing what it was supposed to be about, because they were such pathetic jingoistic dupes and dummies.

I find that a disgraceful and disgusting slander on their memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Will Fly
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 10:04 AM

All this is very well, Keith - and I'm not querying it - but the point is: despite what Hastings says, for Britain, France & Germany to get together now and in the future, and to put the grudges and problems of the past to one side, does not necessarily mean that we dishonour the memories of the men and women - soldiers and civilians - who died in WW1, or forget them.

Such jingoistic crap does no-one any service these days. By all means remember the events of the past - and try not to repeat them ad nauseam

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 10:01 AM

> There were those in Britain who favoured a war with Germany before that country became too strong; there were those in France who wanted revenge for the war of the 1870s; and pan-Slavism was as much a problem as pan-Germanism.

But none of those nations took those steps. Nothing done by the other countries over previous decades even begins to match the policies and *actions* of Germany in 1914. Austrian designs on Serbia were Germany's perfect opportunity to launch the war it had decided was inevitable and that it would win.

I can't imagine a political situation in 1914 that would have prompted Britain, France, or Russia to launch a war in Europe while Germany remained peacefully within its borders. It was widely realized that Europe was so reliant on mutual economic and financial ties that any big war would result in national economic collapses. As it did.

Those predictions didn't stop the Kaiser. He and his generals thought Germany could win "by Christmas."

Unlike Britain, Germany and Austria had long had universal conscription and a truly pervasive militarist bent. (In Germany, pacifist organizations were banned by law.) Germany believed its "destiny" as the "bravest" and "most highly civilized" nation was to control Europe. When Russia surrendered early in 1918, Germany seized most of European Russia and its resources. For Berlin, the case for innate German superiority had been proved.

Germany did "fear" France, Britain, and Russia, in more or less that order, mainly because their geography stood in the way of German expansion. And that expansion (according to the incredibly influential philosopher Hegel) was required for the "health" of the nation and (once pseudo-Darwinism got mixed into it) was actually demanded by "survival of the fittest." Nietzsche's writings are filled with ignorant praise of war - in the abstract.

No nation was immune from these influences, and colonial wars were partly based on similar assumptions. But nowhere outside of Germany did warlike ideals turn into reckless policy against populous, neighboring, sophisticated, technologically and industrially advanced, and culturally related European states. And nowhere else was the risk of a continent-wide explosion thought to be a perfectly reasonable policy choice.

Even more amazing is that the later followers of Mussolini and Hitler seem not to have learned anything from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 09:56 AM

Sheffield again, same link.
"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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 09:54 AM

Dr. Gary Sheffield.
" popular opinion: that the issues were not worth the ensuing bloodbath. Most modern scholars would not agree. Germany and Austria-Hungary (the Central Powers) are seen, at the very least, as creating the conditions for conflict. Some go much further, blaming Germany for planning and waging a deliberate war of aggression."

"Britain and France came to be led by Lloyd George and Clemenceau, popularist democratic leaders, while Germany was ruled by a military dictatorship that sidelined the constitutional leader, the Kaiser. An Allied victory led to the maintenance and even extension of liberal democracy in Europe. A German victory would have snuffed it out. When the German army appeared to be on the verge of victory in spring 1918, the Kaiser crowed that this was the vindication of monarchy and autocracy over democracy."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 09:47 AM

Another historian then.
Dr.Dan Todman

"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, as well as boredom and apathy."

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

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 09:32 AM

I find this deleting messages thing a bit strange to say the least. One post states that there "was as a disproportionate contribution (and sacrifice) from the Anzacs in WW1. as the Aussies and Kiwis went off to do their bit for King and Empire and the 'pride of the British race'."

I simply asked the question disproportionate compared to who? It is a fair question as the statement is misleading as that all the major combatants from Europe had greater losses per head of population than either NZ or the Aussies did. The UK included. Not denigrating anyone as of course all the countries suffered a great loss but there is nothing wrong with getting basic facts right! If we are to have perfectly polite posts deleted for questioning statements then shouldn't the original statement be deleted too?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Will Fly
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 09:12 AM

I've always thought Max Hastings to be a pompous, arrogant twat, and his jingoistic article in the "Daily Mail" confirms this.

He calls any rapprochement or concord with Germany as "sucking up" to the Germans and claims it dishonours the millions who died and who he believes sincerely supported the war.

Well, that support and belief was then, by the soldiers of the time - and it was also almost 100 years ago. Perspectives alter. I would ask Hastings this" Is it, in the long run, more sensible (a) to refuse any friendship, rapprochement or political alliance with Germany and keep old grudges going in Europe, or (b) to find ways of building friendship and alliances within Europe and, without forgetting the events of the past, try to ensure that such events don't happen again?

I'm sure the old soldiers of 1914-1919 would never want the events of those days to be repeated, and it's surely possible for alliances to be forged without dishonouring the memories of those men. As it happens, the hard-nosed terms of the Treaty of Versailles, with the consequent economic and social effects on 1920s Germany, were a major contributor to the rise of the Nazis. Grudges beget grudges.

I recall my grandfather telling me of a conversation with his own father in the 1920s. "Son", old George said to my grandad, "you mark my words - our natural enemies are the French. In the next war, it'll be us and the Germans against them." How wrong can you be...

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 09:09 AM

If asked why they were there, many would say simply "Somebody's got to give the Hun a bloody good kicking". It was what they were told! It was exactly the same on the other side too.

How do you know that Don?
How can you accuse those dead young men of believing shit because they were told to?

Hastings was not there, but historians use sources.
The IWM has thousands of ordinary soldiers' war diaries and letters.

He says,"Most veterans rejected the 'poets' view'. One old soldier, named Henry Mellersh, declared in 1978 that he wholeheartedly rejected the notion that the war was 'one vast, useless, futile tragedy, worthy to be remembered only as a pitiable mistake'.
Instead, wrote Mellersh: 'I and my like entered the war expecting an heroic adventure and believing implicitly in the rightness of our cause; we ended greatly disillusioned as to the nature of the adventure, but still believing that our cause was right and we had not fought in vain.'

That view was far more widely held by Mellersh's contemporaries than the 'futility' vision of Owen, Sassoon and their kin."

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 08:52 AM

""Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 08:14 AM

The BBC series on the subject identified four underlying causes of WW 1, as follows:

    ""Nationalism - the belief that your country is better than others. This made nations assertive and aggressive.
    Imperialism - the desire to conquer colonies, especially in Africa. This brought the powers into conflict - Germany wanted an empire. France and Britain already had empires.
    Militarism (Arms Race) - the attempt to build up a strong army and navy gave nations the means and will to make war.
    Alliances - in 1882, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy formed the Triple Alliance. This alarmed, France, Britain and Russia. By 1907, they had all joined the Triple Entente. Europe was divided into two armed camps, to help each other if there was a war.""

Then of course, the spark that set off the kindling, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, often mistakenly quoted as the reason.

As to whether those who died knew why, of course many of the better educated did, but there were hundreds of thousands of young men who joined up in an enthusiastic desire for adventure, travel and glory, whose knowledge of the reasons was minimal at best.

In an era when news travelled slowly, many men had never been more than a few miles from the place of their birth, and recruiters didn't care to inform, how was a young farm lad to know about international politics?

If asked why they were there, many would say simply "Somebody's got to give the Hun a bloody good kicking". It was what they were told! It was exactly the same on the other side too.

So Eric wasn't, I think, patronising too many people. If he had written the same about WW 2, that would have been patronising.

However, aware or not, they deserve our respect and they deserve our continuing remembrance. Whichever war they died in, they did it for us.

Don T.""

Keith calls that denigrating the soldiers!..It isn't!

It is facing the truth that Britain's motives in the lead up to WW2 were not pure as the driven snow, and the invasion of Belgium was the perfect opportunity to act to prevent Germany gaining an imperial foothold in Africa.

The senior officers, mostly public school educated, knew what was going on, but most of the cannon fodder, farm and factory workers, knew only what they were told by government propaganda and posters, and if you take the trouble to look at what was recorded of the comments of ordinary soldiers, they are larded with such remarks as I quoted about "The Hun".

Also, listen to the Music Hall songs of that time.

The point is that Keith's view of these events isn't just "My Country, right or wrong!", It is "My Country cannot be wrong.

I'm sorry but it can, it often has, and it most likely will in the future.

That is FACT! But it takes nothing away from the brave men who lay down their lives in defence of that country, which incidentally I love, but without the rose tinted viewpoint.

I love my country warts and all!

Those who died in all her wars and police actions deserve our utmost respect and admiration and should be remembered.

I firmly believe that the day we forget, we open the door for history to repeat itself.

As for Max Hastings, while he may be right in saying that Germany bears most blame, he cannot imagine the effect on Wilfred Owen or the other war poets of watching a constant stream of young men, many in their teens, arriving at the front to be sent "over the top" and slaughtered like cattle in an abbatoir. He wasn't there and has no right to judge those who were.

In his ranting about embracing German remembrance, he forgets that most of the Germans killed were no different than ours, "Husbands and Brothers, Fathers and Sons" (Whitsun Dance), and there were villages without men in both countries.

Hastings is a bitter bastard, who has forgotten that the soldiers don't start wars. He has also forgotten that one can forgive without forgetting.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 08:41 AM

Firing squads were on hand to ensure others stopped asking.

No-one was shot for questioning the war.
They did not have to be threatened with shooting.
Most were volunteers.
Not jingoistic fools.
Not dupes of the church.
Men most remarkable like you, except that they understood that Germany had to be stopped and it fell to them to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 08:30 AM

Many did question. Conscientious objectors existed.

Many did question. Middle class women were encouraged to hand out white feathers.

Many did question. The padres were on hand to help them see the error of their ways.

Many did question. Firing squads were on hand to ensure others stopped asking.

Many did question. The poems of Wilfred Owen were not scrutinised as he was seen as from the establishment.

Many did question. But didn't return.

Many did question. But their lost limbs eyes and minds insulted the "Glory pomp and circumstance of glorious war. " So were left to beg.

Many do question. And they are getting louder than the revisionists amongst us.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 06:20 AM

I am not up for denigrating anyone.

But if the answer was millions of dead what on earth was the question.

Was this war a good idea? Was it what everybody wanted? Did it have a good and useful outcome?

Who's idea was it?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 06:11 AM

There were those in Britain who favoured a war with Germany before that country became too strong; there were those in France who wanted revenge for the war of the 1870s

No doubt there were all sorts in all countries, but they did not lead France and Britain into war.

Germany attacked and invaded.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 05:54 AM

I think Les is right there was lots of things happening prior to war breaking out. Initially Britain looked to an alliance with Germany but was basically rebuffed and it seems the Kaiser by then saw Britain as the main competitor rather than friend. So Britian cosied up to France instead and later Russia. Germany was bolshie and looking out for its own interests but so was Britain and France who were making secret treaties involving Morocco etc which they had no legal right to do. According to H.L.Peacock in his "A History Of Modern Europe" the events after Sarajevo and the break out of hostilities between Austria and Serbia went like this chronoligacally. July 28th Austria declares war on Serbia; Russia immediately mobilises in support of Serbia; Germany immediately demands that Russia demobilises and that France assures neutrality; Russia refuses and Germany declares war on Russia on 1st August then on France on 3rd August; on 4th August Germany strikes at France through neutral Belgium believing that Britain wouldn't go to war over a piece of paper.

In the summing up he says German aggresiveness was greatly to blame but that it would be wrong to think that all aggresiveness was centred on Germany. There were those in Britain who favoured a war with Germany before that country became too strong; there were those in France who wanted revenge for the war of the 1870s; and pan-Slavism was as much a problem as pan-Germanism.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 05:43 AM

In terms of why didn't soldiers question
Who says they did not?
The evidence is that they did question, but they believed the war had to be fought.
They were right.
You are wrong.
Who are you to denigrate them?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 05:33 AM

I'm sure there were lots of reasons Les. Many of which were opportunity. To the Victor the spoils.

In terms of why didn't soldiers question, well the Edwardian fascination with jingoism for starters. Empire day celebrations were the order of the day.

If soldiers did start questioning the government ensured there were enough padres in soldier's uniforms to let them know God wants us to win.

This appalling association between religion and carnage carried on and of course still does.

The second world war,
It came and it went.
We forgave the Germans
And now we are friends.
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried.
The Germans now too have
God on their side.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 05:17 AM

We now know that Germany HAD been secretly planning the war for some years.

The war continued because Germany seemed likely to win it, so why should they stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 04:58 AM

Thanks Keith, a good starting point but didn't a lot of other things happen before that point was reached. I know hindsight has 20/20 vision (maybe) but isn't that where we stand now? Isn't that the value of hindsight and historical analysis?

Wars don't start on Monday morning just after breakfast and the decision to start and continue a war in which millions of people died was what? All the powers that their were knew that millions were being slaughtered - why didn't they care enough to stop it?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 04:05 AM

Germany decided to go to war, and invade Belgium and France.
Belgium, France and Britain were just trying to hold them back.
What else could they do in the face of naked, imperialist agression?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 04:03 AM

Germany decided to go to war and invade Belgium and France.
Britain France and Belgium were just defending.
What else could they do?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 03:57 AM

The best way to respect those who were killed - on all sides is to understand in detail - with a long historical perspective - how it happened and why.

Was it essential that millions of people died between 1914 and 1918?

Was that the only way - who decided that that was the only way?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 03:51 AM

Was is essential that millions of people died between 1914 and 1918?

Was that the only way - who decided that that was the only way?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 02:48 AM

Remembrance should focus on the soldier, not on the Kings and Generals.

That is exactly how we do it here.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Nov 13 - 02:48 AM

"as there was a disproportionate contribution (and sacrifice) from the Anzacs in WW1"

Disproportionate as opposed to who else?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:32 PM

Cenotaphs are shoved into teh most prominent places possible in parks and town squares in Britain

And who shoved them there?
The ordinary people of those towns and villages, who also scraped together the money to pay for them in the hardest times they had ever known.

That is how important it was to them, and we should keep faith with them today.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:22 PM

Fuck Armistice Day.

Fuck poppies.

Fuck war memorials.

The state wants to turn as much public space as possible into a tomb. Cenotaphs are shoved into teh most prominent places possible in parks and town squares in Britain (and most other countries) simply to intrude the state religion of war-worship into everybody's lives.

No we don't need to remember it. We just need to round up the slime who want us to reverence warfare and piss on the lot of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:17 PM

Actually, Lighter did not miss the British aim about continental dominance, I did, so just consider it reinforced. It was, however, a lot more important to H.M.'s government than Belgian neutrality, I would argue. It can be argued that the treaty was a fig leaf.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: selby
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:17 PM

This thread is re-labeled "debate", which is, I believe, closer to what mg wanted when she started the threads. I base this on what happened in previous years when more personal thoughts offered were overwhelmed by those who chose to argue. This thread will be moderated no less than other BS threads.

Censor person if you read my thread it was NOT an argument it was a story of what happened in a different time to a relation of mine which in todays society is hard to understand so again WHY THE CENSORSHIP
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (moderated)
From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 05:14 PM

Lighter hit many of the important points, but omitted Britain's self-imposed need to prevent any power becoming too dominant on the continent. It wasn't an unwise or unwarranted aim in their foreign policy, just one that does not sit as easily with us in our "current threat environment."

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 04:58 PM

For once in your life Keith, why don't you just STFU?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 04:17 PM

but the plans of either side needed war to take place anyway.
No.
Britain did not want war.
Germany did.

Hence the dying was in vain.
Why?
because it would not have mattered if Germany had conquered Europe, or because there was another way to stop their war machine?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 02:21 PM

How about we do a Musket and Don show? We can sell the rights to Channel 4 with repeats royalties via Dave?

If nothing else, we could show that argument isn't just tedious contradiction? The common link you complain about just wouldn't get invited, that's all. Although we would get challenged to show where he hasn't been invited I suppose......

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 01:06 PM

Having had my fill of the Keith and Jim show, followed by the Keith and Musket show, I deliberately stayed out of this thread, because I am not going to join the Keith and Don show.

So some eejit slung my well presented and thoughtful post into the one place I didn't plan to visit.

Now I've just about had my fill of the Mudcat Musical Threads Show as well.

This isn't what Max wanted it to be any more.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:59 PM

Sensitive posts on a sensitive subject and they get thrown off the thread by people being somewhat insensitive.

As we can't discuss lest we forget, we need to keep the moderators happy.

Anyone know any good knob gags?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:53 PM

My seemingly offensive post is the second one on this thread. It answers a question posed by Lighter and gives the reasons quoted by the BBC, plus a comment on the Eric Bogle song in answer to another poster, and finished of with an assertion of the need for respect for and remembrance of those who didn't come back.

What were we supposed to say?

Don T.

Earlier posts returned. Unless they are obviously offensive, this thread is labeled "unmoderated"

---

This thread is re-labeled "debate", which is, I believe, closer to what mg wanted when she started the threads. I base this on what happened in previous years when more personal thoughts offered were overwhelmed by those who chose to argue. This thread will be moderated no less than other BS threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (unmoderated)
From: selby
Date: 11 Nov 13 - 12:52 PM

my post from the moderated post has arrived on here now out of context with still no explanation as to WHY
Keith