BS: Armistice Day (debate)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 11:44 AM

I have read some of the books you cite and in certain areas draw different conclusions to the author.
The authors base their conclusion on their extensive research.
Yours is based on ignorance and preconception, so worthless.

Who cares what your conclusion is compared to the historians?
Apart from gormless Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 11:12 AM

Just wondered about why waving Oxford University Press is supposed to add to the credibility? It isn't one thing nor another. It exists to raise funds by publishing. It publishes fiction and non fiction. In fact, it published Thomas Carlisle's unfortunate books on eugenics. It also printed a number of publications I cite in my own papers over the years. Broad spectrum then.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Perhaps if the binding of a first edition hardback shows the hand crafting skill of the binder I might he. But the content? No reason to say you can't read it and draw your own conclusions.

I have read some of the books you cite and in certain areas draw different conclusions to the author. That's part of reading, you ignoramus.

Anyway, googling can be fraught with fun. Musket is a bit of silly bugger stuff. Ian is what I use on line in non professional waffle, my real name is what I use professionally and privately and just to make it fun, I have a stage name too, although I don't get to use it much these days, and as the royalty cheques get ever smaller, the name list for the bank account gets ever less used.

And that's just me... Add that many people do likewise, and black can indeed be white, hence how funny it is when you grasp at straws claiming it must be true cos I read it!

I also find it amusing when you and your mate Akenhateon keep calling me Ian for reasons that make the name rather superfluous. (I use the first name in homage to a mate from Worksop who enjoys a pint and a song, bless him.)

Did you know that when an editor, Max Hastings used to write using an alias? All the rage you know.... I wonder if...   Naw, too easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 10:14 AM

Now the pig really IS getting annoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 05:02 AM

(Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship and education...)

"did not back the war because they were deluded, brainwashed or naively duped into an idiotic bloodbath as the subsequent myth would have it.
Rather, their support was often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted"

Stop believing the old, discredited "myth."
How can you imagine you know more about it than the historians?!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 04:55 AM

Excellent article in this week's The Week. Whilst exploring the Xmas Day football activities, it gives an excellent insight into how in subsequent years snipers were brought in who were not normally in those sections to keep the men hating the opposition.

A nice section about propaganda and exaggeration to ensure volunteers.

In fact, hardly a word about the recent revision attempts by many to see the war as just, well led and fruitful.

Boom fucking Boom



Oxford Press eh? And your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 04:47 AM

By 4 August people supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.

In other words: now that their governments had maneuvered them into disaster (or had gambled with their lives, or had been "sleepwalking", as C. Clark put it), they saw no other option than to fight it through. See above.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 01:48 AM

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lVK0SSmvD5wC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=invasion+preparation+1914&source=bl&ots=qPt2tdhG9V&sig=JIZ

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 01:46 AM

This book is published by Oxford University Press. (Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship and education...)
A large preview is online.

Page 4.
"The central tenet of this book is that ordinary British and Irish people in 1914 did not back the war because they were deluded, brainwashed or naively duped into an idiotic bloodbath as the subsequent myth would have it.
Rather, their support was often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. By 4 August people supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in the circumstances. They then proceeded to positively immerse themselves in the war effort, and collaborate in its prosecution, but not necessarily in an overtly enthusiastic and jingoistic manner."

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 02:57 PM

The more I read of oafs such as Keith A Hole of Hertford, the more I see why I do.
Oafs like me who read and learn from History, instead of making it up out of an empty head like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 12:40 PM

There's a reason why I dismiss superstition when weighing evidence.

The more I read of oafs such as Keith A Hole of Hertford, the more I see why I do.

Superstitious belief eh? Don't judge rational people by your own standards. If you must treat opinion based on credentials , I'm surprised you claim to pick and choose what you believe in your bible. Or did a historian choose them for you? Far easier to be literal like pete you know. Try reading "Worlds in Collision." Right up your street.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 10:30 AM

Who cares what you say or think.
It is based only on your superstitious belief in how things should be and must be, in defiance of all the actual evidence.

Belief without evidence.
Exactly what you ridicule others for.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 10:22 AM

You'd be just as insufferable if you were right.

Pride cometh before a fall. You can spin history but there are too many war graves standing in neat defiance, to eradicate the truth.







Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom (love the pathos) Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 05:36 AM

Excellent point well made.
Thank you.

Is there one historian whose findings support your views?
No.
Is there one whose findings contradict my views?
No.
But you keep on making fools of yourselves.
That does make me satisfied.
That does make me smug.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 05:33 AM

And now for those still keeping down with us, a second instalment of Voltaire.

"It is dangerous to be right on matters in which the established authorities are wrong."

Still, at least Keith A Hole of Hertford can sleep soundly at night eh?





Next time everybody stands freezing at a a War Memorial on a cold November morning, look around you. How many are there to commemorate the wasted life and how many are celebrating kicking the shit out of the Hun? Keeps the mind busy and whiles away the time whilst the God section waffles on.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 01:59 AM

I would suggest they have better things to do than "agree with" Keith A Hole of Hertford.

Just a hunch.

After all, should "they" have even heard of you, "they" would have written you off as someone who reads and believes rather than reads, critiques and forms an opinion that is then articulated as a version of history.

It's harder for we historians than you buggers think......

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 13 - 01:49 AM

Again declaring that historians are wrong and you all are cleverer than them!
Priceless.

Is there one historian who agrees with you?
No.
Is there one who disagrees with me?
No.
But you keep on making a fools of yourselves.
That does make me satisfied.
That does make me smug.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Dec 13 - 09:24 AM

Just to be specific. I was right second time.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 13 - 03:45 AM

Right first time.
Unusual for you Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Dec 13 - 03:09 AM

Ergo you are right



Or should that be ego?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 01:07 PM

I can't help but be self-satisfied and smug.
Sorry, but all your gang declaring that historians are wrong and you all are cleverer than them!
Priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 12:02 PM

Poets?

Err. Baldrick?

Oh, Rupert Brooke. He wrote one about you, didn't he?

If I should lie, think only this of me.
There is a corner of a Hertford keyboard that is forever self satisfied and smug.



Eeh, tha' does look a reight twat me old duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 10:33 AM

Do you know any others who have published on the subject in the last 20 years?

I'm curious: Why only in the last twenty years?

And yes, I do. I once again refer you to the Catalogue of the British Library. Do a search on "World War I" and check the publication dates. You'll find hundreds.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 09:50 AM

Do you know any others who have published on the subject in the last 20 years?
No you do not.
There are none.

Next time you post the same old lie, why not just make up some names?
If you are going to lie, make it a real whopper!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 09:42 AM

So, you actually believe that the ten persons you name are "ALL the military historians with an interest or specialism in WW1" on the face of the globe? I repeat: absolute horseshit.

You know, Keith, for sheer bloody-mindedness, pig-headedness and ignorance you remind me of Ian Paisley - one of the great "Christian"[sic] persecuters of all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 09:05 AM

Same old lie from the same old fool.
Who did I leave out Greg?
You can not name any.
You can not name one.
You are full of "horseshit" Greg.

How many times do I have to slap you down?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 08:33 AM

The list includes ALL the military historians with an interest or specialism in WW1

All? Horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 05:43 AM

So even now you think you know more than the historians!
Please don't stop.
And you accuse me of trying to make you look a twat!

Poets?
Rupert Brooke?
John Mcrea?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 04:41 AM

I'd have thought Miss Piggy was the obvious muppet?

Your list is getting quite impressive Keith. If it keeps growing at this rate, you might have enough to convince a few shallow fools that propaganda never existed, that the white feathers were nice but not necessary, that firing squads were just practicing for the enemy.

The accounts of those there, especially the poets who could articulate their feelings. Nothing compared to those who get cited by The BBC eh? If you look carefully, (you never do though,) the history section also includes a smattering of Wilfred Owen and speaks of propaganda and enforced hate lessons for soldiers. It speaks of deserters, it rattles on merrily about the butcher of the Somme.

zzzzzzz


Hoots of derision. Thanks, I couldn't have articulated it better myself. Hoot hoot! (Boom Boom..)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 02:52 AM

Educating pork!
Are you describing the frustration you feel when telling the leading historians in the land that they know nothing, and should take lessons from you?

I felt the same when I told you that your views were long discredited by research.(Like you with the creationists.)
I was ridiculed for that truth.
I reported the findings of someone hailed by historians as the nation's leading military historian.
More hoots of derision.

I steadily added more historians.
Muppet actually stated, "those historians should know better" LIKE HE DOES!

I now have, Richard Holmes, Peter Hart, David Stephenson, Fritz Fischer, Dan Todman, Gary Sheffield, Max Hastings, Malcolm Brown, Stuart Halifax.

The list includes ALL the military historians with an interest or specialism in WW1, the historians commissioned by the BBC to write about WW1 on their history site, and all the historians used by the television companies to educate and inform the public.

But no use.
Like trying to educate pork.
Never mind. I have so enjoyed exposing the arrogance, hubris, ignorance and stupidity of all the muppets in this show.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket with bucket of swill
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 01:46 AM

Also something about trying to educate pork.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 04:31 PM

I seem to recall an adage about teaching pigs to sing........

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 02:40 PM

No, once again, it is what SOME historians say, fuckwit.

No, once again, it is what HISTORIANS say.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 01:27 PM

It is what the historians say,

No, once again, it is what SOME historians say, fuckwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 09:08 AM

It is what the historians say, so why would I not believe them.
Unless you know some that say different Greg.
Do you?
How many Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 08:40 AM

this debate was not about interpretation. It started because I gave the opinion

Righto, Keith, and that opinion is your interpretation. Or should I say misnerpretation?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 08:38 AM

What I see as the kernel of the debate is whether politics about 1900 by British and French governments can be seen as justified by present-day standards, and communicated honestly. Only if so, the formulation "Most knew what they fought for" would make sense, otherwise "Most believed in the official reasons" is adequate - we agreed on the latter.

Afghanistan after 1979 makes a good model. Those western soldiers - this time including Germans - who believed they were fighting for girls' right of schooling were not downright wrong, but missed the half of the story of which their governments should be ashamed.

I bet Keith will have the last word in this thread. I hope my point is clear enough to unbiased readers.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 07:51 AM

Yes Grishka, but this debate was not about interpretation.

It started because I gave the opinion, based on my knowledge and reading of History, that British troops knew what they were fighting for, and mostly believed in what they were doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 07:15 AM

Anti-establishment Max Hastings.
"Mr Cameron is deluded. The tragic truth is that Britain accomplished NOTHING in Afghanistan."

The real "tragedy" is that the militias later known as the Taliban had previously been fostered, funded, and equipped by British and US governments to fight the then Soviet Union in the 1980s. When will they ever learn (- the democratic internationalists, not the Taliban)?

As I wrote before, there does not seem to be much dispute about facts, but about interpretation and consequences for present-day political philosophy. In these fields, historians are not experts at all; they have their opinions and political convictions as ordinary persons.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 04:03 AM

He is paid for his opinion because he is an authority on military matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 03:56 AM

Would that be the Max Hastings who is paid to write newspaper opinion or the Max Hastings who researches history? In this case, prior to the end of the campaign he is commenting on....

This is the rub. I would like to agree with him on his Afghanistan stance, with the caveat that a read of the Afghanaid website reveals the many advances for the general population that would not have come about without the removal of the Taliban. Having had a close family member carrying out aid work there, I am tainted with a one sided view, but there again, we all weigh such evidence higher than that we may suspect as loaded....

You see, Keith uses his gut feelings too, but rather than be guided by them, he defies anyone to disagree with them. That is boorish at best, stupid at worst and irresponsible in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 03:27 AM

Anti-establishment Max Hastings.
" Mr Cameron is deluded. The tragic truth is that Britain accomplished NOTHING in Afghanistan."

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 13 - 02:35 AM

I have.
Can't find one.
Neither can you, because there are none.

You are a lying fool and everyone reading your shit KNOWS you are a lying fool.

I produce historians.
You can produce nothing but lies and shit.

But, it is not too late.
Name one Greg.
Just one.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 05:23 PM

I once again refer you, Keith, to the catalogue of The British Library, where you will find books by a veritable legion of historians who disagree with your bullshit.

IF you look for them.

Or, you can keep your head up your arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 05:17 PM

I dream of you finding one and making me look silly.
Go for it Greg.
Show the world you are not a lying fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 03:26 PM

Dream on, Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 02:10 PM

Just one than Greg, you lying fool.
You have not got even one.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 01:48 PM

Dream on. Keith. I just can't be arsed to list dozens (hundreds?) of names that wouldn't shake your delusions in the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 09:57 AM

If it was only by some, you could find some, or perhaps just one, who does share their views.

Funny you can't find one Greg.
Funny no-one else can either.
That is because there are none.

I did show that their views are not held by historians.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 09:50 AM

I did show that their views were not held by historians.

Correction: "not held by some historians" - a statement that could be made about anything whatsoever, and thus nugatory..

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 13 - 08:19 AM

I did not dismiss them.
I did show that their views were not held by historians.