BS: Armistice Day (debate)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 02:17 PM

AHA!

Now I see - you are basing your "extensive"[sic] "knowledge"[sic] of history and historians on WHAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET!!!

Thus it will come as a surprise and a shock to you that 99% of the historical studies and works that have been written

ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET!!!

By basing your "knowledge"[sic] of history and historians and your arguments on the few works available on the Internet you're considerably worse than an ignorant imbecile.

As I said previously - you're a comptete and utter fuckwit.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 01:44 PM

Greg, the British Library does not put its books on the net.
The authors would not like it.
So, how about YOU give us a couple of names or admit you are a know-nothing lying arsehole.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 01:41 PM

Jim, this is the author of your first piece.
"Chris wrote much of the content for the site from his in-depth knowledge of History having taught History and Politics at a major secondary school in England for the last 26 years."

You final piece supports me not you.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 01:36 PM

Greg, no historian's work is available on that site.

So the British Library contains no works by historians whatsoever Keith?

You DO know what the British Library - or any library for that matter - is??

Evidently not.

As I said - you're a comptete and utter fuckwit.

Rave on.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 01:28 PM

You really are an ignoramous - one of the main recruiting ploys in WW1 was that "it would all be over by Christmas", it lasted throughout the war which included 4 Christmases - it was a standing joke among the troops which has been current saying ever since - you moron

Then produce an example of that promise.
Good luck with that!

Greg, no historian's work is available on that site.
Not one.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 01:26 PM

Enjoy
Jim Carroll
Christmas 1914 and World War One
Many myths and legends surround World War One and Christmas - especially the first Christmas of the war in December 1914. The British public and the soldiers fighting in the mud of Flanders were given the impression by those in charge that the Germans, fighting possibly less than100 metres away, were blood-lusting psychopaths bent on destroying all in their way. Any form of friendship between the two sides fighting the war, would have been seen as detrimental to this impression. While the Germans remained the "evil Hun", the government and the military could justify their respective tactics.

However, the first Christmas of 1914 clearly broke the impression that those in charge wanted to portray. For many years - even after the war - the government wanted to maintain the image of the dastardly Hun and any references to any fraternisation between both sides was clamped down on. There were whispers here and there but no actual evidence. The same happened with the football match between the British and the Germans. The image that the German soldiers were just like the British and the French would not have worked for the Allies. But recent research by Stanley Weintraub has proved that there was fraternisation - improvised at the time in December 1914 but with some 'rules' quickly built in.

Weintraub has found that the first smatterings that something was not quite right took place in the trenches where the Berkshire Regiment faced the XIX Corps of the German Army. The XIX's were from Saxony. The Saxons started to put up small conifers on the parapets of their trenches - akin to our Christmas trees. The Berkshires could see many of them lining the tops of the XIX's trenches. Groups of the Berkshires and the Saxons met in No-Mans Land and officers from both sides turned a blind eye to this fraternisation which broke military law. In fact, the officers in these trenches agreed to an informal truce between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

During the next 24 hours, impromptu cease fires occurred throughout the Western Front. The British High Command - stationed 27 miles behind the trenches - was horrified but little could be done. A military directive had been issued which stated:




Abstract



That the British public thought that the First World War would be 'over by Christmas' in 1914 is such a common feature of war fiction, memoirs and histories that it has scarcely been questioned, let alone seriously examined. The phrase has become shorthand for naivety among a generation of young men who are supposed to have rushed to join the army rather than missing all the 'fun', the politicians and generals who sent them to the front and the journalists who cheered them on. This article investigates how common it really was and attempts to place it in the wide context of public reactions to the war, using newspapers, letters and diaries to uncover the feelings of the time rather than post-hoc reflections. As with former givens of 1914, such as 'war enthusiasm', what emerges is a more complex picture than simple naïve faith in the imminent success of British and Allied arms. Treating predictions of peace as part of a coping strategy for soldiers and civilians at war, we should not be surprised to find predictions of peace by various specific dates, and particularly by Christmas, throughout the Great War and beyond. This article questions the ubiquity of the idea of the war ending before Christmas in 1914 and the singularity of that year for optimistic predictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 01:12 PM

"What promise about Christmas by whom Jim?"
You really are an ignoramous - one of the main recruiting ploys in WW1 was that "it would all be over by Christmas", it lasted throughout the war which included 4 Christmases - it was a standing joke among the troops which has been current saying ever since - you moron

"But perhaps the biggest reason everyone thought that the war would be over by Christmas was because that was what the government wanted people to believe. Internal war correspondence and wires of the time suggests that at heart the military leaders probably knew they were in for the long haul. But most nations tried to keep the public opinion light and positive. Keeping a light-hearted attitude about the war, painting a rosy picture of the call to glory that it represented, meant that recruiters had an easier time convincing young men to join up."

And while you are calling people liars - you still haven't produced one relevant statement concerning the motivation for men joining the war - none of hour "historians" have made claims on this
You have even lied about the number of first hand accounts - you were given two - you claimed one
Your pathetic attempts to overturn history by misquoting historical journalist really does put you in line for a 'troll of the year' award - hoper you've filled in the acceptance form
Troll on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 12:28 PM

Greg your link is to a collection of primary sources, not any historians' work.

Envidently you are a complete and utter fuckwit, Keith.

The link is to the main on-line catalogue of the entire collection of British Library.

You lose.

Again.

Still.

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

You expect to be believed over historians.
That just makes you a fool not a liar.
However, I believe this is a lie, "A bit like Hastings writing to say Alan Turing deserved his chemical castration."

It is not relevant to this discussion because Hastings is just one of the historians whose findings inform my views, but it tells us something about you and what you will do to score points on some Mudcat thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 10:52 AM

Make that three liars Keith, you forgot me.

Oh, don't forget, revisionists need a book burning party. Shall I dig out my old school text books? Or my sons' as airbrushing incompetent butchers and colonialists wasn't in fashion by their time either.

In fact, it's quite a recent phenomenon. Except amongst those who press their blazers and polish their medals. Did the execution party get special medals or just threats?

When you can answer truthfully to yourself exactly why one of the party had blanks in their rifle, you can begin to understand the truth of the "everybody knew and understood everything" stance that is being pushed by revisionists now.

I don't blame you for your stance. If shallow patriots didn't exist, it wouldn't be worth rewriting history. A bit like Hastings writing to say Alan Turing deserved his chemical castration. Must hurt a few to know a gay bloke did more to end the second war than every General that ever dressed for dinner. His view on those who were murdered by their own side is rather juicy too....

I stopped taking you seriously on this subject, of which I know little to be fair, when you reckoned I'd come up with "Butcher of the Somme" when it was one of your precious few historians who either coined or perpetuated the phrase.

How much of their work have you actually read? Even Hastings had it in for the top brass till his conversion to the establishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 10:29 AM

What promise about Christmas by whom Jim?
Made up shit.
Most joined after Christmas anyway.

Greg your link is to a collection of primary sources, not any historians' work.

Why not just name a few of your historians so we could learn from them?
Plenty of room for that.

Or just a couple.
Or even one.

Only a complete lying arsehole would say "Not room enough here to list 'em all,"

But that is what you are!
Right Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 09:32 AM

"Go Here and do a search for "history of WWI"
Waste of time Greg - neither of them 'do' books!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 09:25 AM

Greg F you have been asked on at least two occasions to provide sources and names of "Historians" that support your contentions - to date you have provided none.

Not room enough here to list 'em all, T-bird.

Go Here and do a search for "history of WWI" or "home front WWI" or "causes of WWI" or similar permutations.

But have fun with your delusions in the interim..

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 08:45 AM

It seems that our jingoistic nutter and his pseudo historical facts are going to ascertain that this one isn't going to be all over by Christmas - just like it wasn't the last time, despite promises to the contrary.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 05:56 AM


I can imagine Keith in that crowd.

As with your imaginings about history, you are wrong.
The song is also a misrepresentation of attitudes to wounded soldiers.
The "perceived history" was wrong.
Historians have shown that, but as we see on this thread, the false perception will not go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 05:22 AM

Yes. They even provided ladders to get up into No Man's Land and Red caps to hold thelladder for them.

Very well led if the object was to get them running into the other side's guns.

My point in all of this is the concerted attempts to whitewash what has always been the perceived history. That's why you see Keith trying to argue that Oh What a Lovely War and chuffing Blackadder are the only dissenters. Really?

Everybody knew what to expect. Really?


Nobody cheered, they stood there and stared
Then turned their faces away.

I can imagine Keith in that crowd.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 13 - 04:24 AM

Greg F you have been asked on at least two occasions to provide sources and names of "Historians" that support your contentions - to date you have provided none - That speaks volumes.

Musket - Was the British Army well led during the First World War? I would say that under the circumstances all combatant nations found themselves in - Yes it was. They most certainly were not worse led than anyone else - it was the Turks who had the "hardest war" in terms of casualties, which was odd as they mostly fought on the defensive.

In terms of casualties the major combatant nations were roughly on a par with one another. You can only ever go to war with what you have, not with what you'd like, that always comes later for the side that is victorious, so let's take a look at the British armed forces in 1914 compared to what they had become by November 1918.

1914 - A regular army of around 80,000 men with a reserve of around 770,000 men, sufficient to halt the massive initial German onslaught and force the abandonment of their Schlieffen Plan or "Race to the sea".   
1918 - Britain had 5.5 million men serving under arms, which after the German Hindenberg offensive in the Spring and early summer of 1918 remained cohesive enough and resilient enough to mount the final offensive that finally defeated the German Field Armies.

No two British offensives were conducted using the same tactics (I know that flies against what most learned watching "Blackadder Goes Forth" and "Oh what a lovely war" but never mind, neither represent history or fact.), lessons learned tended very much to be applied, what was lacking in all armies at the time was efficient and effective tactical command and control that would have enabled commanders at the front to fine tune and adjust to situations as they arose - but that was the same for everybody, not just the British.

Throughout the War the British were by far the most innovative of the
combatant powers, both in the creation of new weapons and in countering advances made by the enemy. Those innovations saved lives and provided solutions that ultimately broke the deadlock of trench warfare that had existed since the winter of 1914.

That there are differing opinions regarding the performance of Haig is not surprising, the same is true of opinions on Montgomery and Wellington - Fact still remains that against the best their respective enemies threw at them in their day - all three won.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 05:53 PM

The History produced by the work and research of historians

Which historians? Yop mean the half-dozen you can muster to support your idiosyncratic view?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 03:41 PM

This caught my eye in a thread refreshed today.

Subject: RE: Lyr Req: The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling
From: Jim Dixon - PM
Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:06 PM

From The Vermilion Box by Edward Verrall Lucas (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1916), page 343:

Richard Haven to Barclay Vaughan

My Dear B.,—My nephew Toby Starr, who is a second lieutenant at the Front, has sent me an astonishing chorus, or litany, or what you will, that the men are singing. The Germans hear them, of course, but I doubt if it is sent across No Man's Land as an intimation of our own eventual bliss and the Germans' certain loss of it. I should guess not. That is not the British soldier's way, his heart being far more in conquering the enemy than in criticising him. Indeed, I find such men from the Front as I chance to meet very loth to talk about the Hun at all and rarely voluble as to his iniquities. Rather do they emphasise his merits as a fighter.

I should guess that this odd triumphant credo, set to an old music-hall tune and springing up and spreading probably as mysteriously as a folksong, is not a defiance of the earthly foe, but merely one more manifestation of the courageous levity that this war has drawn forth. It is Tommy's light surface way of accepting death. To do even so tremendous a thing as that without a touch of humour would not be playing the game. We get therefore trench after trench filled with men who at any moment may be blown to atoms singing these astonishing words:

The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling
For you but not for me.
For me the angels sing-a-ling-a-ling
They've got the goods for me.
O Death, where is thy sting-a-ling-a-ling?
O Grave, thy victoree?
The Bells of Hell go ting-a-ling-a-ling
For you but not for me!

Isn't that wonderful? and incredible? It is not exactly religion, and yet it is religion. Fatalism with faith. Assurance with disdain. The very aristocracy of confidence. And only the new British soldier could sing it....

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 07:37 AM

The History produced by the work and research of historians, as opposed to what you just believe.

You are mad to believe that the historians are all lying in the hope of getting some award.
No-one cares, least of all any government, what historians tell us about events of a century ago.

The historians are reporting their findings.
I believe them.
No-one would take seriously your politically motivated whims compared to the work of professional historians.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 07:17 AM

Which history?

Just curious...

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 06:09 AM

You might be right Musket, but I think it more likely that actual historians know more about it than even you do.

I choose to believe history not you.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 03:48 AM

Err no mate. Keith A. Hole of Hertford started the ludicrous idea that anyone disagreeing with him therefore thought that nobody knew what they were doing. Everybody poking fun at him now do so because of being tired of words put in their mouth.

He picks up on sentences out of context and throws them in your face just like he will be doing after reading this post.

I for one questioned the methods of recruitment which relied on propaganda. I then questioned the absurd idea they were well led.

I didn't invent the term "butcher of the Somme" an "eminent historian" did.

They were well led alright. Right up to being given a whistle and a small ladder.

Even Keith can find the myriad news and articles over concerns about marking 100 years next year. Friendly accounts from retired newspaper editors who know where their gong came from helps the airbrush effort.

You can't lead a generation to destruction and write a cosy account of everybody knowing what they were doing and happy with the methods. The reasons for the war are one thing. The butchered and butchering incompetence of how to go about it cannot be ignored. It would be a stain on every town memorial.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 03:07 AM

Ah Musket, I would dearly like to know what in my single contribution to this thread could have been considered "jingoistic"?

Jingoism being defined as - "Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism."

The discussion that appears to be raging between yourself and Keith relates to whether or not the vast majority of those who fought for Britain in the First World War were simpletons, dumb hewers of wood and drawers of water who were duped and manipulated into fighting for a cause that they didn't, or shouldn't have believed in.

One of the greatest tragedies of the First World War was the universal loss right across the board of a generation that were in a position to contribute and make the world a far, far better place, through their education, understanding, sense of duty, obligation and responsibility. This was the generation that should have been left alone to peacefully divest the great colonial powers of their empires. You may scoff at that but financially the empire from about the 1880s onwards was actually costing Great Britain money and its days were numbered.

"If it wasn't for education, universal suffrage and cosmopolitan thinking by all those people with world views, we might have had to resort to things that recent revisionists play down, such as

Marches through towns to impress young ladies to get their men to join them. - No the marches through towns were not designed for that purpose, their object was to boost the morale of those who had just joined and to reinforce the belief that they were part of a cohesive unit about to go and do their duty as their forefathers had done before them - had they wanted to impress young ladies they would have held tea dances and band recitals - much more effective.

"Recruiting sergeants waiting outside pubs to get them whilst pissed." - Really? I think that maybe you should go away and study recruitment patterns and then apply that to some of the dearly held myths you so obviously believe - By the way Recruiting Sergeants traditionally hung about to invite young men inside pubs in order to get men pissed so that they would then enlist. Of the 5 million+ men who made up the British Armed Forces (1 in 4 of the male population) roughly half were volunteers and half were conscripts. Conscription didn't come in until 1916 and at the start only single men could be conscripted.

"Women being told of their duty to give white feathers to any man without a uniform." - Want to know who "told them" to do that? The Woman's Suffrage Movement - I get the impression that you thought it was a trick devised by the evil aristocrats in Government - it wasn't.

"Draconian punishment for being shell shocked."
- Really? What "draconian" punishments are you referring to? Again you need to do some actual research instead of relying on myth.

"Capital punishment for those for whom the penny had dropped."

The facts are as follows - "During the course of the First World War there were 240,000 Courts Martial, 3080 Death Sentences handed down, in only 346 cases was the sentence carried out."

Out of those 346 cases, 301 of them fall in with your "draconian" punishment deal, although not all were "shell shocked", and all were pardoned posthumously on the 7th November, 2006

- 266 British soldiers were executed for "Desertion".
- 18 for "Cowardice"
- 7 for "Quitting a post without authority"
- 5 for "Disobedience to a lawful command"
- 2 for "Casting away arms"

"After all, every soldier knew their duty. Sadly, many thought so." - Yes they were of a generation that appreciated that they did not only have rights, but they also had a moral sense of obligation, something the country in general has now lost completely.

Unfortunately you apply present day thinking to past events.

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

NONE!
Quel surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 05:37 PM

500 was the post number Greg dear.
It is your turn to name some now.

Some!
Any?
One??

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 05:14 PM

500? Name 'em, Sunshine.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 03:57 PM

Nope.
500.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 03:50 PM

If only the professional Historians could understand History like you Musket.

You mean your 6 per "professional historians" out of thousands, correct?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 03:35 PM

If only the professional Historians could understand History like you Musket.
How silly they must feel.
They really should know better like you do.

Just who do you think you are you posturing, pretentious fool?

Troubadour.
the "discredited myths" are the truths they are trying to hide.
Do you not see how mad that is?
A conspiracy of all the historians to hide the truth!
Why would the government or anyone care what historians say about events of a century ago?
Why would Historians go along with it?
Why would no-one expose and denounce them?

How is that easier to believe such bizarre constructions, than that historians are just publishing their findings and research like historians do?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 01:54 PM

The corner stone of British foreign policy since 1700 until our entry into the EEC has been that no single country in Europe should be allowed to become undisputed masters of Europe.

So was the declared policy of all other powers including German, and their newspapers offered "news" that the other countries were now trying to become such masters. As someone mentioned upthread, the French and British governments did not really trust each other either - let alone Belgium. Alliances were forged in order to win, not by moral criteria.

Frenchmen in 1914 (including two of my grand-uncles) were certainly right to defend their country once the disaster was there. This must not lead us to glorify or "celebrate" their government - as my grandmother, their sister, clearly understood and later told me. (She also told me that the British soldiers had a completely distorted image of continental Europe - but that should not be news to anybody.) Of my distant German relatives I know nothing at all, but I read that German and Austrian soldiers were about as convinced of their cause being good, as French and British were.

Newspapers were among the main culprits, and often they did not have to lie, just to select. (I wrote that before, sorry.)

"Well led" in terms of military technique is a completely different category. Its moral component is about weighing human lives against chances for victory. Not easy to decide by philosophy and in practice. However, the idea of sacrificing lives to defend one's society's claims is anchored deeply in our genes, simply because those who did not have those genes were exterminated long before the others had even evolved to become homo sapiens, and sophisticated inter-society morals were invented. "Right or wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 11:12 AM

A great pity that history, the people of Europe and my Granddads didn't have the wonderful learning, understanding and faith in jingoism that the mighty Teribus and Keith A. hole of Hertford portray.

Just think, if it wasn't for newspapers reporting news, we might have had to resort to propaganda. If it wasn't for education, universal suffrage and cosmopolitan thinking by all those people with world views, we might have had to resort to things that recent revisionists play down, such as

Marches through towns to impress young ladies to get their men to join them.
Recruiting sergeants waiting outside pubs to get them whilst pissed.
Women being told of their duty to give white feathers to any man without a uniform.
Draconian punishment for being shell shocked.
Capital punishment for those for whom the penny had dropped.

After all, every soldier knew their duty. Sadly, many thought so.

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 09:06 AM

"Great Britain shall be celebrating going to ear next year." - GUEST, 29th Nov 13 - 11:03 AM

Where's "ear"? And where ever it is, isn't it relative? Or did you actually mean to make the ludicrous and totally incorrect statement that - Great Britain shall be celebrating going to war next year - which is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Several European Nations will be commemorating the 100th anniversaries of the events that marked the passage and course of the "Great War" - to those who actually had to fight through it and live through it, they would tell you that there was nothing at all "great" about it - apart from the horrendous degree of suffering caused.

But in general having followed the discourse Keith A of Hertford is basically right on the money:

1. That overall the army was well led.

The British Army in general was well led it was the only allied army left capable of mounting any serious offensive effort by the early summer of 1918. After Verdun the French were finished and the American contribution in 1918 was only symbolic, their main contribution was psychological.

2. That Britain had to try and stop the invading German armies.

Again, correct. The corner stone of British foreign policy since 1700 until our entry into the EEC has been that no single country in Europe should be allowed to become undisputed masters of Europe. The 75,000 strong BEF in 1914 stopped the Schlieffen Plan in its tracks, although contemptibly small in numbers they were still the most effective infantrymen on the planet (Look up what the firing exercise known as the "mad minute" was to give you an idea). All through the course of the war the British mounted offensive after offensive and beat off the subsequent German attacks including their last gasp attack in the spring of 1918 against the British Fifth Army under General Hubert Gough when the German Armies from the Eastern Front were moved West, the British gave ground but did not break and run, costing the Germans some 230,000 casualties.

3. People mostly volunteered because they understood that.

As part of that view on the "Mastery of Europe" that no European conqueror should control the waterways and coastline of Europe opposite the Thames Estuary - hence the creation of the small state of Belgium and the Treaties signed to guarantee its Sovereignty. I had two grandfathers who fought in the First World War and both were fully aware of why they fought, to suggest that the vast majority were conned into fighting a war that had nothing to with them is idiotic. Newspapers actually contained news in those days and people of all classes did read and understand them.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 08:15 AM

Ok Keith.

Let's start a thread discussing historians. Even better, those describing c20 military history.

WW1 has been flogged more than a dissenting Tommy so let's turn to WW2.

The game is simple. You cut and paste a historian then call anyone disagreeing with a professional historian thick.

Fancy starting with David Irvine? Or is it Irving? Must get facts right when Keith is around. Otherwise he picks you up on detail to hide him being clueless on the actual subject. ...







You get worse. You do.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:49 AM

I think that on matters of History, historians know more than us.

We learn our History from historians, if we are intelligent.
Otherwise we create a false History based on our preconceptions.

To the people of 1914, it was current affairs not History.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:35 AM

"The historians all refer to the sad fact that the general population still believe the old discredited myths."

Is it just barely possible that the reason for that is that the general public are correct, or are you now claiming that the general public are too ignorant to know what is going on?

I seem to remember you having difficulty with that concept when it related to farm labourers, who made up the bulk of Haigh's cannon fodder.

Maybe those historians aren't the only ones in the army who are in step.

Maybe they are the ones who aren't, and the "discredited myths" are the truths they are trying to hide.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 02:47 AM

Musket thinks that "historians should know better" (like he does!) and Greg describes them as "professional ignoramuses."

We have a simple choice.
Should we believe the historians, or these two swaggering buffoons?

Tough choice!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 05:58 PM

Make of it what you may, Tsar Nicholas II bore a remarkable resemblance to his cousin, King George V. Neither were likely to be confused for their Cousin Willhelm II. It seems very much like they were more connected to each other than to the social and economic realities which they held sway over.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 05:22 PM

Against any superior number or real historians who hold the opposing view.

How many have you found Greg?
None right?
Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 03:59 PM

I will be swayed by a few professional historians

Correction: Read "a few professionial ignoramuses"

Against any superior number or real historians who hold the opposing view.

Fascinating.

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

perhaps you might count the number on this thread

On matters of History, I will be swayed by a few professional historians over any number of ignoramuses such as yourself.
As you say, "historians should know better"!

The historians all refer to the sad fact that the general population still believe the old discredited myths.

What is this "new official government line" you have just made up?
The historians are bemoaning that the government seems determined to pander to the old myths still believed by the great unwashed.
You should be pleased Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 03:09 PM

... whereas Tsar Nicholas was a classical tyrant. (Yes, the kaisers were no better morally, but had less personal power.)

It is not countries who prepare wars, not simple soldiers either, but governments and pressure groups. Citizens who love their country (whatever that means) must demand from their governments responsible politics before any war. Not appeasement or pacifism, but peacefulness and peacemaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket BIG GRIN
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 03:06 PM

Eyup Keith!

Haven't looked at this thread for a while, what with being disgusted by your support for the worm Akenhateon and all that.

I was curious as to whether all the dissent to the new official government line was just me?

Seems like you are still the majority of your own delusion. You know, as you cling to numbers of opinions in your substantiating jingoistic revision, perhaps you might count the number on this thread, exclude me if you must, who point out the flaws in your / journalists attempts to rewrite history?

There was a time when if Victoria and, I think I was told, two offspring died in the same accident, (they often were on the same train) then the Kaiser would have been King. Patriotism and tyranny.... Wonderful bed mates.

I notice you concede above that the Tommies were so happy to sign up, they didn't need conscription of course, but introduced it anyway. No need to execute innocent youngsters either but cruel, brutal, militaristic tyranny being what it is eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 02:52 PM

That"Cruel, brutal, militarist,tyranny" had trade unions, a free press, the first social welfare system in Europe, as well as a democratically elected parliment voting rights for all adult males(not just property owners). As to the "autocratic monarch" he was the oldest grandson of Queen Victoria, lest we forget....

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 02:00 PM

To prevent their country ...being enslaved by a cruel, brutal, militarist, tyranny.

So you actually believe Germany had a snowball's chance in hell of invading occupying and taking over the British Isles?

Now THERE'S your problem.....

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,DPerson626
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 01:46 PM

There will be hundreds of reasons for WWl given and most will probably have some merit, but for me Armistice Day was the day when we had a parade down Main Street in which the community notables rode, the High School band paraded and the veterans of that terrible war marched, some wearing those wrap around leggings of the Army at that time.

I was a child of the Great Depression, born in 1928 and raised by poor, working class parents who should be nominated for sainthood. The Armistice Day parade was an excuse for the entire community to come together, and the most striking part of it, for me, was the flag passing by. When that happened the people on both sides of the street stood a little straighter and everyone placed their hand over their heart in salute to the colors. I miss that.

People back then loved their country. Not for anything it did for them, in fact it did very little to hlp them, and they didn't expect it to, but they loved their country just because it was their country. We could use some of that today.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 09:05 AM

Who sent them?
Their country.
Why?
To prevent their country and others being enslaved by a cruel, brutal, militarist, tyranny.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 08:52 AM

desperately afraid for loved ones at the front

Ah yes, but who SENT them to the front, and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 06:24 AM

Cripes, are you lot still at it?

"The past is a foreign country" where things are done differently for reasons we can only guess at.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 05:50 AM

Sorry, premature ejaculation.

"Critics believe the Government is formulating its plans (for centenary commemoration) based on a
narrow view, articulated by war poets such as Wilfred Owen, Siegfried
Sassoon and Robert Graves and later cemented in popular culture by
Joan Littlewood's hit musical Oh! What a Lovely War.
According to this interpretation, it was a futile, avoidable and
unnecessary war, the brutality of which was made worse by the
incompetence of the generals in charge.
In recent years, this has been increasingly challenged, with
historians arguing that, like the Second World War, it was a fight for
survival against a Germany bent on European domination. As such it was
neither accidental nor futile but just and necessary.

"But there has to be something beyond remembrance and wreath laying.
Otherwise we have failed these men. They didn't join up to die. They
joined up to fight for freedom."
Maj Gen Mungo Melvin, president of the BCMH, said: "The generation who
fought thought it was a war worth fighting, and the commission takes
the view that there was a great deal of sacrifice, but none the less
it was fought with reason.
"British soldiers, sailors and airmen fought for their country, for
freedom and a set of values they felt very deeply about. These aspects
are often overlooked." "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/10037507/Historians-
complain-Governments-WW1-commemoration-focuses-on-British-defeats.html