BS: Armistice Day (debate)

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 05:47 AM

Critics believe the Government is formulating its plans 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

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 07:51 AM

One of my grandfathers was in a reserved occupation.
He applied twice to be released but was refused.
My other grandfather was given a white feather on his wedding day, despite being in the Navy!

The government did not need to encourage these things.
People desperately afraid for loved ones at the front resented any they perceived to be shirking their duty.

All this is well documented.
Some people were reluctant to serve.
Conscription was eventually required.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 07:32 AM

And who would "they" be Mr Hertford?

My Grandfather was in a reserved occupation and couldn't volunteer for military service unless he left his job first. He used to tell us of the disgust people had for him and others and how the government came out with a badge for them to wear as the propaganda was so successful.

He said he could start a pillow factory with all the white feathers he was given.

He also said that history will ultimately be kinder to those who failed their men. He was a canny man my Granddad.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 02:45 AM

Read about James Tate.
He left school at 14 but was working as a clerk when he lied about his age to join up.
Read his letters. Highly articulate and literate.

He was eventually sent back from the front because of his age, but he rejoined when he was old enough.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/humanfaceofwar_gallery_08.shtml

The Daily Mirror, outbreak of war.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror01_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 02:01 AM

They could read and write perfectly well.
They had access to a free press.
Look at the Daily Mirror headlines I linked to.
The reasons for war dispassionately and accurately set out.
They would be on the newsstands and shouted in the street by the vendors.
It was common knowledge.

It is you who are ignorant, not them.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 07:29 PM

English state education between the late 1880s and 1914 ended at age 14, many teachers taught the farmers sons (lucrative) and used the sons of the labourers as whipping boys (source, my father's memories of the time), and the military definition of literacy at the time was "able to write own name".

Sure they all knew what they were getting into. They could figure out the posters on every wall.

Oh, wait a minute, THAT was the propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 09:31 AM

BBC history site.
"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: 01 Dec 13 - 09:21 AM

Democracy is an evolving process.
In 1914, Britain and others were committed to it.
The brutal, militarist regime in Berlin was committed to its destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 08:51 AM

I notice the main antagonist in this thread has introduced the term "democracy" to support his idealistic simple position.

Perhaps he can make use of his access to Google once more and tell us which year The United Kingdom recognised universal suffrage and became a democracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 08:26 AM

Some extracts from a relevant piece in The Guardian.
(I assume Musket has no objections to that publisher)
It predates anything Hastings published on WW1.

"Lloyd George's war memoirs, like the writings of Siegfried Sassoon, belong to the category of "literature of disillusionment". The Goat had thought differently in August 1914. Initially sceptical, he rapidly came to see, like the rest of the cabinet, that Britain was faced by a grave threat to national security. Modern scholarship gives little support to the accidental war thesis. The drafters of the Versailles treaty had it broadly right after all."

"The first world war began for two fundamental reasons. First, decision-makers in Berlin and Vienna chose to pursue a course that they hoped would bring about significant political advantages even if it brought about general war. Second, the governments in the entente states rose to the challenge. At best, Germany and Austria-Hungary launched a reckless gamble that went badly wrong. At worst, 1914 saw a premeditated war of aggression and conquest, a conflict that proved to be far removed from the swift and decisive venture that some had envisaged."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/08/first-world-war-causes-deliberate-accident

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 09:04 AM

The regime in Germany was autocratic and anti democratic and yes, worse than the democracies it sought to enslave.
1914 as 1939.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 06:18 AM

"Much of the "revisionist" British military history has been written in a narrowly national framework, whereas the fighting in the two world wars was, by definition, transnational and has to be explained as such, not least regarding the "enemy"

A point which you, in your adamantine "Germans evil, British good" point of view, would seem to have misunderstood completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 05:42 AM

By 1918 the British had mastered a new kind of industrial warfare, the nature of which no one had understood in 1914, and which, with tanks and aircraft, heavy artillery and integrated arms, tipped the balance against defensive trench warfare and played the decisive role in the final victory.

Such a thesis is at loggerheads with the idea of the war as futile butchery (and of Haig as the British butcher) that is summed up by the interwar "literature of disenchantment" (Robert Graves, Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen) and expressed, for most people nowadays, by Owen's haunting poetry. Yet the military historians, to their chagrin, feel that they have lost this battle and that Owen's "pity of war" vision commands popular perceptions of the conflict.

Perhaps Hart's book will contribute to a sea change in our understanding of the war during the years of the centenary. It has a lot to recommend it in this regard. Much of the "revisionist" British military history has been written in a narrowly national framework, whereas the fighting in the two world wars was, by definition, transnational and has to be explained as such, not least regarding the "enemy"
http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/the-great-war-by-peter-hart.html

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 05:32 AM

More about Hart's book.
He is on my list.

"The historiography of the Great War has changed dramatically in recent times. Serious students have long since abandoned the Lions Led By Donkeys approach to the war and academics like the late Paddy Griffith and Professor Gary Sheffield have championed the formal approach to our understanding of how the conflict was really fought. But in many respects this new thinking has hardly left the lecture room. Working as a battlefield guide with thousands of members of the public one does not have to be a mind reader to know where the majority of those who start the tour stand when it comes to the command and conduct of battles like the Somme: slaughter, butchers, tin-pot generals are all common phrases. After a few days of looking at the ground, hearing the problems of command with little control, seeing how the conflict was ever evolving and how much training went into the later battles, most returned changed, and not a little challenged on many levels. That is what the First World War has long needed in print – the whole war in a broad brush stroke but with no attempt to dilute. And perhaps Peter Hart's book is it."

"As we move into the unknown territory of the Great War Centenary we need books like Hart's. We need to know that the war was a conflict the veterans were not ashamed of, we need to know where it's commanders sit in the wider picture but equally we need to understand what a catastrophe it was: to his credit, unlike some revisionist historians, Peter Hart does not exclude the human element."
http://ww1centenary.net/2013/04/02/ww1-books-the-great-war-by-peter-hart/

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 04:54 AM

I am not going to be drawn into discussing the US contribution.
It was welcome indeed and hastened the end.

Your historian defended Haig.
The other sentiments were from the reviewer.
I welcome the recognition given to the Tommy.
I came to this thread in anger at their denigration as ignorant, jingoistic dupes.
They were not.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:57 PM

"Those of us who find that somewhat odd and distasteful heed look no further than Mr A of Hertford to see why it makes sense to the British government."

And why, 100 years on, we still MUST remember, to prevent such warmongers and their pet revisionists from persuading another generation to become sacrificial lambs to their territorial ambitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:51 PM

"That is one more historian to add to my list."

More unmitigated BS from him who reads only the first couple of sentences (by his own admission).

"All this is fair enough, if hardly original. (The late John Terraine was making the same point back in the 1960s.) But in Hart's worm's-eye view there is a danger that the real grand strategic significance of the year is lost. Broadly, the troops that Ludendorff rushed to the Western Front for his offensives after Russia's collapse could not compensate for the great inexhaustible drafts of fresh blood pouring across the Atlantic into France, as the United States rode to the rescue of the exhausted Anglo-French. The psychological impact of America's arrival in the war on allies and enemies alike can hardly be over-emphasized.
Nevertheless Hart is a clear, down-to-mud writer who refuses – as some of his revisionist colleagues do not – to pretend that war is anything other than unmitigated Hell. He has chosen his sources well – from both sides of the lines – and his book is a magnificent tribute above all to 'the man who won the war': the British Tommy."

Reading a little more (I know it's difficult for you, but worth the effort), he is hardly in the Max ("Blimp") Hastings, or the K.a of H. school of revisionist history.

In fact the bottom line is that he is much closer to Owen and Sassoon than to 'Orrible 'Astings, who believes it right to execute shell shocked servicemen.

If "Maximum Penalty" had his way, half our Falklands and Gulf veterans would be dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:35 PM

leading to the awful waste of life that is nowadays somehow celebrated.

Celebrated?
You must be a mad person.
Or an American.
In Europe this tragedy still haunts us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 03:05 PM

He defends the "masters of war"
I do not defend anyone.
I base my views on the findings of historians.
That is how rational, intelligent people come to understand times before their own.
Where do your views come from?

simple folk were taken in by the jingoistic propaganda of the government(s) of the day,

Who are you to call other people simple?
Read the Daily Mirror headlines I linked to.
They had clear, dispassionate information about what was happening, and made decisions based on facts just like you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket noting
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 11:08 AM

Poor bugger. I bet he had a bloody iPad too!

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 11:03 AM

Keith A of Hertford does appear to enjoy being hoist by his own petard. He defends the "masters of war" in a manner that goes some way to explain why simple folk were taken in by the jingoistic propaganda of the government(s) of the day, leading to the awful waste of life that is nowadays somehow celebrated. So long as you are an innocent victim of the winning side. If you were on the losing side, your luck by mere geography makes you evil in the eyes of fools.

Great Britain shall be celebrating going to ear next year. Those of us who find that somewhat odd and distasteful heed look no further than Mr A of Hertford to see why it makes sense to the British government.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 09:46 AM

Daily Mirror headlines on day war declared.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/mirror01_01.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 09:40 AM

Classic!
When losing argument, switch to personal attack, making up smears.

My only contribution to the pope thread was to ask these questions, without any comment.

"Does that include those gays who oppose it?
Does that include those who have no issue with sexuality but just have the traditional view of what the institution of marriage is and should be?"

Not defending or attacking anything, just asking.

On this thread, I argued just 3 things.
1.That overall the army was well led.
I know this from reading history.

2.That Britain had to try and stop the invading German armies.
Again, that is not questioned by historians.

3.People mostly volunteered because they understood that.
This is from The Daily Mirror on the day war was declared.

"Why There is War.
The following statement was issued from the Foreign Office last night: Owing to the summary rejection by the German Government of the request made by His Majesty's Government for assurances that the neutrality of Belgium would be respected, His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin has received his passport, and His Majesty's Government has declared to the German Government that a state of war exists between Great Britain and Germany as from 11pm on August 4."

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 08:15 AM

I was going to say you are delusional, then perhaps not reading your own words, then perhaps less nice thoughts.

Then you defended bigotry on the pope thread.

Good day to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 07:17 AM

Some of us are capable of forming views based on years and multiple opportunities for learning.

Some of us a capable of reading history, and forming views based on established historical fact.
Some of us do not regard sitcoms as an opportunity for learning.

A bit difficult when you are up against someone who needs the comfort blanket of an off the shelf opinion of someone who isn't part of this debate so cannot be questioned.

Hastings is only one of the many historians I have referred to.
You made a false claim about him.
I exposed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:50 AM

Here are the sentences you refer to.

"Like one of Field Marshal Haig's family whiskies, Max Hastings is a dram that steadily improves with age.
His own trenchant views on war, and caustic opinions of the commanders who ran them, tended to obtrude too obviously in his early works, suggesting that if only he had been present at key military conferences costly errors would have been avoided.
However, Hastings's recent massive volumes on his specialist subject, the Second World War, have shown why his position as Britain's leading military historian is now unassailable."

None of it refers to his work on WW1.
Has has done no previous work on WW1, so your claim is rubbished.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:18 AM

I'm not going to repeat it. Just that you don't have to look more than a couple of sentences in...


Generally, how can any views be debated in this thread? It is based on posting snippets from other sources and challenging people to defy the subjective view of someone who isn't even in our debate?

You'll never get anywhere with this approach. Some of us are capable of forming views based on years and multiple opportunities for learning. A bit difficult when you are up against someone who needs the comfort blanket of an off the shelf opinion of someone who isn't part of this debate so cannot be questioned.

Something about organ grinders and monkeys.....

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:15 AM

Thanks Troubadour.
That is one more historian to add to my list.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:09 AM

"Weidenfeld & Nicolson   552pp   £20
ISBN 978 0 29784 652 9
Hart is one of the now-dominant school of Great War British military historians who feel that the real story of 1918 has been largely lost – muffled by the weight of the attention given to the disasters of 1915, the Somme and Passchendaele that first drowned the flower of Britain's pre-war army and then the volunteers of Kitchener's New Armies in glutinous, stinking mud.
He attempts here to give the much-reviled Field-Marshal Douglas Haig his due (some may think more than his due) with his insistence – backed by the words of the men who were there – that 1918 was an undisputed victory: a series of daring triumphs that smashed the seemingly eternal deadlock of the trenches, and shattered the apparently impregnable shield of the German defences. The breakthrough that Haig had sought in vain from Loos to Cambrai, via the Somme, Arras, Messines and Third Ypres, was at last achieved.
All this is fair enough, if hardly original. (The late John Terraine was making the same point back in the 1960s.) But in Hart's worm's-eye view there is a danger that the real grand strategic significance of the year is lost. Broadly, the troops that Ludendorff rushed to the Western Front for his offensives after Russia's collapse could not compensate for the great inexhaustible drafts of fresh blood pouring across the Atlantic into France, as the United States rode to the rescue of the exhausted Anglo-French. The psychological impact of America's arrival in the war on allies and enemies alike can hardly be over-emphasized.
Nevertheless Hart is a clear, down-to-mud writer who refuses – as some of his revisionist colleagues do not – to pretend that war is anything other than unmitigated Hell. He has chosen his sources well – from both sides of the lines – and his book is a magnificent tribute above all to 'the man who won the war': the British Tommy."

Not the leaders, not these mythical military geniuses who had learned from their earlier mistakes and lack of concen for hman life!........ the Tommies!

And sending in the subs from across the pond played a not insignificant part in those "sweeping 1918 victories" over a thoroughly worn out and disheartened enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:58 AM

I do prefer short posts.
Be honest, do you read Jims multi-pagers?
Does anyone.

I did read this though.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/historybookreviews/10382547/Catastrophe-by-Max-Hastings-review.html

Can you find anything that agrees with Musket?
Go on.
Prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:50 AM

"I suggest you read it too."

You know he can only handle a couple of sentences at a time. He's always asking for his info to be sliced, diced and pre-digested.

(See his rsponses to Jim).

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 04:48 AM

The earlier work referred to was not about WW1.

"try to include the bits where he seems to agree with my notes "

Not one word seems to agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket asking the point
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 04:35 AM

Yes.. that is the one I read.

I suggest you read it too.

Then take a long look at your dogmatic certainties regarding Hastings in this and the earlier work Jones refers to. Interesting considering this was commissioned as a favourable review in order to look after their ex editor. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 03:11 AM

Oh, if you must quote the Nigel Jones review, try to include the bits where he seems to agree with my notes a couple of posts up....

Not one word of it does.
See here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/historybookreviews/10382547/Catastrophe-by-Max-Hastings-review.html

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 05:46 PM

Thanks for your good wishes for today Musket.
I hope your biopsies bring no nasty surprises.

I am challenging this.
His earlier work was highly critical of the commanders and purpose.   Yet in Catastrophe he does an about face.   Why

He is quite clear that mistakes were indeed made and is not uncritical of the leadership now, but he has made no "about face"

If he has, please prove me wrong with an extract or quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket noting
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:32 PM

Oy.   We are talking about the war that started in 1914. You wouldn't know about that.

Telly is a British thing. Yogi Bear invented it. There's another thread about telly. This thread is about Keith and his dogmatic approach to debate. Or at least from where I gingerly sit it is.

There was a time when it was about General Haig and his callous disregard for the wellbeing of those under his command. There was a time when it was about needless waste and slaughter of a generation and how we must be vigilant to ensure we never blindly follow those in charge again.

Mind you, from Keith's perspective it was about rattling your medals and pressing your blazer. Oh and promoting revisionist books on the culprits of war.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 12:19 PM

Well, I'll be! (Strongest exclamation I was allowed as a kid.) I finally understand what is going on.

You two are merely imitating what you see on your telly.

It must be a British thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 07:48 AM

Hastings produces "things" that contradict current thinking, not me. He even says so if you bother to read it rather than just look at the pictures. The reviews even are full of how he challenges current bloody thinking!

So stop saying that people who can read, understand and even last night listen to him are liars on the basis that you either fail or set to not understand his rationale behind his book or why Sheffield wrote a revisionist (his words, repeated by you) portrait of the butcher of the Somme.

I suggested Hastings is helping the establishment get ready for the 100 year events next year and the Prime Minister said in an interview a while ago that it could polarise opinion, as society is divided between glorious and shameful past. I still think his timing of a book that contradicts even his own hitherto view of the military leaders is far too close to the event to be a coincidence.

Good luck with the nasty medical procedure. I had a biopsy for a forthcoming operation myself yesterday and can hardly sit in the car or in the office.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 05:46 AM

The reviews are not gospel, but show that he is a respected and eminent historian, and pokes from a pygmy like you can be ignored.
Jones, an eminent historian himself, states that Hastings is "Britain's leading military historian."

Please do produce something, anything by Hastings that contradicts current thinking, or was that another lie Musket?

I can not post much more today.
Nasty medical procedure.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 05:13 AM

Not content with reading what he wants to agree with him, he treats reviewers as gospel now. Is there no beginning to Keith's talents?

You quoted my argument perfectly you dozy twat.

1. Sheffield concedes his view is revisionist and people will vehemently disagree.

2. He regrets Blackadder didn't deal with the victory. Or put another way, out of a four year war, he bases his overall opinion on the final months when the message had finally got to the generals that human waves were criminal needless loss of life. Not much to say about the rest of the war then.

3. He speaks of lack of means of communication in a war that was larger theatre than anything before, yet the decisions to push waves of men into no mans land was a decision by Haig. Full stop.

4. Saying they had learned over the time glosses over their atrocities in The Boer War. My digital picture frame in the study this morning was showing me staring at the war graves on the summit of Spion Kop when I visited it last year.


Oh, if you must quote the Nigel Jones review, try to include the bits where he seems to agree with my notes a couple of posts up....

Oh and current thinking isn't the kind airbrushed Hastings account, nor indeed Sheffield's make over of Haig. Just because you have read them, doesn't make them current thinking you silly little man. They were written to CHALLENGE current thinking.

And have largely failed.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:10 AM

Catastrophe: Europe Goes to War 1914 Reviews
Hailed as 'excellent' by Andrew Marr, Max's new book Catastrophe: Europe Goes to War 1914, published on 12th September, is now in its fifth week in the Sunday Times top ten non-fiction bestsellers. Among the latest reviewers, Nigel Jones writes in the Sunday Telegraph's Book Of The Week feature: 'This is a magnificent and deeply moving book, and with Max Hastings as our guide we are in the hands of a master'. Hew Strachan in the New York Times writes that Barbara Tuchman's legendary best-seller The Guns of August 'has been supplanted'. Max Boot in the New York Times Book Review describes the book as 'excellent', concluding 'Hastings brilliants shows how … World War I came to assume the dispiriting and bloody form it would hold for the next four years'. America's Library Journal says Catastrophe represents 'an ideal into World War I history'.

'Like one of Field Marshal Haig's family whiskies, Max Hastings is a dram that steadily improves with age … His position as Britain's leading military historian is now unassailable … In this enormously impressive new book, Hastings effortlessly masters the complex lead-up to and opening weeks of the First World War … [He] is as magisterial as we would expect … This is a magnificent and deeply moving book, and with Max Hastings as our guide we are in the hands of a master' Nigel Jones, Telegraph

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:06 AM

Funny how so many historians have reached the same conclusion as Hastings.
Perhaps you could provide some extracts from Hastings' previous work that challenges current thinking.
Or did you make that up Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 03:45 AM

"The real Field Marshal Haig was certainly not a callous man," says Gary Sheffield, author of The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army.

"He was commanding the largest British army ever. Whatever he did you ended up with lots and lots of casualties.


"In the end he was a successful general. His record was no worse than most other commanders and rather better than many of them."

The other general in Blackadder Goes Forth is even more cartoonish. Known for his catchphrase "Baaaaaah!", Gen Melchett with his exaggerated public school ethos and pitiful intelligence represents another side of the post-WWI criticism.

"As far as the portrayal of Haig, Geoffrey Palmer plays Haig, but in effect Melchett is an amalgam of Haig and John French and the other generals so Haig appears twice," says Sheffield.

But Haig and his fellow WWI generals were operating in a period unique in military history, he argues. Armies had grown so big that generals could no longer cover their whole extent in person, while the radio technology that made manipulating large armies in WWII possible was yet to be invented.

Haig and the other generals learned lessons which led to the sweeping victories of 1918.

Sheffield is still a fan of Blackadder and, having given lectures alongside John Lloyd, enjoys using it as a starting point when tackling preconceptions about Haig and the other generals.

"It is a very good and clever satire not just of WWI but also the popular perception of WWI.

"The problem is that it misses out 1918. The very final scene is set in 1917. It doesn't deal with the victory."

Of course, the debate over Haig is still very much live and there will be plenty who dispute the revisionist view vehemently.

But he certainly wasn't a Melchett-esque dolt.

"Whatever else he might have been he clearly wasn't stupid," says Sheffield. "Haig must not be judged solely on his role as a battlefield commander. He reorganised the Army and trained the Army. To get a true picture we need to see him in the round."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22887110

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 03:45 AM

Of course Keith relies on nobody else reading Hastings. I have read quite a bit of his work actually. He writes in an easy style and his attention to detail is remarkable.

His earlier work was highly critical of the commanders and purpose.   Yet in Catastrophe he does an about face.   Why?

He is the same Hastings with the same sources. ... mmmm must be another reason.

On the basis of takes one to know one, he found an account by the eminent (but rather silly) historian Christopher Clarke to be too kind to the dammed bosche! Clarke, (Cambridge Professor as opposed to newspaper hack) reckoned the Serbs got the ball rolling.   To my mind, Hastings couldn't refute this notion without being kinder to the British establishment.

His dismissal of the war poets was appalling. Usually it is those who were at an event who decry the poets of the day. In this case Hastings's Dad wasn't even a sperm when the poets were facing the bullets, mud and fear.

So. .. why the revisionist book that is wonderful to read but shows his bias too much for it to be a reliable source?

Ah... next year we commemorate 100 years since the start. It is easy to mark the end of carnage as we will in 2018, but to get excited about the start, we need to be kinder to the buggers that started it and blundered through it. If course.

Enter Sir Max Hastings. World leading expert on forming people's opinions for them. Ex editor of Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph.




Not very deep, are you Keith?

Dense maybe but definitely shallow.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 03:03 PM


Ah... Hastings has gone from being the oracle to just one of many.
Good. Keith has the intelligence not to back pedal too fast in case the chain comes off.

No.
He was always just one source among many, all saying the same.

This clown has denied historical facts, has insulted the testimonies of veterans of World War One,
Only one, and only saying it was wildly unrepresentative, which is true.
had made claim of statements from his own 'historians' that they simply haven't made,
That is a lie.
Or can you produce an example?
Of course not.

has deliberately ignored documented evidence
Your list off Wiki Answers from an anon contributor!

then lied by claiming that the rest of us haven't put up any evidence
I said you have not found an historian that contradicts my view.
You still haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 02:35 PM

There seems to be little point continuing with this, if there ever has been.
This clown has denied historical facts, has insulted the testimonies of veterans of World War One, had made claim of statements from his own 'historians' that they simply haven't made, has deliberately ignored documented evidence then lied by claiming that the rest of us haven't put up any evidence.
The only reason I can possibly in continuing with this is to allow this half-wit to humiliate himself even further - that seems to be an endless road.
Personally, I'd much rather donate to a charity than spend valuable time doing community work with an irretrievable waste of space.
Wasn't cut out for working with mental basket-cases
Enjoy
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 01:18 PM

Ah... Hastings has gone from being the oracle to just one of many.

Good. Keith has the intelligence not to back pedal too fast in case the chain comes off.

He does however think I got the information about black propaganda from a TV quiz show. Funny, I thought I originally got it from school history lessons, followed by reading books, but there you go. Mention a recent readily available source and he drops you to his level, thinking it is the only source available.

Rather funny actually.

Black Adder may be comedy but the backdrop was well researched. Ben Elton has written a hell of a lot about the war, using research gained from giving the accurate backdrop for their slapstick comedy. To the point of ending the series on the serious point they all felt necessary.

But of course all this is irrelevant. My knowledge is based on a whole life of reading, studying history at school just like everyone else and visiting exhibitions and museums.

Keith gets two or three bits of military history, ( nobody doubts the day Kitchener signed a piece of paper or Lloyd George went for a crap etc) and uses the sympathetic treating of the butchers and incompetent idiots in charge to change history.

Luckily, everybody laughs at him rather than taking him seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 01:00 PM

This is from he Wiki article which you claimed backed your case - historically established and accepted fact
You've had the link
Jim Carroll

"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.[3]
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."

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 12:44 PM

"Your list of 14 does not come from any historian, or have you identified a source?"
My list of 14 reasons for joining are all historically established reasons for joining are are accepted as fact by all historians.
They are a part of our culture and have been so since the end of World War One
Which one of them do you dispute in particular ?
If you have any evidence that none of them are valid, produce your evidence - you really do not need confirmation for something that is accepted until it is challenged - show an example that a single one of them has been challenged INCLUDING YOUR OWN 'FAVE' HASTY MAX (WHOSE QUALIFICATIONS ON THE CAUSES OF THE WAR HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED AS "WEAK" BY THE REVIEW YOU PUT UP, BY THE WAY - not such a great historian, maybe?).
All of these reasons have been included in most of the articles you have been provided with, including the Wiki article you dishonestly claimed backed your case
One again you disgracefully dismiss an eye witness account of the feelings of a soldier who took part in the fighting and actually wrote that account in a military hospital following the Battle of Loos - what are you on Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Armistice Day (debate)
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Nov 13 - 11:48 AM

All the others say essentially the same anyway.

ALL the others?

Absolute Horseshit.