WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:35 AM

Geg, Trouadour, Musket and Jim have all claimed historians are complicit in a conspiracy to create a false history
Musket, Taylor is one of the long dead historians of a previous generation who are no longer relevant.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:50 AM

"Jim, you can find no historian who still believes what you do."
Neither can you Keith
I haven't trawled the net as you have - I will stick with what I have been brought up to believe from the historians I am totally familiar with from me interest in general and social history.
If anything significant enough turns up, I will happily take that into consideration - so far, everything I have seen this years makes not one iota of difference to the obscenity of W.W.1. - the way this centenary has been handled with its mis-spent millions (£20m) on glass poppies and it arms fairs shows little has changed in the intervening period - still profiteering on the lives of the rest of us.
Your historians are a myth - you have created a phantom army of "experts" who, you claim back your jingoistic case - on examination your "vast majority" turn out to be no more than half a dozen out-of-context quotes hastily scooped from the net because they look good
Virtually none deal with the arguents here, your star witness (once again, as with the famine) has blown up in your face, the rest appear to be nit-picking about something else entirely.
You have put no argument of your own, instead you have hidden behind a barrier of invented opinions supposedly held by historians you have not even had the interest to read.
The only accurate statement you have managed to make here is "I am no historian" - you certainly are not; you are not even interested enough in the subject to read a book by one
Rule Britannia eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 04:45 AM

"A J P Taylor is no longer relevant."

Well done Keith. It isn't every day I read something that stops me in my tracks.

That is amazing, really amazing.

How long have the novelists who wrote the bible been dead? Oh, that isn't relevant. You are right!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 05:35 AM

"That is amazing, really amazing. "
Tsk, tsk Muskie
Haven't you grasped the fact that anybody who doesn't agree with Keith and the Establishment is irrelevant and cqan never be counted as a "real historian"
And so it is written!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:22 AM

Have just shown this from Gregory Fatuous to my cat Cleo --

"Cleo apparently has all the brains and tact in the family, eh?"

She rejoins, "Don't appeal to me, because you do not appeal to me.

So just, please, miaouw off and miaouw yourself, you miauowing purr."


=Cleo·GM=

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:32 AM

What does Cleo think about Keith's claim that A J P Taylor isn't relevant and what he wrote was lies on account of him being dead?

Surely your cat isn't selective in whom she smirks at?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:40 AM

Enough to make a cat laugh
BTW
Just found a rather entertaining book with acknowledgement to you in the credits M - ' The Book of What' - Very dippable into
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:44 AM

Ah, but in what we hope is many years in the future, the book will have to be pulped because the sage words suddenly become bollocks.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw shopping for new corset
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:46 AM

From being a sombre thread about a massive waste of life, this has turned into high comedy. I think I'm going to die. Thank you Keith, thank you so very much! :-)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 07:01 AM

By my friend Rodney Dale, eh Jim? He wrote a whole lot of those Books Of ... Book Of Who, Book Of When, &c.

Glad you liked it.

Poppy -- Cleo sez she is staying right away from the thread. She doesn't care for the 'Cat -- despite its nickname; sez she wouldn't wish it on a miauowing dog ...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 07:14 AM

I was thinking of learning "Geordie Nativity" for our local folk club Xmas do, as it is written down on a thread.

Bugger that, Keith has given enough material for me to write an original one, possibly portray him and his logic as the referee in the Xmas 1914 footie match.

I'll let you know how I get on. A couple of ideas



Fritz just scored, how the German crowd roared
But Keith blew and shouted "offside!"
He asked a defender of indeterminate gender
And decided the Germans all lied.

"But how can zat be? Just your goalie and me?
But your defenders were all goal side?"
Keith just said "Our lads are well led."
And decided the Germans all lied.

"But that's not fair play!" Said our corporal, "ok,
Our fairness is known far and wide!"
For Keith, that's a sin, he only wanted to win
And decided other ranks had all lied.

Writing itself...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 07:24 AM

And now for the teaser.

The last line of the last verse.



"You lose."

😋

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:43 AM

can I join in?

We played in the mud, all mixed up with blood
And the ref said "play on, Oy! Offside!"
But we thought on reflection we'd get an infection
But the ref said the docs had all lied.

"Your health's up to scratch, now get on with the match!"
As I looked at the lump on my side.
"Sod your logistics, the ref has statistics
To show how we lied when we died."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:56 AM

Taylor has been gone for a long time.
The findings of a whole new generation of historians are quite different.

The historians alive and working now all say what I say, because I got it from them.

I find it simply funny that you people can dismiss the findings of them all.
From your knowledge you just know they have all got it wrong.
And all of you are convinced you know more about history than all the historians put together.

And you laugh at someone who actual quotes what the actual historians say, and think you have won the debate.
You are beyond parody.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM

who thinks GregF is a waste of space and a mannerless yobbo?

So now its playground insults, is it Em Gee? You really can't STAND to be shown to be wrong, can ya?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw member of We People
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 09:39 AM

We people are not the ones doing the dismissing, Keith. We people are laughing at you because of YOUR outrageous dismissal of a whole body of historians because they happen to be dead. We people hold that anyone, living or dead, there or not there, were or are entitled to their interpretations. Their validity is not predicated on whether they're dead or not. Genuine scholarship, which I do not claim for myself in this field but which you do claim, would dictate that you take on board as many takes on history as possible and critically assess them on the way evidence has been handled. Good scholarship dictates that you do not start out as Colonel Blimp, dismiss left-wingers or critics of the military automatically as non-historians, then arbitrarily rule out, apparently without exception, the views of a huge body of historians on the basis of their having ceased to draw breath. It's a joke, Keith.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 09:56 AM

I do not dismiss any historian Steve.
Not being a historian myself, I would be a self obsessed fool if I imagined myself qualified to do that.

The current generation of historians say their findings refute what some of the previous generation said.
Do you dismiss them.
In what way are you qualified to do that?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:15 AM

Steve stated in his post that he was NOT dismissing then. Clear, precise, unambiguous English.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:18 AM

keith, would "you lose" be appropriate at this point?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:29 AM

Take a punt might fit

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:33 AM

While remaining polite I hasten to add!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:36 AM

'really can't STAND to be shown to be wrong'
,..,.,

Eh? Wotwotwot. Mewmewmew. Just demonstrate, in terms which a pussikat of 10x your feeble intelligence can understand, where you imagine yourself to have 'shown' my master 'to be wrong', GregoryFatuous, you miaouwing stupid little purr.

≈Cleo·GM≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:37 AM

"The findings of a whole new generation of historians are quite different."
You haven't read them so how would you know
You certainly haven't quoted anything they might have said regarding the present discussion
You seem to have cornered the market on parody
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:40 AM

Well, The historian I mentioned earlier, the one who was consulted on the children's TV series, Horrible Histories. The one dismissed by Keith as not being employed by the BBC but is credited in their TV programs, seems to be quite happy to have the war leadership, particularly early on, portrayed as idiots. Has anyone watched the program yet? The iPlayer link is further up the page. It really is quite good, less than 30 minutes long and shows us that at least one living historian is happy to perpetuate these so called myths that have existed since the middle of the 20th century. Whether it was good leadership or a 'just' war I am not qualified to say. What I do feel qualified to say is that the loss of life on all sides was appalling and to not only attempt to justify it, but also try to tell people it was a good thing, is insulting to the memory of those who were sacrificed and to the intelligence of people who care.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:46 AM

Have fun acting six years old, EmGee. You're quite good at it.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:51 AM

Good argument here that seems to say it far better than I can: Debunkers debunked One other thing I would ask is how many of the documents released many years after the event can be wholly relied on? Is a junior officer of other ranker going to write a true and accurate depiction of his views of the war leadership? I think not.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:10 AM

No answer, then to my perfectly reasonable question, as to the basis of accusations made against me by the forum's universally held-in-contempt #1 shit-stirring pain·in·the·arse. Just more typical true-to-form unsubstantiated abuse.

So time for a repeat:-

☝☝☝☝-up: who thinks GregF is a waste of space and a mannerless yobbo? To which might be added a budget full of wind'n'piss and assertive hole·in·the·air idiocies.

≈M & Cleo≈

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:12 AM

I think the moderator found an excellent rhyme, leading them to delete my post.

I look at it this way. If that particular rhyme didn't drift into their head, they wouldn't have deleted it. 😹😹😹

Sadly, I am going to have to make up what happened when Keith refereed the 1914 footie match. There was a contemporaneous record, by Private AJP Taylor, but apparently that is dubious now..

🐴🐴🚬🚬⚽️⚽️🍻🍻

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:13 AM

My apologies, Em Gee Emm Lyin'- make that two years old.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:17 AM

Here is another Historian who disagrees with Keith's list. Dominic Alexander. Wonder how he will be discounted?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:45 AM

Another good article by Mr Alexander here:10 lies told about WW1.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:52 AM

Have you checked to see if he has kicked the bucket yet?

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:29 PM

How would we know Musket?
Apart from that radical far Left organisation Counterfire, there is no record of him.
I can't find any reviews of his book.

Jim, I have quoted a number of actual historians in their own words saying that the war was necessary, the people agreed and the army was competently led.

These are historians whose books are reviewed in the mainstream media, who publish articles and are interviewed in the mainstream media, and are published and broadcast by BBC.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:56 PM

radical far Left organisation

Sigh. Same old crap.

I can't find any reviews of his book.

It may come as a shock to you, Kevin, but there IS a world outside the Internet. Try a library. You might ask for periodicals that review books.

These are historians whose books are reviewed in the mainstream media

There are indeed! But "popular historians" are often not the all-knowing paragons you seem to think they are, and their works are sometimes more entertainment than they are sound history. Try the academic historians, who have the training to research and present their findings properly.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

NOTE: for "kevin" please read "Keith".

ALSO, Keith, reviewers of books in the "mainstream media" often aren't historians and/or also don't know diddly about the subject of the book they're reviewing.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:17 PM

I suppose it's like saying, "Martin Carthy can't be a singer / guitarist, I haven't seen him on X Factor."

😹

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:23 PM

Apologies if something similar is seen earlier or appears later but my last post seems to have fell down a hole. So the views of Dominic Alexander can be discounted because he is a member of a left wing organisation and his books have not been reviewed. Is that it? OK, how about Douglas Newton, who has been reviewed by Dominic Alexander and by the Guardian. He writes articles, as does Mr Alexander, and, as far as I know, he does not belong to any left wing organisation. He is, however, anti-war and Australian. Does that mean he is not to be believed either? The view that all historians are in agreement with you is wearing somewhat thin, Keith. You are trying to exclude those who are dead, those who are left wing and those who have not yet been reviewed now. Have you any idea how many historians there actually are? Of those, how many are left wing, right wing or completely apolitical? I suspect not but, just reading things that agree with your views is not the way to 'win'. Which is what you seem to want.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:27 PM

"Jim, I have quoted a number of actual historians in their own words"
You threw in a couple of unlinked and unqualified quote, none of which in any way covered the arguments here.
Not only have you totally failed to establish a consensus among histoorians, you have not even shown there is a significant minority.
Two of your 'historians' have said that "the popular view of history needs to be changed" which is tantamount to admitting that their own arguments are those of the minority.
But there again, you'll never know that until you actually read a book.
So far, you have not given one piece of information that you haven't desperately searched out from the net - not one.
Nothing has come from your own knowledge, nothjing scanned from a book you might own.... all trawled from the net
Neither of you disgusting pair have the bottle to even address the insult of holding arms fairs and mis-spending £20m on glass poppies, and both of you have described soldiers who fought in the war as "liarsd"
What kind of people are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:31 PM

Your man is not just Left Wing, he only appears on the site of a revolutionary socialist site.
We know nothing else about him.

Jim, they are all mainstream leading historians.
Which ones have I left out.
If none, then they all reject your views.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:38 PM

One for the road:


So tell me, Keith, about this perversion of yours that only the writings of living historians have any validity and that the primary sources and documentation they reference in their studies are vitiated once historians die.

How exactly does that operate? Is some sort of disclaimer published once the death certificate is filed? Or does everyone inherently know to disregard them once they pass over to the spirit world?

Are the works of Tacitus and Herodotus rubbish?

When your hero Max Hastings dies, will HIS writings become invalid?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:42 PM

Cue Freddie Mercury...............

and another one's gone, another one's gone, another one bites the dust

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:46 PM

"We know nothing else about him." We do know that he is an historian and he disagrees with your views. You have already admitted that historians know more than you do. Does that not suffice?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:49 PM

Sorry, premature ejaculation of the point I was making! What about Douglas Newton. What is wrong with his work? Apart form it does not fit your theory?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:05 PM

he only appears on the site of a revolutionary socialist site.

I could be wrong but this seems to allude to 'Counterfire'. In the sites own words: On International Women's Day 2010 we launched a new political organisation called Counterfire. Its first publication was A Feminist Manifesto for the 21st Century, written by Lindsey German, the convenor of Stop the War Coalition, in collaboration with activist and author Nina Power.

Do you really believe this is a 'revolutionary socialist site', Keith? I think you need to get a grip on reality.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:24 PM

...and what about Douglas Newton who does not appear on the same 'left wing site', has been reviewed in the 'popular press' and is a historian? We have not yet seen how you will discount his views.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:20 AM

Counterfire Home Page - Counterfire
www.counterfire.org/
Counterfire version 3.0 'Counterfire is a revolutionary socialist news and theory website, from the movements, for the movements.'

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:38 AM

What if this is the case - are extremist rightists like yourself the only ones with a valid point of view Brave New World
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:46 AM

That is simply the hypertext. Did you get no further than the description in Google? It is worthwhile reading the actual page about us. As has already been pointed out though, why should the politics matter? You have said that you will believe historians and Dominic Alexander is a historian. You have still not told us what is wrong with the work of other historians mentioned.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:13 AM

Keith A of Hertford has dismissed reali as a left leaning plot where military history is concerned.

What do you expect?

He judges everything by its source.

Presumably, today he will be sat hearing someone mumble from the bible, putting their slant on the gospels. He sticks to 2,000 year old superstition but has a pop at anybody reading anything written over forty years ago.

The only amazing bit about all this is how he keeps coming back for more.

Still, keeps me chuckling.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:36 AM

Any organisation which lends support to Russell B***d does not deserve to be taken seriously.