WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

Hold on a mo Keith, When did Gillymor mention the Famine, and if so which famine, there were more than one.

Did I miss something?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:25 PM

Raggytash, Jim mentioned the historian Kineally who I quoted to Jim in a famine thread.

Jim,
Hasting was condemned for his contept for the military

Only in one single review of his latest book.
Read a few more, like the one I showed you from his own old paper, The Telegraph.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:39 PM

" Kineally who I quoted to Jim in a famine thread."
There as here, you claimed her as a historian who supported your case - as here, she was saying the opposite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM

Has anyone noticed that Terribulus stops posting when everyone is laughing at Keith but every time Keith digs something up that they think is interesting, Terribulus stops "guesting" and wants to be named again?

I give it 24 hours till enough people have dismissed Keith's irrational stance again and we will be seeing a few more "guest" jibes.

I'd use him as a barometer if I were you Keith.

😋

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:19 PM

Don't goad Teribus too much, Musket. At least he knows when to shut up. You can't knock that. A bit like David Brent going quiet when he suspected that Gareth was on his side...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:05 PM

Keith,

Jim may well have mentioned Kineally, but Gillymor didn't.

Your totally illogical pop at gillymor obviously caused upset. By the standards you propose to uphold you were well out of order.

I could go on ..............

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:18 PM

Read it again.
I was talking to Jim about Kineally.
It was him who brought her name up.
Jim, I quoted her statement that most historians do not hold Britain culpable for the famine.
Deny that/
Want the quote again?

Musket, "Keith's irrational stance"
You mean me saying that historians know more about history than chumps like you?
They do.
They have devoted their lives to the study, and you know nothing about any of it.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:02 PM

Raggytash, it looks like Keith didn't properly direct his 2nd comment to Jim in that post. Didn't ruffle my feathers. :)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, unbowed
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:06 PM

Any man who lets Keith ruffle his feathers is a lesser man than I am!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:08 AM

This gem has just surfaced in this thread


Subject: RE: WW 1 christmas song
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 07:35 AM

I sometimes sing John McCuthcheon song, without the intro and plenary, and end it with Silent Night.
Could it be?

Did you really Keith? You mean to tell us you sang the words

"That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we're the same."

And did not understand the sentiment that those leading the soldiers would not be killed and that killing fellow men was wrong?

You are either the most stupid person on this site or a hypocrite of the worse kind.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:23 AM

He doesn't know when to shut up Steve. He just knows when not to be proud if his words.

Once more. If they were well led, the strategy of sending waves of men into the German machine guns, followed by more men in order to wear them down was planned.

I doubt a single credible narrator of the war justifies that under the "well led" banner.

By the way, interesting article on BBC News website this morning about how commercial interests cashed in on the jingoism and propaganda.

To reconcile that with Keith's analysis of his precious historians needs a rather vivid imagination and to be fair, I'd never put him down as being so creative.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:58 AM

"You are either the most stupid person on this site or a hypocrite of the worse kind"
Give him a break - why can't he be both?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:01 AM

That'd confuse him even more.

Confused or just asleep, he still jumps in on any thread to give us the benefit of his "knowledge" when all anybody asks for is "opinion."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:42 AM

Keith, so you name and "correct" Gillymor and then go on to "correct" Jim without actually naming him in the thread that you started by naming Gillymor. Interesting use of language, not to mention logic.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:46 AM

"GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

I am off now. Thanks for the fun and games. Before I go I would like to make one thing clear. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD WAR. Those who are trying to justify it should be ashamed of themselves."

Quite agree that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD WAR." I do not think that anyone in this thread has ever stated, or tried to justify that it was a GOOD WAR ( Whatever that might mean)

There is however such a thing as a "JUST WAR".

There is such a thing as a "NECESSARY WAR"

If you cannot differentiate between one and the other then perhaps it is better if you did depart.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

Who decides if it is just or necessary then Teribus? You? Keith? 'The historians'? There is simply no justification for the mass termination of lives. End of story.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:52 AM

"Mummy, mummy, when I grow up I want to be one of Keith's Historians!"


"Now don't be silly, dear, you can't do both..."

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:08 AM

Musket - 09 Dec 14 - 03:39 PM & GUEST,Steve Shaw - 09 Dec 14 - 06:19 PM

I tend only to post if I have something to say or add to the discussion - unlike either of you.

Keith A seems to be doing perfectly well on his own, he has stated what he says is representative of the First World War with regard to the British Government, her population and its Army. Unlike either of you he has backed up his opinions by direct quotes and links to historians who voice similar conclusions as a result of their extensive research into the subject. Interesting to note there is not one single detail you have successfully challenged. Instead in response you resort to childish name calling, attempts at distraction, deflection and distortion. Any time you do attempt to introduce what you perceive to be fact you get shot down faster than grouse on the 12th of August. As far as I can see in terms of this discussion - he's wiping the floor with the pair of you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:25 AM

Let's use Keith's logic here.

Fact: He believes he is right because a consensus of people tell him so.

Fact: On this thread the consensus of people believe that Keith is a Wanker

By Keith's logic Musket is right and, sorry Teribus, you lose.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:26 AM

Wow, and I was just beginning to take you seriously. Keith is all cherrypicked quotes and no scholarship. Meretricious in the extreme. I don't really do numbers games like Keith with his "all historians", but you are severely on your own here in your (noticeably muted) defence of him. At least you (unlike Keith and meself) can claim a degree of scholarship, though you do tend to muddy it with your rather blind and ardent advocacy of one side of events. Eyes tight shut, hands clasped over ears. You have your heroes and you won't be swayed. Unfortunately, that's quite possibly not a great approach to historical enquiry. But how would I know. I'm just off to read my botany book now.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:28 AM

" GUEST - 10 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

There is simply no justification for the mass termination of lives. End of story."

If you truly believe that then you yourself have answered your own question.

Now let me see now - "Mass termination of lives" - if direct military intervention and confrontation prevented such a "Mass termination of lives" would that make it both a "JUST WAR" and a "NECESSARY WAR"?

What age are you 14?

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

If termination of someone who is taking the lives of others is necessary to stop them then, yes, I agree it is both justified and necessary. What is the justification for killing over 2 million people of the German empire in WW1? Were they all taking the lives of other people? Were they all guilty of atrocities? I think that your assumption that anyone who disagrees with war must be immature says realms about you.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:44 AM

GUEST,Steve Shaw - 10 Dec 14 - 06:26 AM

You prove the point I have just made beautifully

Keith has stated that:
1: As far as Great Britain was concerned the First World War was a necessary war that Great Britain had to fight to safeguard her own national interests.
2: That the population of Great Britain in 1914 fully understood why the country was going to war and that same population throughout the war supported the British Government.
3: That in general throughout the First World War the British Army was led led in comparison to the armies of other combatant nations.

To support those beliefs Keith has provided the names of historians, commentators and acknowledged military experts who have all in varying degrees studied the period extensively and who have reached similar conclusions. He has also provided links to the works of these individuals for those following this thread to read.

Of the five people currently contributing to this thread under multiple identities Keith and myself are arguing opinion based on fact, the others, yourself included, are arguing invective, nonsense and myth.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:52 AM

However the historians I and others have named who do not agree with Teribus and Keith have been summarily dismissed as not worthy of consideration or as having a pre-set agenda. What would we have to do to convince you that there are different views that may be worth consideration.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:57 AM

As Teribus says, we are just stating what the historians say.
Not cherry picking Steve, they all agree on those issues.

You people all deny that, but have yet to produce a single historian who differs.

You still can't.

You are arguing against the historians and imagining you are above them.

Is there any point continuing?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:00 AM

Pacifist Guest, I respect your views but do not share them.
Some wars can not be justified, but I believe Britain was right to stand against the agressor in 1914.

I sang the song in Hertford last night.
It went well.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:02 AM

Raggytash NO SINGLE LIVING HISTORIAN HAS BEEN NAMED.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:02 AM

Not at all sure what "Of the five people currently contributing to this thread under multiple identities" means and I have discounted GUEST no-names like me but here is a list of contributors to the thread

Bonzo3legs
DT
Ed
Elmore
GUEST,Blandiver
GUEST,CS
GUEST,Rahere
GUEST,Some
GUEST,Steve
GUEST,gillymor
GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Greg
Herga
Jim
Keith
Lighter
Little
MGMLion
Musket
Raggytash
Richard
Steve
Teribus
akenaton
olddude

I am pretty sure that all but three are saying more or less the same thing. And it is not on the list you provided.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:05 AM

"GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:36 AM

If termination of someone who is taking the lives of others is necessary to stop them then, yes, I agree it is both justified and necessary.

Good so we agree that there are such things as "JUST WARS" and "NECESSARY WARS".

"What is the justification for killing over 2 million people of the German empire in WW1?"

Because they had invaded and attempted to occupy and annex other nations, committing crimes against humanity in the process? Would they constitute justifiable and necessary reasons to oppose them and kill them. Remembering of course that of the "over 2 million people of the German Empire you mention, 2,037,000 of those German deaths were all military personnel.

"I think that your assumption that anyone who disagrees with war must be immature says realms about you."

Do you now. Well I think that anyone who writes as you have done:

"There is simply no justification for the mass termination of lives. End of story."

AND asks idiotic questions such as:

"What is the justification for killing over 2 million people of the German empire in WW1?"

Is absolutely screaming their immaturity to the world and its dog.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:06 AM

Yes we have and you have dismissed them as not worthy of consideration. Some time ago I mentioned Liddell-Hart and Fuller. Other people have mentioned AJP Taylor and I even quoted Winston Churchill (surely a hero of yours) and you in your infinite wisdom suggested they were all wrong.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:13 AM

So, over 2 million people "invaded and attempted to occupy and annex other nations, committing crimes against humanity in the process". History in the remaking at it's best. How about you attempt to answer the 'idiotic question' and justify all those deaths rather than resorting to a rather poor attempt at personal abuse. I am not 14 BTW but I do remember being so and distinctly remember it being a time of change and excitement. Maybe we should take more note of what younger generation say? Out of the mouths of babes...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:17 AM

Those are long dead historians.
There is not one living historian who still holds their views, which are discredited by later research.

I am just stating what the historians are saying now.
You people are just stating what some historians used to believe decades ago.

Let us all acknowledge that and move on.

(Please do not deny it without an example of a living historian who still holds those old views.)

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:26 AM

"representative of the First World War with regard to the British Government"
He described the the Prime minister of the day as attempting to smear one of his Generals in order to cover up his own cock-ups - is that good leadership in wartime?
What it does, in fact, is paint a picture of World War One that is far nearer 'Oh What a Lovely War' and 'Blackadder' than anybody else here
He has invented his historians and refuses to respond to the claims made by the Paxman programmes which means he is no longer claiming that they back his case (which has now changed from "everything was good" to three items - he always does this)
He and you have described the soldiers as attention seeking liars, which is as low as it gets
Between you, you present a laurel and Hardy image - you the pompous oaf, he the idiot hanger on.
You, at least, appear to be interested enough to have read up on the subject, which would make you quite interesting to debate with if it wasn't for your belligerent (and somewhat defensive) arrogance and your tendency to smear dead relatives
He has made himself a predictable figure of fun.
Fine representatives of the Good Ol' Empire days, in fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:29 AM

Keith, Just because a historian is dead does not mean their views are invalidated. Every historian born before 1900 is dead. Most historians who have EVER written are dead. Are we to dismiss ALL their works as being irrelevant because they are dead. Most of the worlds renowned scientists are dead too, are we to dismiss the works of Newton, Einstein et al merely because they are no longer living.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:31 AM

A bit of light reading from today's paper : the myth of the good war

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:34 AM

What he is saying, Raggytash, is that because there is no more documentation the current historians know better. Just in the same way as our knowledge increased and we eliminated religion and religious wars...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:44 AM

Oh please don't mention the Guardian that font of rabid left wing liberal Marxism. Someone will be having apoplexy now.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:46 AM

Fount not font, silly me

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:12 AM

"Fount not font, silly me"
In the best Grauniad tradition
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:21 AM

Teribus just said that all Keith did was state that the population fully understood.

Err.. That's why everybody is laughing at him.

Jingoism, propaganda and diplomatic failures do not lead to understanding, let alone informed consent!

Good leadership? Phew, I'm glad we had that. We would have to build cenotaphs and war memorials otherwise, on account of all the wasted lives eh?

I don't know why you are both defending the indefensible, the Ruperts won't thank you for it. They look down on fawning oiks and sycophants.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:31 AM

That Guardian piece supports my views.

Keith, Just because a historian is dead does not mean their views are invalidated.

Correct, but if new evidence leads all historians to reject ealier findings it does.
It is not me that rejects the old views, it is the historians of today and the last thirty years.

Why do you cling to old, discredited myths?
The historians do not.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:38 AM

So what do you think they were too thick to understand Scot Bloke?
"Germany invaded belgium and France."
Not complicated.
"We might be next."
Not complicated.
"Treaty obligation"
Not complicated.

I showed you the Daily Mirror of day one.
It was all laid out there.

Can you find anything, even by long dead historians, that says the people did not understand or support the war, or are you making shit up?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:40 AM

Germany lost 2,037,000 members of their armed services during the First World War. A war that they specifically prepared for, a war that they could have halted between 28th July and the 31st July 1914 yet did absolutely nothing, a war that they they knew would be automatically triggered the moment they gave the order to mobilise their troops. A war that in the west called for the invasion of a neutral country, a country they attempted to influence by threatening that any resistance would result in measures being taken directly against its civilian population and result in the annexation of the country at cessation of hostilities. Belgium and Luxembourg were invaded by seven German Armies and ~6,000 Belgian civilians were murdered. During this period between August 1914 and November 1918 the men of the German Army were trying their utmost to kill members of the Belgian, French and British Armies arrayed against them, so it would appear that the justification for killing all those Germans would be the fact that they were trying to kill our troops - seems fair enough to me.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:40 AM

See my new post at the "Lovely War" thread.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:43 AM

"Some time ago I mentioned Liddell-Hart and Fuller. Other people have mentioned AJP Taylor and I even quoted Winston Churchill" - Raggytash

OK then Raggytash

Liddell Hart - 1920s/1930s - Military Theorist

Fuller - 1920s/1930s - Military Theorist

A.J.P. Taylor - 1930s to 1960s - Historian - Not a specialist on the First World War.

Winston Churchill - 1920s/1930s The six volume World Crisis basically was written by Churchill from the point of view of justifying his decisions and role in the war.

The most recent of these "historians" of yours is A.J.P.Taylor 1969 so tell me what sources other than British were available to those authors? How much of the First World War was still secret (50 year rule would mean that information would trickle through from 1964 onward so that rules three of your four out).

If the number of different sources and the transparency related to classified information is anything to go by then it logically follows that anything written AFTER 1970 must be more complete than anything written before that. Between 1970 and 1990 a flood of foreign material from both France and Germany became available adding to the historians knowledge - all of this would have been unavailable to Liddell Hart, Fuller, Churchill and A.J.P.Taylor - True?

It doesn't invalidate their work but it must modify some aspects of the earlier work due to better understanding in the light of new and additional information.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:45 AM

I do not dismiss them because I, and many others, still consider that they have some validity.Your historians themselves may be dismissed in 30 years time when the reasoning behind their writings become apparent to the generation that read them in 2040. They too may be discredited and accused of writing myths.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM

Of course they have some validity Raggytash, but where new reliable and verifiable information contradicts what they have previously said then that new information must stand.

Second World War example:
The popular myth about the early air defence of Malta relying on three Gloster Sea Gladiator aircraft. The truth? There were nine aircraft in all but to preserve parts and to maintain defence and pilots only three were ever flown and put at risk at any one time. It doesn't alter the fact that the early air defence of Malta was represented by a flight of three aircraft, but it would be inaccurate to state that the air defence of Malta was reliant on only three aircraft, if push had come to shove then more could have been flown.   

As for what happens between now and 2040? I haven't got a clue, but I would doubt very much now that anything earth shatteringly new is going to be revealed in relation to the Great War. The stuff that has come out over the last forty years comes from German, French and Belgian sources, newly translated and never viewed or studied before.

One thing however is certain and that is the realisation that viewing the First World War solely on the information and conclusions reached and stated in commentaries and historical works of the 1930s to 1960s is wrong. That viewing the First World War through the prism of "Oh What A Lovely War" or "Blackadder Goes Forth" and expecting to get any real understanding of the events of the First World War is wrong.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:19 AM


I do not dismiss them because I, and many others, still consider that they have some validity.

"many others" includes all your Leftie friends on Mudcat, but not one single historian.
Ask yourself why.
Also ask yourself what your opinion on history is worth if all the actual historians say different.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:34 AM

Keith,

Firstly you know nothing of my political leanings, secondly you cannot state ALL historians agree that the writings of the earlier period were incorrect, there are modern historians who agree with them as has been clearly demonstrated here by other contributors and finally even Teribus has clearly, unequivocally, said they still have some validity. It would seem you're on your own now.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:39 AM

I only referred to your friends being Lefties.
No living historian has been found who still believe that stuff, or are you going to name one?
I think not.