WWI, was No-Man's Land

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:51 PM

"Raggytash NO SINGLE LIVING HISTORIAN HAS BEEN NAMED."

So the works of Galileo, Faraday, Boyle, Copernicus, Newton and Darwin are irrelevant, because they are all dead?

Is that the illogical limit of your and Teribus' understanding.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

Germany invaded.
Should they have just been allowed to create a miltarist empire of all Europe.

Tell us what alternative Belgium, France and Britain had but to defend themselves from a brutal agressor.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:15 PM

We have all tried achmelvitch. Save your breath.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:11 PM

whether german, british or the leaders of any government at the time, all considered that the only way to resolve their differences was by putting hundreds of thousands of their young men in freezing, filthy trenches to kill each other to win a few metres of muddy land. when this didn't seem to work - send up a few thousand more youths to the front and repeat. if this isn't the definition of what constitutes the most callous, brutal, brainless bunch of idiots in history - then who would you suggest is more stupid?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:59 PM

Easy to say, but the Germans were not invited in to France and Belgium.
They intended to occupy all of Europe.

What should the allies have done except block their way?
The historians say it was a necessary war for us.
Are they deluded, stupid or lying?

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:53 PM

for a few years hundreds of thousands of young men sat freezing in filthy trenches, killing each other to try to gain a few metres of muddy land. a hundred years on we have a furious and elongated debate about whether this was good leadership on behalf of the governments of the day. get a grip people -it was disgusting, barbaric and brainless 'leadership' by all concerned. war.....what is it good for? like this argument, absolutely nothing

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Yesterday's Guardian.

"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark.

Now the perception of the Great War that had formed in the late 1920s was strengthened all over again. Working-class lads had been sent like sheep to the slaughter by brutal and stupid generals, callously indifferent to the suffering they inflicted, a theme played much later and with repellent facetiousness by Blackadder. The upper classes as a whole stood condemned for wanton bloodshed."

"The military historian Max Hastings has suggested that ...."

"Not only is our reverence for the "good war" a sentimental misprision, our generation is exceptionally ill-placed to deride or condemn those who fought in the Great War. This is a worse than usual case of the condescension of posterity. The idea that the upper class sacrificed the sons of the poor is plainly untrue. A junior officer on the western front was three times more likely to be killed than a private soldier, and the 21,000 British dead on 1 July 1916, the first day of the Somme, included 30 officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel or above.

One little-remembered detail of the Great War is that between 1914 and 1918 no fewer than 22 sitting members of parliament were killed in action – a fraction of the MPs who served. There were 85 sons of MPs killed, including the eldest son of Herbert Asquith, the Liberal prime minister when the war began, and two sons of Andrew Bonar Law, the Tory leader of the opposition."

"Maybe there is no such thing as a good war, but there may be necessary wars, and a case can be made for 1914 as well as 1939, "

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:29 PM

"if"

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:21 PM

I am happy to leave it at that if you are.

Yes, but you DON'T go!

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:15 PM

You really are making yourself look silly.

You think quoting historians, in context, with links, makes someone look silly.
Fine
You think claiming to know more than historians who are all lying or deluded does not make you look silly.
Fine.

I think that makes you even more silly.
I think any reasonable person would too.
I am happy to leave it at that if you are.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:28 PM

I enjoyed "Blackadder" as a comedy series, mainly due to the brilliant comedy acting of Rowan Atkinson.
I did realise that it was a comedy performed by actors and not an historical document.
I don't believe there is any hidden message, other than war is not GOOD. Sometimes war is unavoidable and the tactics employed are determined by time and place.

Being a socialist, brought up on revisionist WW1 history, I always wondered why my grandfather thought so highly of General Haig; and I thank Keith and Mr T for helping to explain a lifelong puzzle.

Just try to think outside your fluffy pink "liberal" boxes for once...everyone can derive knowledge by listening to experts.
We may not LIKE what we hear, but long term, it will do us good.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:07 PM

I know some bloke in Scotland and I occasionally share a post or two, but let me beat him to stating that you are not repeating what your pet few historians are saying.

You are misrepresenting their work whilst making the sacrifice of the fallen look competent and necessary.

You say they were well led. The majority died carrying out the orders of their leaders, not the inaction of them. The casualty numbers were not necessary.

You say they knew what they were doing and why. I fail to see that a whole generation of men could ignore and not be driven by the jingoistic propaganda.

You really are making yourself look silly.

Why?

How can I take the piss effectively when you make it so easy? Fish in a barrel.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:03 PM

You are not supporting Keith, Teribus. Still some validity, you say - Keith doesn't think that. You don't think that recent work totally dismisses all work done previously. Keith does. But it does blow holes, you say, in "some" dearly held myths... Keith thinks that all the history of dead historians is all myth because all living historians dismiss it, and he believes them. Honestly, mate, you diminish yourself by clinging to Keith as an ally. Everyone here except for you and Keith can see that you and he are miles apart in terms of scholarship, thoroughness and consistency. He's a non-starter in all three respects. The other aspect of these debates here that is unhelpful is the conflation of the argument for the cause and justification of the war and the argument regarding the competence of the leadership. I'm not going to agree with you about the latter but I'm listening to what you say on the former. Unfortunately, you come across as being biased, aggressive and evangelical, putting the baby in severe danger of going down the plug with the water. Outcomes, dear chap, outcomes...

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:23 AM

In the absence of time machines, historians use hard evidence for their sources.
The historians' researched opinion is clear.

You set yourself above them, as if you could possibly know more.

On the evidence of these threads you actual knowledge is trivial.
That makes you ridiculous and absurd.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: GUEST,Some bloke from Scotland
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:12 AM

Right, now I have built my time machine, I have a choice;

Do I travel back 100 years to see what it was really like?
Do I travel forward 100 years to see what the living historians make of it?

I shan't bother offering a lift to Keith because either way, I doubt he would like what he saw.

Neither Teribus nor Keith seem willing to look at the facts, relying instead on contradictory publications written for their own means.

You need neither historians nor a CSE in history to see the result of sending waves of men over the top, hoping to wear down the enemy. You can see photographs of the jingoism and propaganda in place. You can see accounts of the work of the red tops and court martial system.

Sanitised, glorified and stupified.

Shame on you both.

Subject: RE: WWI, was No-Man's Land
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:00 AM

WTF is this "finally even Teribus has clearly, unequivocally, said they still have some validity. It would seem you're on your own now."


1918 to 1928:
Work published immediately after the First World War at the time was considered to be an accurate account of events and was extremely supportive of the steps taken by both Government and by the military.

1928 to 1969:
Work published in the period after the death of Earl Haig was "Revisionist" and many writing this history had agendas of their own - Liddell Hart; Fuller; Lloyd George; Winston Spencer Churchill; Alan Clark and A.J.P.Taylor.

OK then Raggytash did the work undertaken in this period totally negate what had been written beforehand by those "who had lived through it and taken part in it"? No of course it didn't - so stop trying to push the idea that the work by authors of this period are the alpha and omega of the matter - they most certainly are not. Much if not all of the source material was still classified and large swathes of foreign material had yet to be declassified, released and then translated.

1970 to Present:
Historians during this period have questioned the work done and published in the previous period and swung back more in line with the work done immediately after the war. This shift in opinion based upon new material becoming available and fresh interest coming with the 75th, 90th and 100th anniversaries of the conflict. By the way it was in this period that historians got to pour over the massive archives containing letters, photographs and diaries held by the Imperial War Museum, plus the material released by the British Government in accordance with their 50, 70 and 100 year rules, plus the wealth of foreign material similarly released by the Belgians, French and Germans.

I do not think that this work totally dismisses all work done previously but it does blows holes in some dearly held myths that were created between 1930 and 1969.

Keith is doing astonishingly well in holding his own in this discussion and he is far from being on his own.

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.

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 - 09:19 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 08:40 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Raggytash
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:46 AM

Fount not font, silly me

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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
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 - 06:28 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,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: 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: 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,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..."