BS: I am not an historian but........

Subject: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:36 PM

I am not a scientist but I am sure that all the discoveries since 1970 are all wrong and the previous generation of Scientists were right all along.

Laughable, but a group of Mudcatters, are saying exactly that about historians on the WWI threads.
Some of them ridicule others for believing without evidence on spiritual matters but do it themselves on history.

Is it just me or are they being irrational?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:42 PM

Its just you, Keith. Or maybe just you and T-Bird.

Your statements are ridiculous and no, its not the same thing at all.

And we bloody well KNOW you're not an historian, nor a student of history, thus your post is redundant.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 12:46 PM

"It's not the same thing at all"

Please explain the difference Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 01:04 PM

What would be the point, Keith? You'd simply brush it off.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 01:11 PM

First I have to put a marker down. I research in History around the Warburg Institute: you'll find me in this class tomorrow, which is probably the world's most advanced class in the subject. The Warburg Institute is amongst other things one of the leading Schools in the history of philosophy, which is what that class is about, the origins of the History of Science. I'm sufficient of a scientist to be the reference for identifying what an unlabeled technique does.

Secondly, Keith really must name names: I suspect I'm one of his targets for daring to try to get this world to grow up and move on from the last vestiges of feudalism, which started to be chucked out then the Mysteries became the Guilds a mere 600 years ago but which still clings on in the belief that all you have to be is a politician with no practical experience of the real world to allow you to tell everybody else they need to be patriotic, and that patriotism means "supporting me". Vote in 6 months' time - is there a Monster Raving Loony candidate around here? Probably the most honest on the list.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 01:24 PM

If Keith said he was in The Monster Raving Loony Party, he'd deny it later, despite his post still being there for all to see.

Oh, hang on, he already did.

No, that was a differ.. Same thing I suppose... Similar party for that matter.

Tell you what Keith. I put forward a formula in my thesis that was accepted for a PhD. I was delighted seven years later to be on the viva panel of a lad who qualified it, showing practical situations where it does not apply. I was delighted.

You see, blind dogged faith in the work of others is dangerous. Or would be if you weren't insignificant eh?

My work was post 1970. So was Blackadder.

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:09 PM

No rational answer then Musket or Greg.
Ragere, I was not thinking of you but would value your opinion of people who reject the findings of all (maybe not all but none found so far) living historians and cling to the views that the historians have debunked?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:31 PM

No rational answer then

Rational? YOU are talking about RATIONAL???

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!

Stop it Keith, yer killin' me!!!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:31 PM

But you reject the opinions of people who were actually there, Keith, as well as the opinions of dead historians. You're a fine one to be telling anyone else that they're irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:43 PM

Sorry Greg, but I have made no irrational statement here.

Steve, the people who were actually there are all dead, but modern historians have access to vast archives of original documents written by those people.
Those archives were not available to the previous generation of historians.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:50 PM

Those archives were not available to the previous generation of historians.

Oh yes? WHICH archives, exactly, and what dates were they assembled and made available to researchers?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:54 PM

Don't ask the showstopper now. This is fun.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

There are as many opinions as there are historians, and then a few depending on who you are and what they think they can get from you. You have to out them into broad camps, and recognise that in doing so you tend to polarise the middle ground. Therefore, when you take your position, whilst you can count a number of them as references for your own position, you must respect the likelihood other viewpoints may exist. It is in the nature of history that the available factual documentation is often very weak.
This is partly the reason why most history drawn from primary sources is often disparaged, prefering to refer the neophyte to secondary compilations. However, these are also often suspect as much history has been written for partisan purposes, and when looked at writ large with the benefit of hindsight does not necessarily hang together well. So, to claim that "the historians have debunked" something is certainly excessive: some may think they have disbunked the opposition, but then again, the opposition often feel the same way about them. The proof of the pudding is in the hard facts recorded, and we've only really got a hard record of the sociological aspects of that for about the last 150 years.
The latest Oh Shit is the dismantling of the claims of the Establishment, as it is now probable that a cuckoo slipped its way into the Royal nest at some point. Given the quantity of the members of the House of Lords whose claim to patrician status is based on this...
At the same time, the hard reality is that these people really did wield power, justified or not, and history must recognise that fact. It's the future history which is entitled to ask the question whether they should still have the whip hand now.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:01 PM

Did you folks ever look at the physics of a revolving door? I think a few of you are trapped in one.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:06 PM

I think its more like the movie "Groundhog Day", Guest#

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 04:12 PM

I hear you, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:39 PM

Notable history 

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 14 - 05:58 PM

Yeah, but is this Peter Hartlaub chap alive or dead so we know whether to believe him or not??

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:00 AM

Greg, the vast archive of the Imperial War Museum became available in the late 60s, as did the previously secret Government documents under the 50 year rule.
A wealth of data that was not available to earlier historians, but that is not the point.

Isues specific to WWI should be raised on those threads.

I was hoping we could discuss why you and others would not just assume that historians based their findings on research.
Why you would ever imagine that the whole lot might make up a false history while ordinary folk like us knew the truth.

You would find the same stance in other knowledge areas like science laughable.
Why is your stance not laughable?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:56 AM

Who, out of interest is "us"?

As you claim anyone who disagrees with your sanitised view of callousness and incompetence is "left leaning" I wonder who "us" are?

Indeed who are "them"?

Someone else on Mudcat reckons reality is a liberal plot.

There's supposed to be one in every village. We appear to have a commune.

🌚🌑🌒🌓🌔🌕👻

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 03:37 AM

I am not a historian but i know what i like......

I like those bits in The Tudors when Henry VIII's lithe sexy body (not in many ways unlike my own) gets wrapped round these really sexy women - prior to cutting their heads off.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 03:42 AM

Stop eating cheese before going to bed Al. I won't tell you again.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 04:18 AM

It should be noted that this thread has been started by someone who has never read a history book and who in the past has rejected information because there is "too much of it to take in"
In order to understand history, it is necessary to read it - Keith has chosen to surround himself with a ghost army of historians he has not read by scooping cut-'n-pastes which, out-of-context, appear to back his extreme right-wing prejudices.
Opening a thread to attack those who disagree with him because his arguments on World War One are shared by only one other contributor, just about sums up his mentality
How pathetic can you get?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 04:31 AM

Jim, I have been reading history books on the subject of WWI all my adult life, but I was hoping we could keep this as a general discussion.
On a previous debate I was quite open about not having read histories (of the Famine)
Also I am not right wing and have never expressed a far right view.
Feel free to produce an example if you disagree, but you have gone straight into personal attack instead of reasoned debate.
Sad.

Musket, As you claim anyone who disagrees with your sanitised view of....
Not true at all.
Of course we all disagree with each other about many things.
My question is why would you or any non historian challenge the whole body of historians on a matter of history?
"those historians shoulod know better" you memorably said.

I think they do know better.
Better than us lay folk.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 04:57 AM

"Jim, I have been reading history books on the subject of WWI all my adult life"
You have never at any time given an indication of doing so - every pice of information you have ever given has been fro hastily acquired cut-'n-pastes from the internet to back up what you believe
Your views on every subject you hae involved yourself with are extreme, jingoistic, and pro- establishment - without exception.
Beside the point anyway
You have now opened a thread based purely on the fact that other members of this forum disagree with you and you have been unable to convince any of us of your right-wing views
HOW ******* DARE YOU
If this thread in not contrary to the rules of this forum (I seem to remember something about respect for the views of other members) - it bloody well should be
IT IS MOST CERTAINLY CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF OPEN DEBATE - ADJUDICATORS TAKE NOTE
If you cannot debate without resorting to this gartbage, take your extremism elsewhere
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:21 AM

Impartially -- I haven't got a horse running in this one --

Do you consider, Jim, that all your contributions to this & the other related threads accord entirely with those forum principles which you so self-righteously, and aggressively, cite in your last post?

Cannot in honesty say that is how it looks from where I am sitting.

Now, then, go ahead and demolish me for having from time-to-time postulated what you will doubtless denounce as "right-wing" views (and probably 'extremist' ones to boot!), which you appear for some reason to regard as an indisputable knockdown argument to contradict any post with which you happen to disagree.

Best regards, as ever

≈Michael≈

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:31 AM

Jim, I put forward 3 views.
I gained those views from my reading of history.
I quoted historians saying the same.

Why do you reject what historians say about history?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:46 AM

"Jim, I put forward 3 views."
You have failed to convince anybody of those views - you have opened this thread in order to attack those who disagree with you - that, as far as I am concerned, is contrary to the spirit of open debate.
I - and others are happy to argue with you on your views as long as you want - this thread, as far as I am concerned, oversteps the mark
Sorry Mike - perhaps I shouldn't have made my "rightist" comments - it was a diversion from the point I was making anyway
Apologies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:59 AM

Does this mean that on the other thread we can get back to discussing The BBC and their latest "Oh, what a lovely war?"

Preferably without people spouting off about it being a left wing plot desigzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:17 AM

"No rational answer then Musket or Greg.
Ragere, I was not thinking of you but would value your opinion of people who reject the findings of all (maybe not all but none found so far) living historians and cling to the views that the historians have debunked?"

So, in 2069, a bunch of scientists, who weren't yet born in 1969, can discard the experiences of Armstrong and Aldrin, of Collins in the orbiter and of the whole team of scientists in Houston, and reinterpret these events in the way that is politically expedient at the time.

And Keith A, if he were still alive, would believe them without reservation, because all those who knew the true story are dead and can be ignored.

That kind of thinking borders on insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:37 AM

An interesting discussion (link) on bias in historic writing.

""Modest bias, however, is a universal characteristic. Every author has a perspective on his or her subject and, like you, is making an argument in support of a thesis. A history of World War II written by an English author is likely to have a different viewpoint from one written by a German author. Many historical developments and their interpretations are topics of profound controversy, and it is almost impossible for a historian to investigate of these controversial areas without being affected by his or her own biases""


Bias in writing history 

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 07:38 AM

"Why you would ever imagine that the whole lot might make up a false history while ordinary folk like us knew the truth.

You would find the same stance in other knowledge areas like science laughable."

You should perhaps apply some of that logic to your own hard wired prejdices Keith.

Is half of the research you speak of is based on letters written by soldiers at the time, have you EVER given a moment's consideration to the message a soldier would want his family to read.

Do you really believe he'd tell of the misery and hardship of the trenches, or might he say he's fine and giving the "Hun" a good hiding?

As for diaries, the men would know that trouble would follow any utterances considered seditious by their superiors. They'd hardly say what they Really thought about being sent over the top into the German machine guns, or what they thought of those who sent them.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 09:19 AM

Ed, I was considering a situation where there is a consensus among the historians.
On the issues I raised there is, although the previous generation of historians did not all agree.

Back in the 60s and 70s I held views like those expressed by others here.
Now, like any normal, intelligent, open minded person, I accept what the historians now say.

That was my point in the op.
Why would any non historian not believe the historians on history?
But Jim is right.
We have not convinced anybody however many historians we quote.
You all cling to the old myths debunked by historians decades ago.
To me that is irrational, or politically motivated.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 09:59 AM

I'm not a historian but.....

Lucy Worsley is a terrific piece of tail....

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 10:04 AM

A Guest who writes like Musket has just posted a theory previously proposed by Musket that there is a vast conspiracy involving the government, BBC,the universities and historians to create a false history to protect the establishment of the early 20th Century.

Rational?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 10:30 AM

unarguable i would have thought. you should have lived through the miners strike in the Nottingham area, and seen the establishment in action.

i can only imagine how tightly they controlled the flow of information in wartime conditions, with the primitive means of disseminating information as existed in those days.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 10:43 AM

"We have not convinced anybody however many historians we quote."
You have not quoted them - you have produced their names and claimed they agree with you, even thought none of them have written on the topics raised here.
There is no consensus between historians and if there was, you would have had to have read every single one of them - no declaration has ever been made of a single view of the war - if that is not the case, show where it has been.
You ave not even bothered to read your own gatherings - you started off by citing Hastings, who has been condemned by a leading establishment journal for his contempt for the behaviour of the British military.
You cited a historian who is in the process of studying the Imperial nature of the war - then claimed he didn't mention the subject he was writing on - a series of articles.
You have failed to show that you have either knowledge of or interest in this subject (not enough to go beyond cut '-pastes - that is all you have ever produced)
If there is a consensus among historians on the subjects we have discussed here show us what it is and where it can be found.
You have dismissed the historians who don't agree with you - no consensus there
You both have presented soldiers who have given testimonies which don't concur with your view as lies by attention seekers (Terrytoon has recently modified this to being a limited picture - historians a century later are better placed to know what they thought than those who where there were)
Where's your consensus on what we are discussing (not just a list of meaningless names - what do they all say)?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:01 AM

And in any case CONSENSUS does not necessarily constitute PROOF!

Argument from consensus or authority are logical fallacies!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:13 AM

Al, the conspiracy is supposed to be now, to protect the establishment of a century ago.

Jim, I have quoted them many of them and many times, as has Teribus, and linked to the articles for context.
Hastings, who has been condemned by a leading establishment journal
No Jim. One reviewer in one paper said he was overly critical of the army, in a book only about the outbreak of war.


You have dismissed the historians who don't agree with you - no consensus there

No. You have not found a single living one who does disagree with me.
Neither have I, and nor has anybody else in over a year of this.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:20 AM

That's interesting Keith.

When a troll calling themselves Guest Musket said something about you and a daughter's underwear, you were happy to read that I only post signed in.

Im addition, there are a number of Mudcat people post via the GSI VPN, which makes it easy for you to muddy the waters with.

Is that what you think historians do too? Make wild accusations like you do? As far as I am concerned, the people I give the Musket ID to sign in, apart from the other day when it was made clear McMusket's cookie had crumbled.

Judging people at your level? Nobody insults you. Nobody likes pointing out you post the most outrageous views and distortions. But when you do, I for one will take the piss mercilessly. You don't need to lie about me. Stick to complaining about my laughing at you. At least I do that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Troubadour you are right.
A consensus among historians is not proof that they are right.
It is possible that they are all wrong, and you non historians know more about history than they do.

I think that a very unlikely situation and an irrational belief.
I am amazed that so many of you otherwise intelligent people can actually believe such a notion!

That is why I started this thread, so that more people could wonder at that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

Not a wild accusation Musket.
I just said that it was in your style, and that you had posted that exact same theory back in early November.
Both statement are completely accurate.
What is your complaint?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:31 AM

Some of us wonder about sending men over the top in such numbers and executing them for cowardice for not doing so.

Some of us have read of the butcher of The Somme. We see the fields of graves.

Then we read your very black and White "well led and knew what they were letting themselves on for."

It just isn't true. It doesn't fit the facts. Your "disagreeing with me is a leftist plot" rubbish explains your stance more than any of your distortions of your so called sources.

This is a debate, not a cherry picking cut and paste competition.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:33 AM

No. You have not found a single living one who does disagree with me.

Same old bullshit, eh Keith? Don't you get tired of constantly spewing crap as if repetition made it true?

Greg, the vast archive of the Imperial War Museum became available in the late 60s, as did the previously secret Government documents under the 50 year rule.

OK, that's two. Any others? AND what about the historians writing in the 1970's and 1980's and even the 1990's with these archives available who are now dead? Applying your Dead Historians Rule can we believe them or not?

Speaking of the Dead Historians Rule you never answered my queries on the "No Man's Land" thread, so I reprise them below for your convenience:

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: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:36 AM

What would your complaint be if I said you write in a similar style to, say, a UKIP member?

What a pathetic post. So why did you make the comparison?

Then you wonder when various people write you off as a nasty piece of work.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:54 AM

That's two people independently coming up with the same facts. Seems Keith A of Hertford should re think his strategy.

My advice would be to bow out disgracefully, save as much face as he can. Of course he could carry on defending the indefensible I suppose..

Oh, anybody who listens to BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, reads The Guardian on line or keeps up to date with current affairs knows about the concerted effort to sanitise and make military leadership look better than it was could also come to the same conclusion.

In fact, first hand accounts and recollections beat c21 newspaper hacks looking for their next gong from a grateful establishment.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 11:57 AM

OK Musket, I withdraw stating his style was similar to yours.
Sorry.
What he actually posted was the same conspiracy theory that you proposed a few weeks back though.

I have never suggested a leftie plot.
I have suggested that some on the left cling to a version of history that chimes with their politics in defiance of all the historians' findings.

Then we read your very black and White "well led and knew what they were letting themselves on for."
It just isn't true. It doesn't fit the facts.

The historians say it does and I am not so arrogantly stupid as to believe I know more about it than they do.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:00 PM

"Jim, I have quoted them many of them and many times,"
No you have not - you have given a list of names - nothing more
The subjects we have raised have not been mentioned
You are still claiming a consensus - if it exists where and what is it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:17 PM

I have quoted the actual words of actual historians many, many times and given links to the article so it could be seen in context.
So has Teribus.

There is a consensus that the army did well under competent leadership, and that the people including the soldiers overwhelmingly believed the war was necessary.
I am only aware of one far right historian who does not think the war was necessary, otherwise, there is a consensus on that too.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:18 PM

....articleS

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:32 PM

I'm not a historian Keith. but

you DO seem to supporting a gang of complete stinkers.

I wouldn't be surprised if their class weren't really up to taking responsibility for their crimes against humanity.. The Japs have never really coughed for their invasion of China. The IRA thinks everything they did was entirely forgiveable and proportionate.

no one really takes to the idea of being written into the history books as a complete shit. however as Sartre points out -existentially we're all free - there is no possible excuse for not reaching the conclusion that they were living lives steeped in sin, and they should have behaved differently.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:48 PM

" have quoted the actual words of actual historians many, many times and given links to the article so it could be seen in context."
This is simple a lie
I have just counted the number of links you have given on both threads - - they total 6 in all.
2 from the BBC on who started the war (non in dispute)
1 On the unreliability of World War One poets (not in dispute)
One of the unreliability of Blackadder and O' What as historical documents (not in dispute)
1 single line from the feller involved with the arms industry saying that Haig was a good general
1 linking us to a choir
That, as far as I can see, are the only links you have given out of a total of around 130 postings - six links, none on the subjects under discussion - this is the sium total of your many, many links.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 12:54 PM

My conspiracy theory???

You need help. Or at least you need to either be better read, become more aware of subjects you profess a knowledge of and / or learn how debates work.

Reality is not a conspiracy theory. I don't know if any Americans are reading but they are more used to seeing people use terms such as conspiracy theory and leftist plot. They have the religious right tea party to contend with.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:09 PM

Al, I am not supporting anyone.
I just accept what the historians are all saying.
Why would anyone not?

Musket, you posted this last month.
"Funny how they all got their donkeys barbecued on the road to Damascus about the same time the establishment wanted history sanitising in order to make the armed forces look better than they are. Too many dead soldiers in recent conflicts. Can't have poor leadership questioned now they can be sued by widows for not leading and protecting their men eh?
(Just in case anyone wondered what all the recent sanitising of incompetence is all about. "

Jim, I will remind you of some of my quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:31 PM

Keith,

Have you ever read E.H. Carr's 'What is History?' If not, you should. It would help you to understand more than you seem to do.

I notice that A.J.P. Taylor is not included in your list of historians. Is that an error? If not, why haven't you cited him?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:39 PM

"Jim, I will remind you of some of my quotes."
And I have just reminded you that you have been telling porkies - you have been given the number of your "many, many links" and their subjects - not one of the six refer to what we are discussing.
I don't trust your unlinked quote, especially with your track-record for honesty
Now - thay "consensus" - where have you hidden it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:39 PM

Jim, Current OWALW thread.
an historian writes
http://www.warhistorian.org/todman.php

Another historian writes
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/he-had-hatred-thrust-upon-him/99766.article

Current WW1 thread
An historian reviews another's book
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n23/margaret-macmillan/von-hotzendorffs-desire

This quote,
Dr Gary Sheffield on BBC History site rubbishes Donkey myth.
His conclusion,
He (Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature.

An Historian writes,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

An historian writes
http://www.historynet.com/interview-with-military-historian-gary-sheffield.htm

An historian writes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2535004/Baldrick-Lefts-cunning-plan-twist-history-fit-deadly-delusions.html#ixzz3KDCCxbrX

Ten "leading historians" write
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324


That is just the current two threads.
Many, many more on the previous ones.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:42 PM

Guest I have acknowledged that the previous generation of now deaed historians had differing views.
The current generation of historians have debunked those myths we are discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:50 PM

'Guest I have acknowledged that the previous generation of now deaed historians had differing views. The current generation of historians have debunked those myths we are discussing.'

That doesn't answer my question in the slightest. I'll keep it simple. Have you read E.H. Carr's 'What is History?', and I'll add, or any book concerned with historiography?

If not, then I'm afraid whatever you choose to write about your carefully selected bunch of historians is bunkum unless you can back it up with a clearly defined view of why the 'facts' they've chosen to support their points are the 'correct facts'.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 01:58 PM

Also on current threads, an historian writes,
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/library/collections/archivespec/collections/1997-lecture.pdf

Yes Guest I have read a lot of the historiography of WW1 though not your book.
What is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

Keith,

The sheer fact that you miss my point is good enough for me.

By the way, did you ever read Churchill's diaries re. Haig?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:21 PM

Your recommended book is not even about WW1 historiography.
Those links I just posted are almost entirely about the historiography of that war.

Read them and we will talk.
Have you read any living historian on Haig?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:32 PM

This living vs dead historian stuff is getting to be absolutely hilarious. You're in a corner, Keith. Back away while you can! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:39 PM

good quote from Gary Sheffield supporting your point of view. Keith.

i've heard this sort of thing said about Grant, in the American civil war. this casual acceptance of murder.

doesn't there come a point though where the sheer quantitative nature of the casualties of the first world war, make a qualitative judgement necessary. and that moral lapse is really clincher - to call them donkeys is an insult to donkeys.

you say it the modern view of the situation - but really current thinking is more accurately reflected by Obama and Cameron who are loath to put troops on the ground and prey to the vicissitudes of landscape and terrain.

also - unlike Grant. first world war Generals were not faced with a challenge to the integrity of their nation - the reasons for fighting were pretty bloody recondite - bordering on bloody nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:47 PM

Al, I have just given the views currently held by historians.

Steve, in history, science and every field of knowledge each new generation build upon and advances the knowledge held by the previous generation.

I believe the ones alive and working today.
You know better.
Hilarious. You're in a corner, Steve. Back away while you can!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 02:59 PM

Todman Oh What a Lovely War - already mentionednot disputed,
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/he-had-hatred-thrust-upon-him/99766.article
Already mentioned - DeGroot the militarist - one maningless line
"This quote,"
Fuck your quotes - you claim to have linked them - you lied
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836
Amorphous argument dealing largely with the appalling conditions men were forced to endure - does not deal with anything being discussed, in no way confirms anything to have argued
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2535004/Baldrick-Lefts-cunning-plan-twist-history-fit-deadly-delusions.html#ixzz3KDCCxbrX"
Unopenable link to Daily Mail
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n23/margaret-macmillan/von-hotzendorffs-desire
Uncredited book review - are you saying the reviewer is a historian
Interesting though - the blog at the bottom reads
"Before 1914, starting a war was neither a crime in international law nor a sin against morality, and there was no principle that said that a country which started a war had to make amends afterwards. Both these ideas were retroactively introduced in the Treaty of Versailles. It doesn't matter whether Germany started the war or German policy caused it, both of which are beyond dispute: at issue is the word 'guilt' itself – a point which Margaret MacMillan seems to have missed (LRB, 2 December).
Oliver Pretzel"
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324 "
Article on who started the war - already mentioned
Is that it for "many, many", "consensus" and "all historians agree with me"
Come onnnnn
A joke's a joke!!
You really are something else.
Wonder if there's anything decent on tele - Morcambe and Wise maybe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 04:42 PM

"Before 1914, starting a war was neither a crime in international law nor a sin morality,.........

i would say that the scenes before Agincourt in Henry V gives the lie to this. irresponsible warmongering was a bloody outrage that long ago. and probably long before that.

I'm not a historian, and i'm thankful i'm not if they live in that moral vacuum.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 04:48 PM

Identifying bia in reporting on history 

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 04:49 PM

Bias

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:00 PM

I'm not a historian, and i'm thankful i'm not if they live in that moral vacuum.

Kieth may live in a moral vacuum, Al, but most good historians don't. Of course, there are hacks, and Keith has quite a list of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:04 PM

By the way, Keith, you still haven't addressed the points I raised in post of 05 Dec 14 - 11:33 AM.

Your recommended book is not even about WW1 historiography.

More ignorance on parade, Keith. You shouldn't employ words you don't understand or know the meaning of, don't ya know.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:17 PM

The book is not about WW1 historiography.
The views I have expressed are those of the historians.
You all think you know more about history than them.
I find that funny.
I am so glad I started this thread to put you in front of a wider audience and expose you.

I acknowledge that historians know more about history than I do.
You really think you know more, so we have an impasse.
Who knows more history, you people or historians?
Let's just leave that question in the air.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:37 PM

Let's just leave that question in the air.

But Keith - you keep saying you're leaving & then come back like the proverbial bad penny. What's a chap to do?

RE: historiography, you'd best keep to words of a maximum of 3 syllables to be safe.

Lastly, you still haven't addressed the points I raised in post of 05 Dec 14 - 11:33 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:54 PM

The tragic thing, Keith, is that the wider audience you're exposing us to hardly seems to be rallying round you...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 05:57 PM

And just to finish off, if you're not a historian, Keith, then you're speaking out of ignorance. But me no buts, you've accepted you have no knowledge of the subject, and demonstrated it with remarkable honesty. You seem to have settled to a core policy of quoting a selected list of secondary sources, which shows at best a A-Level capacity to trot out other peoples opinions, and have not demonnstrated any capacity to argue a case on your own. An undergraduate should be able to quote a number of contrasting positions and demonstrate how a synthesis might be made from them. A Masters student should be able to demonstrate exactly where the uncertainties lie, and a Doctoral candidate how to investigate them. You do none of these.
So kindly stop wasting everybody's time arguing round and round in circles, as you've become a pathetic bore, as well as an utter waste of time. Some historians are pathetic bores without being wastes of time, and others a waste of time without being boring. As you seem unable to achieve either, I can only conclude that you have surrendered to a form of mania which needs professional care, as you've neither balance, proportion nor willingness to examine the possibility you're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 14 - 06:06 PM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:04 AM

👏👏👏👏👏

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:37 AM

jim, another set of quotes I placed on the current WWI thread.

Peter Simkins, senior historian at the Imperiall War Museum reported by BBC.
Extracts
What is much less widely known is that 78 British and Dominion officers of the rank of Brigadier General and above died on active service in the First World War while a further 146 were wounded. These figures alone show that, contrary to popular belief, British Generals frequently went close enough to the battle zone to place themselves in considerable danger.


During the period known as the "Hundred Days", the British and Dominion divisions on the Western Front won a dozen major victories - the greatest series of victories in the British Army's whole history, and also the only time in British history that the British Army has engaged and defeated the main body of the main enemy in a continental war.

In the process, Haig's armies took 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns - only 7,800 prisoners and 935 guns less than those taken by the French, Belgian and American armies combined.

These successes were not the result of accident or luck. They were, of course, achieved above all by the courage and endurance of the front-line soldiers.

But the senior commanders too played their part. They did, after all, oversee and encourage the tactical and technological improvements which transformed the abilities and striking-power of Britain's first ever mass citizen army between 1916-1918.


As the historian Ian Malcolm Brown has pointed out in his recent book British Logistics on the Western Font (Praeger 1998), all this was made possible by an excellent administrative and transport system that, in 1918, not only enabled Haig to deliver attacks of tremendous power but also to switch the point of attack to another sector at short notice - so keeping the Germans off balance.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:39 AM

And some more from that thread.

Steve recently posted some thoughts on the Somme.
I find I have a book on my shelves on that subject by military historian Malcolm Brown.
The famous historian Richard Holmes said of it in The Times Literary Supplement, "If you can buy only one book on the Somme, it should be Malcolm Brown's powerful and scholarly account."

From the foreword.
"The character of the Somme fighting is seen as so appalling and the losses it entailed so unimaginably huge that decent civilised people find themselves, as it were, angrily demanding that it should be called off, for the sake of the wretched victims duped into fighting it.
The advantage of researching what the alleged victims wrote at the time is that they don't seem to have seen things that way. Even those who clearly deplored the brutal, inhuman aspects of the Somme - and there are not a few of that persuasion in this book - believed that there was no option other than that of carrying on with the fighting. They might not like the practice, but there was little argument with the principle. After all, the Germans were occupying French and Belgian soil and had to be removed."

He quotes Charles Carrington who wrote the "classic" A Subaltern's War in 1929. "The Somme battle raised the morale of the British Army. Although we did not win a decisive victory there was what matters most, a definite and growing sense of superiority over the enemy. man to man....We were quite sure that we had the Germans beat: next spring we would deliver the knock-out blow."

Prof. Dr. Gary Sheffield in the interview I mentioned last week.

How about your view of the most decisive battle?

"I would argue that the single most decisive battle came two years earlier, on the Somme."
http://www.historynet.com/interview-with-military-historian-gary-sheffield.htm

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 04:04 AM

You ow seem to be desperately scrambling round the net for scraps to cover up the fact that you have been lying about that "vast majority" of historians you have been claiming support your case - too late, too late, the maiden cried - your cover as a lying bullshitter has been well and truely blown
Just as one swallow does not make a summer, half-a-dozen or so quotes do not constitute a consensus, or even a majority - or even a significant minority (as several historians who are now re-writing history, have pointed out they are)
Don't call us, we'll call you when we want the establishment's excuses for why a generation of young men were sent to their deaths
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 04:26 AM

Ok. I thought this thread had reached a conclusion but it seems Keith is more thick skinned than we thought.

The only conclusion, if the men were well led, can be that mass deaths of your own men were planned and deemed an appropriate tactic.

Which incidentally is what happened. Although there is no historian, alive, dead or stuffed and mounted that tries to put forward the idea that "waves of men" was either good or successful.

Perhaps AJP Taylor and Baldrick were closer to the truth after all?

I can hear Terribulus typing frantically. I hope I'm mishearing....

🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 06:45 AM

"I can hear Terribulus typing frantically. I hope I'm mishearing"
Nah - that's the pitter-patter of Jerry's feet, trying to escape from Tom - aren't you up on your Toons
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:07 AM

we caught the Germans 'off balance'?

Tell those poor bastards whose names are on the memorials up and down the land.

a masterly anaysis!

Never   had mind the historians. Academics have always been wackos. Sir Alan Walters thought it was a work of true genius destroying the manufacturing base of the country.

Sod the historians. Its YOU we are worried about - how YOU can come up with such a load of bollocks that affronts the common experience of the entire nation. Never mind - bloody stupid historical accounts - most of our had grandparents who were there and told us what went on. historians and government ministers and the like will always find the village idiot who will support the total shite that they want to write a book about, or plan government policy. we saw that with the national curriculum.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:32 AM

See? Even Al "try to be nice to bigots" Whittle snaps eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 08:51 AM

only out of concern for Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 09:07 AM

Jim I just reproduced the quotes I posted on the current threads.
The ones you said I have never posted.

You all howl with indignation at having the findings of historians put before you.

Perhaps I should have lied about what they say, or concealed it from you?
Or warned to close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears until the centenary is forgotten.

All living historians are saying that previous historians have mislead the country.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 09:13 AM

Yoo Hoo. Keith:

OK, that's two[archives]. Any others? AND what about the historians writing in the 1970's and 1980's and even the 1990's with these archives available who are now dead? Applying your Dead Historians Rule can we believe them or not?

Speaking of the Dead Historians Rule you never answered my queries on the "No Man's Land" thread, so I reprise them below for your convenience:

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: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:05 AM

In history, as in science and any knowledge based subject, views change as research discovers new knowledge and evidence.

When there is a consensus, I believe the views of living scientists and historians whenever they conflict with the views of previous generations.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:15 AM

my Granddad was there. He is dead. He left his war diary to The Imperial War Museum.

Should they pulp it Keith? After all, what good is first hand experience when put against knowledge of people born fifty years after the armistice?

I doubt if any of your posts on any subject can be taken seriously, given this comedy of errors. Even your fan club, Terribulus and luvvie dahhrling have gone strangely quiet. I suggest you get Akenaton to join in, his intellect suits your cause.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:20 AM

You still haven't addressed the questions, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 10:40 AM

"When there is a consensus, I believe the views of living scientists and historians whenever they conflict with the views of previous generations."
"When" - now that's a move in the right direction
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:19 AM

"All living historians are saying that previous historians have mislead (sic) the country"

That's up there with calling AJP Taylor a liar. Or that there are more gays than heterosexuals in The UK living with HIV. Or that Israeli militants are right to call schools and hospitals legitimate targets.

Anything else you want taking into consideration before I don the black cap?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:21 AM

This thread gives new meaning to the term Black Hole.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:33 AM

Keith's increasingly bewildering postings were the main reason that I suggested that he reads E.H. Carr's 'What is History?'.

Oh, hang on, Carr's dead, so his views must be valueless.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:39 AM

All those war diaries and letters and personal documents, tens of thousands, are used as source material.

Of course I am not saying the old historians were liars.
There were other historians at the time who challenged Taylor and Clark, but over time with increased knowledge a consensus has emerged.

It is very like the debate that became a consensus over plate tectonics or the big bang.

You are all in a time warp.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 11:56 AM

Err. You just did say it though Keith.

It would help if you prefaced each post with "true" or "bollocks" so we can judge it as your comments or not.




Some people wait a few days before contradicting themselves. You took an hour.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:45 PM

Contradicted myself?
How?
I am not making a complicated case.
You people deny the findings of all the historians, madly believing you know better.
I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM

"You people deny the findings of all the historians, "
No we don't - you have given nothing to contradict - just a list of names (app. 6) - a vast majority, no doubt!!!
Face it - you've blown your cover Keith - why not ask for a book for Christmas?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:00 PM

Just say it and mean it.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:21 PM

"All living historians are saying that previous historians have mislead (sic) the country"
"Of course I am not saying the old historians were liars."
"I believe the ones alive and working today."

Said by Keith today.

Understood by nobody, Keith included I presume, today.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:27 PM

Mislead does not mean lying silly.
Clark and Taylor believed their stuff, but they turned out to be wrong.

Jim, do look at all the links and quotes I just repeated from the other current threads.
Each is an historian in his/her own words, saying what you reject.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:50 PM

Where was Taylor wrong? Who said he was wrong? In what context? How was the evidence counter analysed or debunked? How was any contrary evidence corroborated?

Without any of that, why are you saying what you say with conviction?

Have you any idea whatsoever how research works? There are many on Mudcat who do, yours fucking truly amongst them. Whether you research history, the sciences or literature, the process is the same. Many of the historians you wrote have done this and reached a number of conclusions on different aspects of the war.

Not a single historian you name, and you name but a few, living dead or sainted has come down with a definitive single conclusion that matches your absurd stance.

Even Terribulus has decided, hopefully, to leave whilst he might just keep some integrity.



By the way, as Terribulus isn't here, I shall do his pedantry for him. When you write the thread name, it is "a" historian, not "an" historian. At least show you understand English before telling us about reading it...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 02:02 PM

I wonder what Keith makes of this - AJP Taylor - railway timetables.

Keith's writing style smacks of the autodidact.

Obviously, he's able to write a sentence, but he does not appear to know how to link one sentence to another in the form of a paragraph. Such lack of joined-up-writing is, I feel, symptomatic of his inability to understand history as a concept.

As for the ideological elements involved in the construction of written history, frankly, he hasn't a clue.

I can lay my academic credentials on the table. Keith, can you?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 02:58 PM

Keith, mate, promise to go talk to your GP and only come back once he's given you a clean bill, can you? Go do some carol singing or something and get some beauty back into your life, because from the balance of what you've been doing, you're in a serious way.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 03:08 PM

"Jim, do look at all the links and quotes "]
I went through all (6) links - which you claimed to represent the overall view - they do nothing of the sort, nor do they back up what they do have to say with anything substantial.
two of them use 'Oh What a Lovely War' and 'Blackadder' as a target, as if these were being presented as a serious analysis of history.
Your De Groote (the armaments man) quote amounted to on single line of around a dozen words in support of Haig - no argument included, no reason why he was a good general....nothing, which is proof enough that you have sought out promising looking titles without even bothering to read them.
Nobody is claiming that some historians don't agree with some of the things you are arguing, but what you have done is gather a list of names of possible disenters to the common view, lumpedf them all together and claimed that they all agree with everything you say - utter nonsense, as someone has already pointed out.
This is exactly the same tactic you used to support your arguments on the Famine and here, jus as there, it has backfired.
There you presented Christine Kenealy as your star witness - do quote you directly "she knows more that the rest of us put together" - then "oh calamity" (as Alastair Simm was often heard to remark)- she turned out to be a supporter of the "Irish Holocaust" theory.   
Here you backed Max Hastings as your proof - he turned out to be 'The Enemy of the People' (according to the conservative Spectator) in his hatred of the British Military establishment.
Eacjh time you find yourself at a loss for arguments, you erect a barricade of (unread) historians and use them as a substitute for argument.
You have made yourself a figure of fun with your transparency.
You hold extremist views, yet you reject argument contrary to your own as "leftie extremist" as if the only people entitled to an argument are those to the far right of Ukip - such as yourself.
You don't present views, because you haven't enough knowledge of these subjects to hold rational views.
All your arguments on all these subjects appears to be 'the establishment is never wrong'
Never mind eh - it helps pass these cold wet winter nights by giving us all a bit of a giggle.
Keep up the good work old chap - pip, pip.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 04:48 PM

Lord help those with a different POV.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 07:28 PM

#
When you have that many protagonists, you probably have that number, squared, of motives. An arms race? Certainly. Face and prestige? Indubitably. A staring match determined not to blink first? Absolutely.
The first thing is that the trigger could have been almost anything.
The first step for an aggressive Germany must be to secure its rear, which means securing France. In WWI, the Germans ran into an aggressive admonition from the French at the start in the Battle of the Frontiers, which when backed with defense in depth back to the Paris-Marne area would have been a costly attack. The weak spot was Belgium and Flanders-Normandy, which would have cut the UK off and opened the way into the heart of France and Paris from behind. However, Moltke's execution of the von Schieffen deployment plan underestimated the determination of the Belgians, and the Belgian King above all, not to surrender to them, and their supply lines through the primitive Ardennes overextended at the same time as their insufficient forces failed to break the Nieupoort-Furnes line quickly enough to stop the flooding of the Yser when King Albert had the Nieuwpoort sluices blown. This completed the block of the German Army plan and reduced the options to the Germans of a withdrawal, which would have been politically impossible, or a series of feints, which is what the next three and a half years became. The determining factors were the demolition of the drainage system, which reduced the frontier area into the mudbath it is known as when the rains could not drain, aand the refusal of the French to cede an in of La Belle France to suck the Germans in and pinch them off. What was unacceptable is that those options were considered in the French Plans XVI and XVII, so it is clear those decisions were political and not military. Thereafter almost everything was reactive and not directive, to the extent that attack was only ever seen as head-on by both sides: I have explained elsewhere the exploitation of a counter-attack salient to break out of the flanks and finesse the breakthrough, which is what eventually happened in 1918, but more by chance than planning, and that shows a lack of lnowledge on both High Commands.
Consequently, there is nothing in the preparation and initial phases of WWI which gives any clue to what was to come, and looking at it from that angle does not create any explication or understanding of that. The Germans initially fought clear of a static battle, looking to outflank the French line and stopped only by their over-ambition or under-strength, depending on which way you look at it. They were every bit as underprepared for the resulting trench warfare and if anything had the greater problem, as they were on the outside of the curve of fighting lines between the Channel and Switzerland, and the more they advanced, the easier it got for the French - until, for example, Paris became the railhead in the final Battle of the Marne.

And that comes right back to what we've been talking about here, piss poor planning and an utter lack of proper preparation provoking pathetic performance. The High Command were entitled to that in the first couple of months while shaking themselves out and recognising what kind of war they had seetled into, but lacking the problems off landing on a defended coast they should have been able to execute a serious plan to defeat the Germans in 1915, when their forces were double stretched on the Russian Front. It took two years, 1942 and 1943, to prepare D-Day, a far more complicated effort as it required a seaborne invasion. The symptom we've been discussing, the homicidal killing of the troops, was only part of the problem. Kipling talks about "because you took the bank holiday off", which points out a far greater dissociation between the understanding of the Front in the UK than might be exoected. All of this "We Don't Want To Lose You, But We Think You Ought To Go" corroboraates a lack of deep determination - if it was serious, it would have been we're all going and we're all going as soon as we can, men, women and children. A nation determined to kill is formidable, as Israel is discovering. But instead, it was "Your Nation Needs You", "Dulci et Decorum est", a sense of chivalrous warfare - we got rid of that idea early in 1940 in WWII, but it does tend to cling on. This is what Germany does not understand about the UK, we became genocidal about them the second time around when we could well have been invaded in 1941 and everyone would have fought with everything we have. The UK doesn't have the option of fleeing as refugees, our backs are always to the sea and we learned from the Clearances that German mercenaries are not open to negotiation. I don't think we've got it out of our systems yet, it's part of the UKIP mentality.
That being said, it's the last line of determination: if we are to go, then we'll take an honour guard of the enemy with us. Far better is to act intelligently and find peace before it comes to that, peace not through a surrender but through adult behaviour, through building not the detente of fear, which is a Mexican standoff, but through the confidence of mutual strength. It's Putin's failure, his paranoia leading to a reversion to childhood in his accusations, straight out of the 1960s.
And that is why we must stop this throwback behaviour, of those who are still living in the last century somewhere. We have found a better way, I and the circle who held the peace for seventy years now, an entire generation which has not faced a major war, by applyig jaw-jaw rather than war-war. Yes, we must not forget, there is enough minor trouble to ensure that, but we must not wallow in it either.
Henry Ford said History is bunk, not because it is, but because living in it is. It must inform us, lest we have to learn its lessons again, but it must not not govern us, and living in it is a particular risk when working in traditional arts as we do here. Teribus lives there because he is too old to come with us, but this art must be for the future, and he now understands that every generation writes its own new pages. In time I will be past, but I'm not so far past yet as to have no vslid views on where we are now.
Keith, by contrast, may have lost it completely. His answer is to simplify and find beauty. I do.
How does this affect the future? We face extremists who have not learned that lesson, and we may have to revert in that last line of determination. It was that line among the Belgians in 1914 which led to that terrible war. They should not force us there. It was that line in the British in the summer of 1940, which might yet lead to the collapse of Europe if the UK pulls out. Angela Merkel has seen her dream come true in her dying Eastern Germany being allowed back into the integrated modern Germany, and she cannot believe that anyone would want otherwise. She did not understand just how alone and how determined the UK was then, in the 18 months between Dunkirk and Pearl Harbour, albeit with its Commonwealth allies: they did not face the reality of invasion within any two hours. It left too many buttons which can be pushed, and maybe we should push some as performers to ease that pressure. What is good that dialogue is essential: but there remain many in positions of power who abuse it, and are primitively abusers of the lowest order who should not be in those positions of power, because they are unworthy of them.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 07:41 PM

Well, Rahere, I think I'm probably with you, but your long post is very dense, and, when I'm on an online forum, I could just do with a bit more focus. Could be my age and my lessening powers of concentration, but...well, you know what I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:07 AM

Jim, the people I quote are the historians of WW1.
They are the people who do the research,who publish, who review, who are consulted, who advise the media, who are broadcast,....
There are not a whole raft of them being ignored.
These are them.
That is why none of you have found a single one to support your views.
There are not any.
Sorry.
All but Hastings are university professors of history.
They have students who do independent research themselves.

Musket, Where was Taylor wrong? Who said he was wrong?

Other historians at the time challenged his views.
The issues were debated.
That debate is over and a consensus has emerged.
That is why you can not find a single historian still supporting those views.
There are none.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 04:41 AM

"Jim, the people I quote are the historians of WW1."
You haven't quoted them on these subjects - you have listed them
You have not attempted to show that they actually agree with each other, let alone form a majority
Six historians saying different things on different subjects - nothing more
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:24 AM

I think I asked, and I reckon someone else has;

If the men were well led, (and none of the sources Keith A of Hertford has put forward has said this in the general terms he says they have) why all the dead bodies?

Was the strategy of sending waves of men over the top, seeing them get mown down by machine guns and sending the next lot after them a sign of good leadership?

I doubt any historian, academic or sensationalist journalist would make that mental leap. I doubt any academic body in The UK would wish to be associated with such tripe.

If the military leaders weren't donkeys, they planned and made a decision that led to huge casualties.

Which was it? Sheer incompetence or callous criminality?

"Send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 06:29 AM

Okay Keith, we've get it. You're not a historian. (and thank fuck for that!)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 01:28 PM

Dominic Alexander
Douglas Newton
Greg Jenner

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 02:27 PM

You haven't quoted them on these subjects - you have listed them

yes I have.
Would you like a quote about the war being necessary, peoples support for it or the effectiveness of the army?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 02:33 PM

Indeed I am not an historian Al.
I am just telling you what their findings are.

Scottish bloke, do you think the military historians are unaware of the exact casualty figures.
What is your estimate of what they should have been, and what is that worth compared to the considered and researched findings of all the professional military historians in the world?

Are you an expert on everything or just military history?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

Now the qualification has "professional military" in it. That's Hastings, Sheffield and all the academics out then.

Just leaves Baldrick?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 07:09 PM

Keith, Keith, Keith
Remember who I worked for and what I'm doing now?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Jim I
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 07:33 PM

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Jim I
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 07:38 PM

Musket said: By the way, as Terribulus isn't here, I shall do his pedantry for him. When you write the thread name, it is "a" historian, not "an" historian. At least show you understand English before telling us about reading it...

In fact Keith was perfectly correct. An historian is the usually accepted way of writing IN ENGLISH! If however you are American 'a historian' is often accepted.

I was a bit hesitant about writing this as it seems if you disagree with the Mudcat tycoons you get insulted, shouted at and generally done to death. I don't agree with Keith's argument but he at least simply restates it and has not resorted to the level of the gutter, like some.

Good night

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw closet pedant
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 07:49 PM

You're not wrong, Jim. In the modern world I think either article will do a lot of the time. I'm a bit of an historian meself in that regard. ;-) Quite a few other "h" words can accommodate "an", such as hospital, heir, honest and hour. I suppose the trend, at least in written English, is to use "a" in most cases. Sad, but inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 10:20 PM

well of course its the level of the gutter that so much of the cannon fodder came from.

lets say we empathise with them - more than a load of holocaust denial merchants with the tags of intellectual respectability.

we know from the stories our grandparents what went on. let these confounders of legend, and connossieurs of paradox tell their truths to those young and credulous to listen.

tell the young that war is not so terrible, because our leaders can be trusted to only spill blood cautiously and wisely.

you will get a more receptive audience than our generation who grew up playing on bombsites - and failing to communicate with parents and grandparents who had been through hell.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:45 AM

And yes, I did say pedantry. According to OED, it is a not "an" where a h precedes a vowel. A quick Google shows some sources differ. It also, as Steve points out, notices the difference between spoken and written, mainly colloquially.

Presumably one or two on here saw what I was getting at. There again, perhaps not. The object of my piss take loves to find something in an obscure corner of a website and claim it as gospel.

I don't know who the tycoons are by the way but if you want to be insulted, just keep missing irony and drifting the thread to deflect from what it is all about. In case anyone forgot, Keith started a thread to try to make everybody who understands and respects the awful sacrifice to be fools for doubting the establishment whitewash of history.

His tactics and frequent "I am right, you know nothing, you are a liar, you lose, I am a dalek, exterminate" posts backed up by cherry picked quotes just make him all the more hilarious. Moral - don't be ironic Musket, there is a reason he sometimes gets away with it.

Tycoon. Is that a random word you chose, an autocorrect or what? It comes over as you posting to complain about an irrelevance and introducing your own. May I suggest Private Eye? They have a pseuds corner that you may be comfortable in. In fact let me put a word in for you. Later today I shall most probably be in a café just off Soho Square with the people who keep trying to keep me busy. The editor Hislop (who is a WW1 historian by any measure incidentally) often uses the café.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:05 AM

By the way "Jim" read Keith' posts before assuming he doesn't sink to the level of the gutter.

Perhaps you could raise the rest of the tycoons back out of it by retracting such a weird observation? There's a gutter at the side of this train track and it seems to be whispering "liar!" and "you lose!".

There again, the train isn't a million miles from Hertford as we speed towards London. (We keep coming to a bloody halt. We should be there in 5 mins and I don't think we have passed Stevenage yet.)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 06:06 AM

No gutter type abuse from me ever Musket.
You made that up.
Did you also make this up, "According to OED, it is a not "an" where a h precedes a vowel."

H always precedes a vowel at the start of a word!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 06:45 AM

H always precedes a vowel at the start of a word!

Exept maybe hr - which is probably east European and probably left wing or hw which is Welsh and a dead language?

Wonder if there is any more apart from the obvious hy, which will be discounted in some other way.

Hmmmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 06:57 AM

Perhaps I can help here. The potential for new words does not have anything to do with style guides.

The "n" helps the transition to a vowel. "H" is not a vowel. "Historian" is not whatever Keith describes it as either.

I for one am quite happy however to allow this to sidetrack in order to let Keith save a little credibility. Notwithstanding he doesn't do so himself, and he has in the past tried to make people like me look dirty and disease ridden.

But that's him. It isn't me, it isn't most of us on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 06:57 AM

Jesus H. Christ...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:03 AM

Keith, I have refrained from posting here of late because it is beneath me. It has recently been asked why people depart from these forums: it is because of dumbfuck arseholes like you, who insist on posting when they clearly know nothing about their subjects. There aren't many, but boy, are you models of your ignominious ilk.
One of the reasons is my blood pressure: your stock in trade is every twisted perversion of logic known to man, from disinformation through imbalance to false generics and simple self-contradiction. If ever there was a need to reimpose the usual netiquette of only posting on something you firstly know something about and secondly can contribute positively to, this is it.
The second main reason is because I need beauty in my life, and beutiful you most decidely are not. I'm trying to only post upstairs now as a result, but every once in a while I get this far in a posting and tear it up.
So for fucks sake give it up, man, you've become an utter joke to the site. We can't believe a thing you say, you've not made a significant contribution above the line in months, if ever, and all you are doing is angering people.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:10 AM

Headuparseitis - Someone suffering from this disease is said to have their own head that far up their own arse that it must be permenant.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,another pedant
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 07:48 AM

Pick the odd one out: "hospital, heir, honest and hour".

The consider historian.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

So, not everybody wants to let this thread drift into linguistics to help Keith out of a hole then?

Ok.

Rahere. Don't get too wound up eh? I am used to being called abhorrent, against natural law, an infection risk and politically motivated when I proposed marriage. But this is la la land with warped ideas when it comes to moderation. It helps to think that way.

After all, BS stands for something apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:18 AM

Rahere,
Remember who I worked for and what I'm doing now?

You sound like David Mellor.
Related?

dumbfuck arseholes like you,

Very constructive criticism Rahere.
Thank you.

If you criticise me you are criticising the historians, because I have only said what they say.
Do you know who Dr Gary Sheffield is and what he does?
Do you know that I have said nothing that he has not said.

If you challenge that fact Rahere, please be specific as to exactly what I have said that is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:29 AM

I tried constructive criticism and it got me nowhere, you pig-ignorant excuse for a human being. You started this thread hoping for my neutral opinion, which did not suit you so you disregarded it. I am a historian and I was by profession a senior staffer of the European Defence HQ, and yet you insisted on putting words in my mouth saying that all "professional military historians" were of your opinion - which cartwheels into the bargain. That is utterly insulting, and given you won't listen to anyone or move one iota, it's time to tell you to shut the fuck up and stop annoying everyone. We've gragged you kicking and screaming into a spot where you had to admit you're not a historian, the historians here have told you in qualified terms to desist, and still you keep going, so it's time tpo become less moderate and risk the annoyance of the moderators in telling you like it is. There is no point in entering into debate with you, you've abused the norms of debate to an utterly intolerable level and it's time for you to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:34 AM

you pig-ignorant excuse for a human being.

An excellent debating point Rahere.
Almost grown up!

You forgot to be specific about something I have got wrong, or something I have said that is not said by the historians.

That is because you can't, and have to resort to abuse.
I have said nothing that has not been said by the historians.
Answer that Rahere.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 08:50 AM

You're beyond debating with, it offers you recognition and pumps your grossly over-inflated ego. You've been given page after page after page of details by people far more patient than me and still persist in your ignorance. Even in this answer, in talking about "the historians" you failed to recognise my more moderate reply to you that there are a raange of viewpoints in the academic community. You might have had a case if you had said "some historians" but you failed to take what I said earlier about your totalitarian viewpoint to heart and still come back trying to tell us you're a leading expert on something you obviuously know nothing about, dragging more worthy names into the mud as you do so. You yourself accepted you're not a historian, and so as I said eariler, but us no buts, your's not a historian SO do us the grace of shutting up and stop annoying the hell out of everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:08 AM

Stay for one more post at least, Rahere. You are a historian and probably know as much if not more about the military than anyone else here. Just give us a brief summary on whether you believe that the previous generation of historians are right, whether the ones quoted by Keith are right or whether it is more complicated than that. I, for instance, do not believe that the troops were particularly well lead. Had they have been I am pretty sure casualties would have been lower. I don't think that all the high command were idiots either. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between. I am inclined to think that an anti-war stance is infinitely preferable to killing each other as well but accept that, in some circumstances, war is inevitable. I do not think that justifying or even glorifying war at a later stage is ever a good thing. However, back to you. You have given us your credentials. I am as intrigued to know what your opinion as as I am to see how it will be dismissed as so much nonsense by Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:11 AM

Well lead? Apologies in advance to the pedants.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:34 AM

Rahere, if you can identify anything I have stated that is not supported by the work of the historians, I will go away.

If you can not, then you lose and you should slink away.

Over to you Rahere.
What have you got?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM

your grossly inflated ego

I accept that historians know more about history than I do.
I just say what they say.
It is YOUR EGO that makes you believe yourself superior.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:24 AM

What is this monolithic bloc "The Historians?

Something like the visigoths? Or possibly The Supremes?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:32 AM

Maybe these?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 10:45 AM

naw, that would make him Diana Ross...

The historians refers to a bunch of historians, some academic, some self styled who have published conclusions to small snippets of the war which Keith extrapolates to mean in general terms. Any historian who he doesn't like he invents ways of excluding him or her.

To date, that has meant dead, famous, voted Labour when alive and something about being military, but that is confusing because it would rule out his precious little list anyway.

Hey Keith! Remember when you told the Muskets to shut up because grown ups were talking? Well two of them are laughing at you, not with you. (Part time Musket is on holiday, I think.)

I am breaking rank really for another thread.

Rule 2 of The Tea Club states each Musket must defend the words of the others when posting as Musket. On the basis there are two Mrs Muskets and only one Mr Musket, it would test the tea club rules for me to say I am gay and especially Musket Ian have to carry that on.. There are Mudcatters who know his Mrs Musket well in the folk clubs!

😹😹😹😂😂😂🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 11:02 AM

I wish to state, for the record, that I am not a Musket but I do have balls.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 11:35 AM

History is written by the winners.read French History books then read English history books, funny they both won the same wars

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 11:49 AM

"...read French History books then read English history books, funny they both won the same wars"

And, I thought the US of A won both wars-seems that I saw that version somewhere:)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 11:59 AM

interesting article this Sunday on the 73rd anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

It would seem that the slant in Japan is that their attack on US territory was forced upon them because the US and other nations wanted Japan to stop invading China and other countries. Let's disregard the twenty years of militarization on the part of Japanese warlords prior to Dec. 7, 1941... it's all the fault of Commodore Perry and the US Navy back in 1853.

Yup... and with kind of logic, it must be Chamberlain's fault that Hilter just HAD to invade Poland... and France... and Belgium, etc.

We obviously need to do a better job at teaching objective history, because we really can not afford to keep repeating this kind of history.

And for the record, while you do not need to be a professional historian to be a student of history, you do need to maintain an objective perspective for it to be of any value.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 12:21 PM

Hey - Just spotted a new game - I am not a ..... but I am a .....

Keith has already started with "I am not an historian but..." Anyone care to fill in the rest?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 12:28 PM

History is written by the winners

Not that old canard again. That's not "history" lad, that's propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 01:09 PM

> teaching objective history

It's become a cliche' to claim that since definitive, Godlike objectivity is impossible, no attempt to be objective is even necessary. (Just read some of the above posts.)

And real history, especially in recent centuries, is not always "written by the winners." (Fake history written to order for dictatorial regimes isn't what we're talking about.)

German apologists after WW1 persuaded many that the Kaiser had been no more responsible for the war than the British Parliament and that there had been no atrocities committed in Belgium. Later historians, especially the German Fritz Fischer (fifty years ago) showed how false that view was.

Defeat in 1783 has not prevented British historians from interpreting the American Revolution any more than defeat in 1865 has silenced historians south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

But the British don't claim they won the American Revolution, only that it was unnecessary - a matter not of fact but of opinion, then as now. And while no American historian holds any brief for slavery or the Confederate States, university historians North and South agree on the facts of the war, while disagreeing (from evidence, not geography or left-right politics) on the actual profitability or sustainability of slavery.   

And defeat in the Vietnam War hasn't stopped American historians from examining every aspect of it.

So much for the claim that modern historical writing is composed of victors' lies, and that all losers were probably in the right.

Real historians differ on intangibles like degrees of influence, subtle contributing causes, implications, motive, and areas where contemporaneous evidence is poor.

They do not differ on documented (objective) facts.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 01:11 PM

"From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 12:28 PM

History is written by the winners

Not that old canard again. That's not "history" lad, that's propaganda."
same thing,lad.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 01:26 PM

"Real historians differ on intangibles like degrees of influence, subtle contributing causes, implications, motive, and areas where contemporaneous evidence is poor."

so I guess my question should... " Who the heck is writing the history textbooks in Japan."... because the article is pointing out the current state of historical information available to the average Japanese citizen who did not go on to get their advanced degree in history.

You can not teach objective history or science if the textbooks are written by revisionists or others with a non-objective agenda. To paraphrase my computer science teacher - garbage in, garbage out.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 01:45 PM

History is not pure science though, sciencegeek. It is neither testable nor repeatable in the way scientific experimentation is. Take any event witnessed by 4 people and you will get 4 different versions. When those 4 different versions are recorded and subsequently reviewed by others others the number of different versions increases. None of them are revisionists in the sense you mean and none of the stories are 'garbage'. It's just the way the human brain works.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:19 PM

I fear I have to disagree with you, guest....

both science and history require research and objectivity... neither is made up from imagination or wishful, when done properly... and that is my point.   

as for history... you go to original sources that are much easier to find for recent past, which is what I am referring to. There are very few survivors of Pearl Harbor or the Holocaust still alive today. but there is archival material of many kinds still extant. So what is keeping the average Japanese of today ignorant of their recent history? We have enough apologists and revisionists (and just plain lazy researchers) around already, we need critical thinkers in their stead. Just because it's not easy does not mean impossible, just difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:41 PM

a few years ago I watched a documentary and they had footage of youth training programs similar that those of the Hitler youths, except they were in Japan and showed how they were conditioning their children to accept a military society. It helped answer a question I had heard over and over about why young college educated men would fight to the death or become Kamikazi pilots. That question assumed a more normal childhood without an indoctrination program geared to turning a nation's youth into combatants. I have not doubts that those films were ignored in current textbooks, as well.   

How do you explain a "cultural revolution" that destroys the past instead of preserving it? Well, that little red book might have a few answers in it.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:44 PM

Go to the original sources? I refer you back to my statement about 4 different people giving 4 different and often contradictory stories. Sorry, but it is impossible when it comes to subjective matter. Let's take an event again. Let's say the recent shooting in Ferguson. The facts are that a black youth was shot by a white policeman. Why was he shot, who was to blame and was anyone else culpable are the questions that will be asked over and over again. The next fact is that the courts found in favaour of the police department. By why? Was it fair? The further you get from the event the more clouded the picture will become. How wars were fought is the same with added complications. Not all events are testable or objective. It is why history comes under humanities rather than pure science or art.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:59 PM

> So what is keeping the average Japanese of today ignorant of their recent history?

Presumably some of the same things that keep the average American ignorant.

Top of the list: reliance on schoolbooks dumbed down and smoothed out for fourteen-year-olds, and lack of interest in pursuing the subject further.

One difference between the US and Japan is that Japanese schoolbooks have to be approved by the central government. Do Japanese college courses endorse the schoolbook version of history?

In fact, the U.S. oil embargo really did lead Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Japanese oil reserves were quickly drying up owing to the unprovoked war against China that the U.S. was trying to stop.
(Number of Chinese civilians slaughtered in Nanking: well over 100,000 - comparable to the death toll at Hiroshima.)

Many Japanese officials knew it would be almost impossible to beat the United States, but they decided to risk it rather than be humiliated give up the dream of ruling East Asia and the Pacific. It was all or nothing. If they lost, at least they could go down fighting rather than be dictated to by an inferior race.

Lesson from Munich: never try to appease an aggressor.

Lesson from Pearl Harbor: never tighten the screws on an aggressor.

The average citizen of any nation doesn't want objective history anyway. It's too confusing and not very inspiring; but feel-good history always makes you feel good.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:11 PM

Different strokes for different folks.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:24 PM

Sorry, but it is impossible when it comes to subjective matter.

guest, that's a cop out and you should know it. You can not compare apples to organges to "prove" your point. First hand accounts by individuals will give one perspective... but it's official documents that provide most source material and then correspondance and diaries from those officials that help back up conclusions. Last time I checked, Joe Blow on the street did not have the authority to declare war.

Will we ever know everything? Of course not, but we can and do have the ability to figure out more than you seem to give credit to.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:43 PM

A monolithic block of historians Greg?
On the points I have raised, none of you have been able to find any who disagree, but I have found lots who agree, so it looks as though it is all of them.

If you manage to find some, or even one, I will have to re-think.

Have you Greg?
Have any of you?
You have been looking for well over a year now.
How much longer do you all need?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:25 PM

Once again, Keith, wyou're having problems with basic English comprehension. Perhaps some remediasl courses are in order- perhaps the Open University has some that would suit.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:35 PM

History ≡ Propaganda ?

Oh please, G.S.Schweik. Fatuous as well as untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:48 PM

I am neither trying to prove a point nor compare apples and oranges, sciencegeek. The situation in Ferguson is not at all dissimilar to an escalation of hostilities. We have eye witness accounts. We have official documents. Everything is there but we will never know the whole truth. You say yourself Will we ever know everything? Of course not Well, that is the whole point it is those unknowns that are being argued and discussed. As to but we can and do have the ability to figure out more than you seem to give credit to. Well, that sums it up. You can figure out what happened. I can figure out what happened. The 'officials' can figure out what happened. But the figuring out bit is what the opinion is and why they differ so much. I am however intrigued by how you seem to be able to figure out how much credit I can give when you do not even know me. Is that based on scientific fact and research as well?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:02 AM

"I put forward a formula in my thesis that was accepted for a PhD. I was delighted seven years later to be on the viva panel of a lad who qualified it, showing practical situations where it does not apply."

So you accept that as time moves on knowledge can be improved upon - good. I take it, as you were delighted, you now accept the exceptions found by said lad prove that your formula is not universally correct after all.

Translate that to any historical event, the one under discussion at present across a number of threads is the First World War. In writing his memoirs Lloyd George wished to portray himself as an effective war leader (When in actual fact he proved himself to be an incompetent meddling fool, who if he had had his way, the war would have lasted at least two more years and millions of Americans would have died as well as the millions of French and British troops), no doubt Tony Blair's memoirs are written in the same light and with the same objective (Note: Neither men are Conservatives) Lloyd George had access to every single Government document and Cabinet paper yet if you examine his memoirs today the myths he wished to create and woeful inaccuracies are evident. Why? How? Because in writing his memoirs Lloyd George did not have access to French and German accounts that historians today have - Lloyd George did not have access to them because they were the classified information of a foreign Government and because they had not been translated. Same goes for the works of Winston Churchill and those of the military theorists Liddell Hart and Fuller.

Most Governments have 50 year rules with regard to sensitive and classified material which would put 1968 as the earliest time for material related to the First World War coming to light. So Musket any history written before 1968 can be viewed like that formula in your thesis any written since is better informed due to the fact that it has been improved by better knowledge, better understanding of a more complete picture.

Works of fiction written with its own agenda and based upon faulty work in the first place can be dismissed as having no historical value whatsoever and should be left out of any historical discussion and viewed solely as entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:30 AM

What are you wittering on about?

This isn't science. This isn't archeology. This is living memory. The soldiers are all dead now but the families are still here.

Evidence =

First hand accounts.
Hansard.
Lists of dead people.
Lists of how many dead over a few square yards in one day
Photos of executions
The role of red tops
I could go on

But educating anonymous pork isn't top of my priority list today.

You should give your name. Keith can start quoting you then. It must be terrible for us err you to remain anonymous.

💤

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:42 AM

"So, in 2069, a bunch of scientists, who weren't yet born in 1969, can discard the experiences of Armstrong and Aldrin, of Collins in the orbiter and of the whole team of scientists in Houston, and reinterpret these events in the way that is politically expedient at the time."

So 100 years after the first Moon landing what more scientific information would have been released related to that event? The answer I would probably assume is none, so scientifically, there would be no change and the records of the work done and the records of the mission remain fixed in time.

OK now take a look at it not scientifically, but historically - ask the same question.

What more historical information would have been released related to the American space program by 2069. It was a promise made in 1960 that before the decade was out an American would travel to the moon and back, and that promise was kept. So with 50, 70 and 100 year rules we can expect more historical material relating to the politics and running of the space program to emerge in 2010, 2030 and 2060 - All of that will add to the knowledge we already have on the subject, some of it may destroy some dearly held truths as to why things happened the way they did. But historically once that information comes out into the public domain no-one can rationally cling to past views or versions that are corrected by the latest information.

The example of "Cats Eyes" Cunningham comes to mind - It is down to him that lots of people believe that eating carrots is key to having good eyesight - load of baloney of course - the story was put out during the Second World War to hide and protect the fact that the Royal Air Force had managed to mount Air Interception Radar sets in their Night-Fighters and now could electronically "see" German Aircraft. Cunningham's success in accumulating his 20 confirmed victories, 3 probables and 6 damaged was published in the newspapers at the time and he was supposed to have attributed his amazing cat-like night vision to him eating carrots - the result was that little boys in Great Britain ate their carrots and vegetables and the Germans were none the wiser until of course they shot down a Night-Fighter on an intruder mission over German held territory and examined the wreckage.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 05:57 AM

Keith.....

I'm not a historian either, but as a sane normal human being - does it seem remotely possible that EVERY historian thinks that the British forces were led in responsible and competent manner?

Can you imagine a guy like Arthur Marwick of the OU going along with it.

get a grip on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:38 AM

I went to Doncaster railway station once. Oddly enough to pick someone up for a Mudcat 'do'. Eeeeeh, what exciting lives we lead.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:59 AM

Musket - 05 Dec 14 - 11:31 AM

1: "Some of us wonder about sending men over the top in such numbers and executing them for cowardice for not doing so."

You have a line of trenches facing one another stretching over 400 miles from the Belgian coast to the Swiss Alps - The enemy are on high ground and can shell your troops at will to devastating effect along sections of that line - This theatre of operations is where your enemy is - The reality of the situation is that you cannot just sit back and take it, you have to attack this enemy and drive him out of the territory he has taken by force. OK then Musket how do you do it without sending men over the top?

As to your second point there - some 5.3 million men volunteered and were conscripted (~50-50) into the British Army during the course of the First World War out of that vast and never to be exceeded number 17 - yes SEVENTEEN were executed for cowardice.

2: "Some of us have read of the butcher of The Somme.

Really?? Where did you read of the Butcher of the Somme? He was never referred to as that by any Author between 1916 and 1928 and they "All had been there" and lived through it. So these works of yours where you read about "The Butcher of the Somme" post-date 1930 and span up to about the late 1960s - very easy to kick a man when he is down, easier still once he is dead and any defence is impossible for him to mount. The Jackals that mounted these attacks? David Lloyd George and Winston Spencer Churchill both keen to polish their own egos and reputations for political purposes and sweep their own shortcomings and failings under the carpet by exaggerating the supposed errors of a man who could not defend himself - Definitely NOT Churchill's Finest Hour. Had the British Government followed the advice and line suggested by either of these men then Great Britain would have lost the First World War. Post 1970 the bulk of historians writing on the subject of the First World War with the advantages of having at their disposal information not available to their predecessors form a consensus that Haig and Kitchener's detractors were wrong.

3: "We see the fields of graves."

Very glad that you have been to visit the First World War cemeteries Musket. Just the British ones or did you also visit the French and German ones? Now tell me why there are fewer of our dead in those First World War graves than say French or Germans - yet it was our troops who were badly led??

4: "Then we read your very black and White "well led and knew what they were letting themselves on for. It just isn't true. It doesn't fit the facts."

Generally speaking that claim in the first sentence is perfectly correct, it was something like 2.6 million men volunteered for active service in the great War and 2.7 million who were conscripted. Of the 2.6 million who volunteered about half of them did so between August 4th 1914 and December 1914. In that 5 months the British public knew of the holding/delaying action fought at Mons and at Le Cateau and they knew with total certainty about the reality of war and the sacrifice required from the First Battle of the Marne and Ypres. If you volunteer for active service in time of war Musket you are voluntarily putting your life at the disposal of your country - you do that in the full understanding that you will be put into harms way and that you may well be killed or badly injured. To suggest anything else is absolute lunacy. To claim that 2.6 million men from that generation of British subjects only went to defend their country because they were so dim and so misinformed that they were had to be duped and lied to is an insult to those men and their memory. Do you honestly think they were such fools?

5: "Your "disagreeing with me is a leftist plot" rubbish explains your stance more than any of your distortions of your so called sources."

Your sources are? Joan Littlewood's "Oh What A Lovely War"? typical 1960s CND, anti-war, anti-establishment satire? Described by it's "historical adviser" Raymond Fletcher (Labour MP and Editor of the Tribune) as being - "One part me, one part Liddell Hart, the rest Lenin" - "In the transformation from radio to stage, the play became more ardent in its expression of radical left wing views". It was Joan Littlewood who described the men as dupes and she did that and portrayed that to put across the political message that she wanted to put across. When it came to reviewing it - "very few reviewers perceived the play as an objective representation of historical truth." Unfortunately some in this forum actually believe that it did represent true history - Got news for you the original reviewers were right.

Blackadder goes Forth? Academics have noted that the television series has become a pervasive view of the war in the public's perception of World War I, with Max Hastings calling the common British view of the war "the Blackadder take on history." Military historian Richard Holmes commented in his book The Western Front: "Blackadder's aphorisms have become fact...A well turned line of script can sometimes carry more weight than all the scholarly footnotes in the world." Stephen Badsey, analysing trends in television programmes about the war remarked that Blackadder Goes Forth as a popular comedy series was subject to particular criticism from historians, remarking that the series "consciously traded on every cliche and misremembered piece of history about the Western Front, and was influential enough to draw a surprising degree of angry criticism from professional historians as a result."

Esther MacCallum-Stewart of Sussex University noted in her essay "Television Docu-Drama and The First World War" that "Blackadder Goes Forth is used as a teaching aid in schools; not as a secondary text that should be analysed and discussed for its own reliability, but as a truthful parody of the conditions of the First World War."

It is entertainment NOT History, NOT factual, NOT the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:02 AM

Al, if there is an historian anywhere who disparages the armies achievements, no-one has yet found one and this has been raging for over a year now.

The Open University worked in collaboration with the BBC on the Paxman documentaries.

Prog 3
29 minutes in. Paxman to camera,
"Britain now had a tactically smarter, better organised army, capable of deploying men and machines to devastating effect"

He and the team clearly saying that the army was well led.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:03 AM

army's

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:44 AM

History is propoganda, an explanation of this is evident in French history books and English history books, In that on occasions they both claim to have won the same wars.
even history that is from the mouth of someone who was present will not be entirely objective, but it generally is the most accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:44 AM

Yes, Teribus, we all know that Blackadder is not scholarly history. You keep telling us. Now do you think you could tell your mate Keith that Ian Hislop and Jezza Paxman are not historians? Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 10:38 AM

History is propoganda, an explanation of this is evident in French history books and English history books

WHICH history books, written when and by whom? I think you've contracted a bad case of Fulminating Keith-alitis.

There's a good bit of crap out there masquerading as history, but the works of serious and qualified historians is the antithesis of "propaganda".

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 11:56 AM

Steve, on another thread, Musket called Hislop an historian, and Scottish bloke described him a someone who had read a bit about WW1.

He has been responsible for a number of documentaries on WW1 doing most of the research himself.
Did you not see The Wipers Times?
That was all his.
Even so, I would not have brought him into this debate.
That was your mates.

Paxman was mainly just the presenter on his programmes. The History Dept. of the Open University did all the History.
The message was that the war was necessary for Britain, the people supported it and the army achieved great things.
Just what Hislop and I have been saying.
Hardly surprising.
That is the history.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 11:58 AM

"It is entertainment NOT History, NOT factual, NOT the truth."
Like all good satire, it contains enough of the elements of truth to make it significant.
Probably among the most memorable scenes whas of the dress banquets where different generals and politicians stuffed their faces sniped and sneered at each other behind each others backs while the casualty figures rolled over the top of the stage.
Then, of course, in the screen version, the magnificent Maggie Smith as the beautiful cabaret artiste singing to persuade the onlookers, little more than children, to join up
As the camera pans in she is gradually transformed from a beautiful woman to a raddled whore - brilliant symbolism, which shows the reality of the actual situation, far more reliable than this apologist shit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw cowering
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:02 PM

"That is the history." Keith has spoken!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:04 PM

"There's a good bit of crap out there masquerading as history, but the works of serious and qualified historians is the antithesis of "propaganda"."
Greg,please give examples of Historians you wish me to take seriously, and then please explain from your knowledgeable pedestal why certain historians need to be taken more seriously than others, your position is no different from The OP, you are just looking at it from a different political perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:06 PM

You were praising Paxman to the skies and claiming he backed all your statements - now he was only the presenter.
You don't know history, as you have admitted in your choice of title, but you are attempting to manipulate it to validate a political agenda
Are you seriously presenting Hislop as reliable?
You are a bigger comedian than he is
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:19 PM

"That is the history." Keith has spoken!

No.
That is the history according to all the historians.
(or have you found something?)

I did not bring Hislop's name into all this Jim.
Musket and his clones did.
But he is someone who is hated by the establishment, and someone who knows a lot more about WW1 than you people do.

Paxman did many interviews and articles on WW1 before the series, showing much more knowledge than any of you people and expressing the same views as me.

All this is just a diversion however.
My point is still that my views are those of the historians, and if you ridicule them you make yourselves ridiculous.
Also that none can be found who still believe those hoary old discredited myths that you do.

Or have you finally found one?(chuckle)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:20 PM

and then please explain from your knowledgeable pedestal

Fuck off, Schweik.

Then, go educate yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:24 PM

I wonder if Keith has read this - How historians differ on the causes of WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:26 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:20 PM

and then please explain from your knowledgeable pedestal

Fuck off, Schweik.

Then, go educate yourself."
This reply shows that you are intellectually bankrupt.
Which Historians do you wish me to take seriously?
at least Keith has mentioned who he believes has the right take, you however resort to bad langauge, absolutely pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:51 PM

if you can't be arsed to look for opinions that don't chime with your own predjudices, you won't find them. you'll be stuck with bollock brained mental froth of the Farages. there does seem to be some sort of campaign on to excuse the aristo scum - the internet is full of 'historians' with the stuff Keith is coming out with. However there are people telling the truth as our grandparents remembered it.

'Sir Douglas Haig was strongly influenced through his time serving as a cavalry officer in the Queens Hussars and it is evident that he employed these cavalry tactics in his strategies. This influence affected his leader ship in a highly detrimental way and resulted in the loss of numerous lives thus making his leadership through out WW1 to be poor and ineffective. This can be seen through the battle of the Somme in which Haig, ordered from his chateau, that men are to be sent in waves over the trenches and charge in an attempt to capture and over run German trenches, this was unsuccessful and resulted in the deaths over 60,000 men.

The industrial revolution brought about the production of gun and ammunition in large quantity's this turn changed the nature of warfare and very much saw the end of sword and cavalry battle. Haig's leader ship and approach towards warfare was highly out dated as he was not aware of the demands of the advancement with in warfare. Haig quoted in 1915 " The machine gun is a much over rated weapon" through this quote we can see Haig's inability to see the significance of the advanced weaponry with in the war and in turn making his leadership in WW1 detrimental.

Haig's leadership was also in part affective due to his inability to be present with in the front-line, and his lack of experience with in trench war far. Haig gave commands from a chateau located behind the front line, this is turn meant that he could not make effective and justified decisions in the best of interest of the war and his troops. Historians will argue that if in fact Haig was present on the front line then his decision's and his leader ship may have be significantly better.'

Alex Jenkins

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:54 PM

Keith is an asshole, Schweik, and apparently you are an asshole-in-training. You obviously know jackshit about history OR historians and wear this ignorance proudly and I have no intention of getting into a puerile Keith-like "duelling historians" gambit with you.

As I said- go educate yourself. Or not. Before of after you fuck off. Makes no difference to me.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:54 PM

Yes Modette, I have referred to that many times.

You will notice that some of those historians blame all countries including Britain, but none single Britain out and most exonerate Britain completely.

In the complex politics of pre 1914 Europe, there are many could have beens and might have beens for the historians to argue about, but when the German armies were unleashed across Europe towards the English Channel, there was no alternative for Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

You will notice that some of those historians blame all countries including Britain, but none single Britain out and most exonerate Britain completely.

So, like you said, a complete consensus of opinion.

You just don't make sense Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

The site where Al found his schoolboy quote!
The teacher was quite unkind about it.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:08 PM

https://brettfosterspc1.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/evaluate-haigs-leadership-throughout-wwi-and-the-claim-he-was-a-chateau-general/

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:10 PM

Guest there are many interpretations on pre 1914 events and I express no opinion on it.
Britains response to the German invasions is much more clear cut.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:15 PM

One of my posts was lost.
Al your quote was from a composition by a Year 11 schoolboy.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:33 PM

Keith wrote 'but when the German armies were unleashed across Europe towards the English Channel, there was no alternative for Britain.'

Good grief! Now I really know that you haven't a clue if that's the result of your extensive reading.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:38 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:54 PM

Keith is an asshole, Schweik, and apparently you are an asshole-in-training. You obviously know jackshit about history OR historians and wear this ignorance proudly and I have no intention of getting into a puerile Keith-like "duelling historians" gambit with you.

As I said- go educate yourself. Or not. Before of after you fuck off. Makes no difference to me."
I know a lot about history, I do not agree with you, neither do I agree with Keith.
I question everything, I ask you a question and you reply with insults.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:55 PM

I ask you a question and you reply with insults.

No Schweik - I replied to an INSULT with insults.

I know a lot about history

No evidence for that in anything you've posted.

I question everything

With the exception of yourself.

Now I'm done with you.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:05 PM

Allow me to be the first to state that I am lost. I have no idea what the thread is about, why it's here or what it's for. In twenty-five words or so, would someone be kind enough to explain without calling Keith or anyone else an idiot? Many thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

Keith says all historians agree with him but actually means all historians that fit his rules. Everyone else agrees that he is a wanker.

(24 words - OK?)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 05:46 PM

I am not an historian... nor 'a' historian... not a masochist, either, so 45 seconds of scanning this thread is quite sufficient to send me elsewhere...

Mercy!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, thoroughly entertained
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:11 PM

But Bill, here we have a man who has finally painted himself into a corner out of which there is no escape. Keith did it all by himself - he didn't need any help from us. All the guff down the years from him about history, the famine and about Israel/Palestine and Gawd knows what else. All rubbish, all of it. Credibility totally shot. A laughing stock. I will say two things in his favour, though. First, you may well be clenching your buttocks but I think it's quite funny. Second, fair dues to the man - he's thoroughly incorrigible. He never gives up, and he won't now. Up shit creek sans paddle, but, to him, the scenery up shit creek is still beautiful. Who's to gainsay?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:18 PM

Thank you, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:29 PM

Modette, do you not know that invading German armies swept through Belgium and N.France towards the Channel?
They did, and they committed massacres of civilians including children and imposed a brutal occupation.
The people fully supported the decision to resist and fight.

You can ridicule me for what I say, but it is exactly what the historians say.
On those issues they are all in agreement.
I would have to be a complete arsehole like you people to believe I knew better.

Al,
the internet is full of 'historians' with the stuff Keith is coming out with.
Yes it is.
So are the libraries, book shops, the printed media and the broadcast media because that is what all the historians say.
There are none singing a different tune.
In reply you put up some kid's history homework.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 09:08 PM

well the kid seems to have a clearer insight than your experts. common sense tells us that Haig had fucked it up so badly that the only answer was the the sheer number of American troops that pulled his chestnuts out of the fire.

history is prey to fashion, and reflects the age.

in the sixties and 70's we had the age of revolution we had Taylor and Marwick.

in the age of neo conservatism Blair/ Cameron / Thatcher - we have this bunch of clowns flooding the net.

that the only divergent thought available is a 16 year old kid. says more about academic standards than the correctness of their analyses.

i notice you can't refute any of what the kid says.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 09:35 PM

i notice you can't refute any of what the kid says.

Now, Al, don't confuse Keith with facts and reality. Many before you have tried to teach this particular pig to sing with absolutely no success.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 09:41 PM

There never has been and never will be a final conclusive verdict on the meaning of historical events that draws a line under them. Can't be done.

It's no different in that from anything else in our lives. Why should it be?

To some extent the actual facts of what happened can be provisionally established, but the reasons why they happened, that's another matter. And so is the selection of which facts and which speculations the person telling the story selects. History isn't a science. (And science also is provisional in all its findings.)

It's like imagining you could come up with a definitive account of what Shakedpeare was about in writing Hamlet. Even if you could assemble a definitive text, which of course you can't, that would just be the beginning of an endless journey.

Enjoy the trip, but don't expect to arrive at a final destination.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:40 AM

"history that is from the mouth of someone who was present will not be entirely objective, but it generally is the most accurate."

WRONG the person who is present will only "see" the things he "sees" and "know" the things he was "allowed to know" about any particular event. The person who was present will know absolutely nothing of the enemy side of things. Add to that the variance among those who were present and the comparison of what it was they "saw". Ask any policeman and they will tell you that eye-witness testimony is great if you only have one eye-witness - if you have a busload of twenty you get twenty vastly different accounts of what they "saw".

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:39 AM

They didn't have the advantage of your erudite wit, charm and wisdom I take it?

Put whatever spin on it you like Terribulus but the men on all sides are still dead and the culprits are still incompetent military leaders on all sides.

No better account of what happened tha a fucking huge set of cemeteries eh?

Read the BBC News website article today about commercial interests cashing in on the jingoism and propaganda. If you and your stooge from Hertford are right, we didn't have no need it because;

"The Tommies knew why
They had to go and die
Go! The officers said
But the air was filled with lead

And gas and blood and limbs
And all kinds of horrible things.
Go! The officers said
From their warm feather bed"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,from can't remember when or which discussion
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:49 AM

Teribus - when some of us were kids most of the people on any daytime bus would have had a similar story.

But then, according to you, my grandad was a liar and I am a liar for reporting what he said, and people who were actually their "must be biased".

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:02 AM

Big Al it will come as no surprise whatsoever that I totally disagree with you and your schoolboy historian:

1: 'Sir Douglas Haig was strongly influenced through his time serving as a cavalry officer in the Queens Hussars and it is evident that he employed these cavalry tactics in his strategies. " This influence affected his leader ship in a highly detrimental way and resulted in the loss of numerous lives thus making his leadership throughout WW1 to be poor and ineffective. "

Oh dear, that doesn't really fly in the face of pretty indisputable facts though does it Al? If Haig was so pro-cavalry then care to explain to us why the number and degree of importance of cavalry units within the British Army greatly diminished during the course of the war under Haig's leadership? Please do not get me wrong cavalry were far from useless during the Great War, the British Army's first and last fatalities in the First World War were cavalrymen, it was the role of the cavalry that changed. In the 100 days offensive that ended the war artillery, infantry, armour (Heavy & Light), aircraft and cavalry all played their part. In that 100m days offensive under Haig's command a largely citizen Army that had not existed two years before took on and defeated what was considered to be the most professional and powerful army in the world – I'll say it again just to emphasise the point – All done under Haig's direction and leadership.

2: "This can be seen through the battle of the Somme in which Haig, ordered from his chateau, that men are to be sent in waves over the trenches and charge in an attempt to capture and over run German trenches, this was unsuccessful and resulted in the deaths over 60,000 men."

This is pure "Oh What A Lovely War"/ "Blackadder Goes Forth" History at its worst.   Simplistic and terribly naive and a total travesty of what was actually involved and what drove events:

a) Neither the battle or the location were of Haig's choosing, those factors were forced upon him by his political leaders back home in Britain and by the French.

b) It was supposed to be a massed joint British and French attack on the German positions along the Somme, but because of the losses the French were taking around Verdun only a fraction of the French troops who were supposed to take part in the offensive were deployed. Those who did performed extremely well, the French attack at the south-eastern end met all their objectives.

c) In the north-western end of the attack British forces ran into serious opposition (It was against these that the British Army suffered the highest losses in one day in its entire history) Joffre the French General in overall command ordered Haig to send in more troops to continue these attacks – Haig refused point blank and sent reinforcements to the sections of his line that were making progress (By the way Al your schoolboy historian got it wrong, he's slightly muddled, the battle of the Somme which lasted from August until November resulted in a damn sight more dead than 60,000, I think he is trying to over dramatise the first day in which the British Army suffered ~60,000 casualties of whom ~19,500 died)

d) At the end of 1916, the year the German Commander Falkenhayn tried to "bleed the Allies White", it was he who was dismissed, it was the German Armies on the Western Front who had lost all their best troops, it was German morale that had suffered and it marked the dawning of realisation by the German High Command that they were not going to defeat either the British or the French on the Western Front.

3. "The industrial revolution brought about the production of gun and ammunition in large quantity's this turn changed the nature of warfare and very much saw the end of sword and cavalry battle."

No it didn't. The industrial revolution as it was called started sometime in the middle of the 18th century and lasted to sometime in the middle of the 19th century, so not many marks for wee Alex Jenkins there then. The last major bust up in Europe before the First World War was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which was very much a war movement involving cavalry, infantry, artillery and railways. While Germany had prepared for the First World War for decades, Great Britain in 1914 had not and it took Great Britain from 1914 to the middle of 1916 to get its act together. In August 1914 Kitchener told the Cabinet in no uncertain terms that the war would be prolonged (His estimate at least 3 to 4 years) and that Britain would have to raise armies the sizes of which had never been seen before. It was Kitchener, not Lloyd George, who did the spade work to put Great Britain's industrial base on a war footing and it was Kitchener who raised and trained Great Britain's first citizen army

4: "Haig's leader ship and approach towards warfare was highly out dated as he was not aware of the demands of the advancement with in warfare. Haig quoted in 1915 " The machine gun is a much over rated weapon" through this quote we can see Haig's inability to see the significance of the advanced weaponry with in the war and in turn making his leadership in WW1 detrimental."

Quite strange then that he commanded and oversaw the most marked changes in military thinking in over 100 years within the space of two years. It was under his command that tanks were first used, that aircraft took over the role of reconnaissance from the cavalry, that the British Army started deploying and using heavy artillery in the field. It was under Haig that tactics were continually developed and improved to overcome the obstacles faced and implement the lessons learned from previous failures. It was under Haig's direction that the number of cavalry units was reduced and that heavy machine gun Companies were raised – Doesn't sound like the actions of a man incapable of seeing the significance of advanced weaponry does it? By the way Al just for your information and for your schoolboy pal Alex Jenkins a little statistic relating to the Somme – The life expectancy of a machine gun crew facing an attack on the Somme once they started firing was measured in minutes.

5: "Haig's leadership was also in part affective due to his inability to be present with in the front-line, and his lack of experience with in trench war far. Haig gave commands from a chateau located behind the front line, this is turn meant that he could not make effective and justified decisions in the best of interest of the war and his troops. Historians will argue that if in fact Haig was present on the front line then his decision's and his leader ship may have be significantly better.'

As a criticism and a contention the above is utterly ridiculous if you look at what was required and the scope and scale of operations. The same "criticism" could be levelled against every General who fought in the First World War. One interesting point that shows the author's total lack of grasp is demonstrated by – " his lack of experience with in trench warfare" - I would love to know from Alex Jenkins who did have experience in trench warfare in and before 1914 – Don't struggle too hard son, the answer is nobody.

Haig had great faith in his Corps and Divisional Commanders and gave them great latitude in the execution of their orders. Men such as Plumer, Rawlinson, Gough, Currie, Hobart and Monash proved themselves to be far superior to their opposite numbers in the German and French Armies and under their planning, preparation and leadership the method of all arms integrated warfare was created in a form that is still recognizable and relevant today, used for the first time at Messines in 1917 it was last demonstrated in Iraq in 2003.

6: " the kid seems to have a clearer insight than your experts. common sense tells us that Haig had fucked it up so badly that the only answer was the sheer number of American troops that pulled his chestnuts out of the fire."

Absolutely hilarious Al, absolutely hilarious. Great Britain's casualties on the first day of the Somme outnumbered the total US tally for those killed in action during the entire course of the First World War. The sheer number of American troops you refer to, arrived in Europe with no rifles, with no machine guns, with no helmets, with no artillery, no ammunition, no tanks, no transport and no aircraft – all of those things had to be supplied by the British and the French.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:12 AM

" GUEST,from can't remember when or which discussion - PM
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:49 AM

Teribus - when some of us were kids most of the people on any daytime bus would have had a similar story.

But then, according to you, my grandad was a liar and I am a liar for reporting what he said, and people who were actually their "must be biased"."

Now where did I ever claim or state any of that?

Not First World War I know but here is an example of what I said about "people who were there" not getting it quite right:

Ask any of those waiting to be plucked off the beaches of Dunkirk in 1940 about the RAF and most would have told you that they didn't turn up, that the RAF deserted the Army. That was their impression as they witnessed events. The truth? The RAF mounted a massive effort over the period of the evacuation they lost 145 fighters in the process. The Luftwaffe on the other hand lost 156 over the same period. OK you tell me were those eye-witness statements correct?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:28 AM

@ Teribus Now where did I ever claim or state any of that?

Here:

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 07:11 AM

"yes I do believe that GUEST,18 Nov 14 - 11:17 AM is a liar and that his story is a fairy tale."

A tip - don't ever call people liars to their face. They tend to remember and may get angry.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:21 AM

Yes GUEST I do believe that the story told was a complete and utter fabrication and I stated my reasons for me believing it to be so.

Same thread read:

Subject: RE: Oh! What a Lovely War! - BBC Radio 2
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 20 Nov 14 - 01:58 AM

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:55 AM

That's fine. I was just letting the current discussion know that it was not only Keith who dismissed inconvenient first hand accounts as lies.

The context was a first hand account supplemented by information from a '50 years on' documentary.

Ask the people who would have said "where is the RAF" while on the beaches what they would say after seeing an account of the full story. Ask the soldiers interviewed by 'embedded' reporters during the Falkland's conflict who complained about the lack of air support when being bombed what they would say afterwards they knew how
the Harriers were being used.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:11 AM

There are hundreds of thousands of first hand accounts resarched by historians.
They tell us they overwhelmingly supported the war and the army.
Obviously some did not, but we are told they were a minority.
It does not make those accounts lies.

History is not about "fashion."
It evolves as new information is processed.
Some here dismiss all historians except the long dead, whose knowledge has been superceded.
Knowledge and history has moved on since the 60s.
There are no historians challenging those three statements.

Please do not deny that without finding one!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 07:33 AM

That's fine. I was just letting the current discussion know that it was not only Keith who dismissed inconvenient first hand accounts as lies."

I have dismissed one anonymous GUEST's story as a fabrication and gave my reasons for believing it to be so.

"The context was a first hand account supplemented by information from a '50 years on' documentary."

A 50 years on documentary still considered to be the best documentary on the Great War ever made and littered throughout with interviews with men who had participated in the various actions who gave their first hand accounts - first hand accounts that were at total variance to the feelings expressed by anonymous GUEST's relative. He asked what the people who took part in the Great War thought - I directed him to the documentary.

"Ask the people who would have said "where is the RAF" while on the beaches what they would say after seeing an account of the full story.

And when do you think that they would have got that story? How long after the event? My take on it would be quite a long time after as the british Government in June 1940 would not be too keen on advertising how many fighter aircraft and pilots they had lost to the enemy.

"Ask the soldiers interviewed by 'embedded' reporters during the Falkland's conflict who complained about the lack of air support when being bombed what they would say afterwards they knew how the Harriers were being used."

In the Falklands the ground troops exposure to aerial attack was extremely slight, Argentine air attacks concentrated more on anti-shipping strikes. The most serious incident being the attacks on the Sir Galahad and Sir Tristrum - Had the Officers commanding the Household Troops embarked on those vessels followed the advice given them by their Royal Marine Amphibious Warfare Liaison Officer then there would have been no losses at all in Bluff Cove. All through the Falklands War the troops on the ground knew that if they called in for ground support (Fast Jet or NGS) they got it. Over half of the Argentine ground attack aircraft were taken out on the ground and they played little or no part in the battle.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:14 AM

"They tell us they overwhelmingly supported the war and the army."
You act as if you have read them - can you link us to them?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:20 AM

I can link you to the historians who have read them.
Actually, I already have.
They tell us they overwhelmingly supported the war and the army.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:36 AM

"There are no historians challenging those three statements."

That was four statements, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:38 AM

See my post to the "Lovely War" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 08:59 AM

But every historian that is put up to challenge your view, Keith, is dismissed as either left wing, not well known enough or, errr, too dead, for their views to be valid. How on earth can anyone cite challenging views if you dismiss them? Historians do not dismiss earlier research but build and enhance the overall picture. There is no one single view of 'the historians'. You know all this already but for the sake of Guest# who has joined the part late please let us know why the views of, for instance, AJP Taylor, Douglas Newton and Niall Ferguson should be discounted.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:06 AM

Untrue Guest.
No-one has produced a single living historian who disagrees with me.
Ask yourself why.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:10 AM

Niall Ferguson does believe that it was a mistake to resist the German invasions.
he thinks that the Germans would have left us alone and we could have kept our Empire.
He is very Right Wing.
I have acknowledged his view on that and have posted about it.
I think he is on his own.
He does not contradict my view that the people supported the war and the army was well led.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:13 AM

Untrue Keith.
I produced a very much alive Dominic Alexander who very much disagrees with you.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:15 AM

Douglas Newton, as I have said, has only written about the complex situation before the war.
There are many opinions on what might have been and could have happened in those times.
I have expressed no opinion about all that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:29 AM

So, we are now down to 2 of your three views are supported by all living historians? Apart from those who do not support the other two views for some other reason? So, all living historians support your three views is a bit of an exaggeration? Maybe you should modify it to most living historians who are now making a living by publishing popular works support your views. I, for one, could accept that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:30 AM

All we know about him is that he is a revolutionary activist.
Do you know anything else about him?
He has published no books on WW1.
What has he written?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:35 AM

http://www.cbc.ca/books/2014/08/what-we-got-wrong-about-wwi.html

That is a very good article by Gwynne Dyer. The focus is Canada and WW I, but it has some pithy remarks about the war in general.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:36 AM

Niall Ferguson dismisses the elephant in the room in as much that he assumed that the subsequent peace treaty between France and Germany after a swift German victory in 1914/1915 would have been similar to that negotiated after the Franco-Prussian War 44 years before.

Had Great Britain remained neutral in 1914 the map of Europe and of the world would have changed markedly with a German victory over France:

1: Belgium having resisted would have been annexed by Germany

2: With the Belgian ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge in German hands that would put German Battleships within four hours steaming of a position from which they could bombard London.

3: Germany would end this offensive in western Europe with a fully mobilised army of some 3.25 million men and Great Britain would still have her Army of 440,000. Any move on the part of Great Britain to upgrade her military preparedness by increasing the size of her Army would be seen as a provocation by Germany.

4: Germany would annex the colonies and overseas possessions of both France and Belgium. Germany could them resume fomenting trouble in neighbouring British colonies and overseas possessions, just as she had done in South Africa during the Boer War.

In 1914 Great Britain faced the choice of fighting Germany alongside powerful allies. Had Great Britain stayed out of the war as recommended by Niall Ferguson then Great Britain and her Empire would have been destroyed within ten years. Sir Edward Grey and the rest of the British Government saw that in 1914 and acted accordingly in the best national interest of Great Britain and her Empire.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:36 AM

most living historians who are now making a living by publishing popular works support your views. I, for one, could accept that.

Well, you shouldn't except it, Guest - even that is complete BS.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM

"Do you know anything else about him?"

Yes, he is a living historian and he disagrees with your views. Something you said does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:37 AM

Guest, I have always acknowledged Ferguson's view.
Because of who he is and what he stands for, the Lefties do not quote him.

So to be pedantic, one single far right historians does think we should have kept out of the war, otherwise no single living historian disagrees with any of my three views.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:43 AM

See what I mean Guest#?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:52 AM

No, I think it is fair enough Greg F. I am no big fan of most things 'pop' but I can accept that it is the best thing for many people. If popular opinion if what floats Keith boat it is fine by me but he should be honest enough to say so rather than use the hyperbolic 'all historians support my view'.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 09:58 AM

It is not hyperbolic, it is a fact.
The views I have quoted are supported by all living historians, except that one far right Tory disagrees with one view only.

Not poular opinion, learned opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:01 AM

And the left wing one that disagrees with the other views. I was using hyperbolic rather than untrue out of kindness.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:03 AM

The views I have quoted are supported by all living historians

You really can't see how entirely idiotic, moronic,and ridiculous that statemant is, can you, Keith?

So: please supply us with a list of all living historians.

Can't do it? Then shut the frack up.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:10 AM

Anyone who thinks the Kaiser would have been a good chap after a victory over France should consider what his government did to Russia after the victory there in 1917.

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is little known in the West because it was annulled by the German defeat in 1918.

According to the conservative American historian Spencer Tucker, "The German General Staff had formulated extraordinarily harsh terms that shocked even the German negotiator."

Germany demanded (and got) the cession of nearly 400,000 square miles of Russian territory, about 25% of the national population, and 90% of the coal mines. Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Finland became either part of Germany or came under German military protection.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:12 AM

I am also quite happy to accept Keith's theory on the basis that it is just a theory. There has been an analogy used in the scientific world for how theories work, based on sheep. If you have only ever seen white sheep you can very safely theorise that all sheep are white. Keith has only ever read histories that agree with the views he is espousing so it is indeed a safe theory that all historians hold the same view. Of course theories cannot be proved as it is unknown whether something outside your current knowledge, IE the black sheep, does exist. The theory can be disproved by producing the black sheep but, unfortunately, in Keith's case when the black sheep is produced he changes the definition of what a sheep is. Sad really.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:13 AM

Guest, life does have its difficulties at times :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:30 AM

Keith has only ever read histories that agree with the views he is espousing

Close, but no cigar, Guest. Kieth has never actually read complete works by ANY historians. He has read book reviews, on-line blogs, and commentary by others about what a limited number of popular "Historians"[sic] have written.

Doubly sad.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:33 AM

Here is a good resource - 1-12 of 17,064 results for Books : "history of the first world war"

There is only just short over 17,000 works. If only 10% of the authors are alive you only have 1,700 books to read to confirm that all living historians support your views, Keith. Of course it could be more or less than 10% and then we are only talking ones on sale by Amazon. It should keep you busy for a while though and when you can confirm that all those support your views we can start on the ones not sold by Amazon.

See you in a few years

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:37 AM

Agreed about the sheep guest. But I think a scientist would want to see all sheep that were readily seen, and to check that they reaaly were all sheep, and would not know that making whiteness part of specification for being a sheep would prohibit the theory.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 10:39 AM

Sorry "would know that making whiteness"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:17 AM

Greg, I have been reading histories and accounts of that war all my life.
That is how I am so sure of the historians' position now.

I have quoted many historians including all the well known ones.
However many I quote you will not be satisfied.

There are very many that do, but not one has been found by any of you that disagrees.
Ask yourself why that is Greg.

You have all had over a year to find one.
The conclusion must be that there are none.

Until you find some, I will continue to claim all living historians.

Keith has only ever read histories that agree with the views he is espousing
That is true because I have failed to find a single book that does not.
No-one else has found one either.
Ask yourselves why not.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:29 AM

they can't be arsed, co you're well known as a contentious soul who thinks the sun has never set on the british Empire...?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:30 AM

Still waiting for yourlist of all living historians, Keith. Get on it, will ya?

There is only just short over 17,000 works.
Sorry, Guest, but Keith didn't say living historians of the first world war. He said "ALL LIVING HISTORIANS". Better increase that list by a factor of 1,000 or so.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 11:36 AM

Al, why do you say that about me?
What have I ever said to justify it.
All I have done here is say what the history books now say.
I am sorry if things are tough for you right now and hope they improve.
Try not to drive away your friends.

Greg, I could not read even a hundred books.
I have read very many historians and have failed to find one that disagrees with those views.
You have failed too.
So has everyone else.
Ask yourself why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:01 PM

How's that list coming, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:36 PM

lets be fair Keith. its not unknown for you get into intense discussions with every leftie/ Irish nationalist on the site and demand truth and proof, where none could ever exist. its a bit like Jim Carro;; with is endless litany - well what is folk music if its not the 1954 definition? however often we say we don't want folk music defined - if someone comes into our folk club with something that delights -its good enough for us, Jim won't have it. there has to be a definition as far as he's concerned.

lets take this present case. let us suppose that Haig had the tactical skill of Julius Caesar, the sagacity of Talleyrand, the brilliance of Henry V at Agincourt. let us suppose all these blokes describing themselves as historians are not just jumping on the latest fashionable nonsense.

you would still be in the wrong. what you are doing is akin to going into a synagoguue and saying Hitler was the greatest friend to world Jewry. after all he had precipitated the setting up the state of Israel. you would be offending a racial memory.

the sacred racial memory of our race is the young men who were mown down by machine guns, and submitted bravely to this gross abuse. ...

the next generation won't give a shit. but we grew up with the survivors. the white crosses and the cenotaph and the poppies won't mean so much, if anything. perhaps they will ready for your truths. we're not.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:50 PM

Keith has only ever read histories that agree with the views he is espousing
That is true because I have failed to find a single book that does not.

Can you not even see that your response is false logic in itself. Is it you have failed to find a single book that does not or that you hold those views that because you have not yet found a book that disagrees. How many histories of WW1 have you read? What is that as a percentage of the 17000 that are listed on Amazon? Do you believe that to be a fair sample of 'all historians'.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:52 PM

And well said, Al.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 12:58 PM

The problem is Al, let's assume for a moment that he is right. Just suppose.

You'd have to airbrush a hell of a lot out of history in order for his two points to stand; those of good competent leadership and a population in command of the facts before rallying to the cause.

The huge casualties, documentation of the strategy of sending men over the top after it was shown that tactic didn't work. The diverting of resource into red top military police to ensure men went over the top gives the lie to knowing the cause and reasons. Ditto huge numbers of court Martials giving out death sentences, twenty or so of which were carried out.

The white feathers, the jingoistic media, the propaganda preaching politicians.




You'd have to get rid of all those before the contentious fashionable revisionists Keith idolises have something that could pass the slightest scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 01:11 PM

John Keegan though Haig just wasn't such a great leader.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:19 PM

"lets take this present case. let us suppose that Haig had the tactical skill of Julius Caesar, the sagacity of Talleyrand, the brilliance of Henry V at Agincourt"

You "be fair" Al, Keith is not suggesting such things, he IS suggesting that the "revisionist" opinions on WW1 are wrong and quoting sources to back up his view.

As Teribus says, much of the information regarding WW1 has come into the public domain only in the last few decades.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:22 PM

No, what he is saying is that the old revisionist opinions are wrong and the new revisionist opinions are right. What they are are two different opinions, no more, no less.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 02:50 PM

I thought everybody but Keith and Teribus were questioning the revisionists?

Even when he manages a post with no undercurrent, he gets confused. Still, I suppose he owes Keith a favour.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:09 PM

Al, on history I believe historians.
Certainly if there is a consensus, which on this there is.
You are suggesting they are all deluded.
That is a point of view but I could never share it.
That is what Musket and all the guest clones are claiming too.
I am happy to say we agree to disagree on that.
I believe the historians, while you believe them all to be deluded.


Guest whichever, if it is not all, why can no one find one.
Not just me.
I have been making that claim for over a year.
It makes everyone angry, but they still can not find a single one.
I have found loads.
Ask yourself why.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:22 PM

I believe the historians

Again, the monlitihic bloc of "The Historians". How are you coming with that list of all living historians, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 03:28 PM

I am not Greg.
It is the simple fact that no one can find one that disagrees.
If there were any, one would have been found by now.
I have found a dozen or so who agree.
Neither you nor anyone can find any that don't.

My explanation is that there are none.
What is yours?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 04:55 PM

My explanation is that there are none.
What is yours?

The same explanation as for any theory. That you have not yet found any. You have not yet answered how many of those 17000 books you have read and whether you believe it represents a significant sample.

My explanation for not having found any is that I have not looked and have no intention of doing so. As has been said elsewhere it is purely academic and if you could let go of this ridiculous concept of there being a black and white, right and wrong you may be able to get on better with people.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:00 PM

Amazing. You really are a moron, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:01 PM

Guest# gives an example of someone not believing that Haig was as good as others claim. You have not yet responded to that. Have you read his work Keith? John Keegan was a military historian that died in 2012 so not currently alive but certainly aware of developments post 1970. Would you care to elucidate Guest#? Either before or after Keith decides Keegan does not count?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:04 PM

It is true I have not yet found any.
OK so it is not proveable that all historians agree on my points, BUT IT IS VERY EASY TO PROVE THAT THEY DON'T!

JUST QUOTE ONE!

All those people loudly claiming I am wrong have spent a year searching utterly in vain.

If there were any, one would have been found.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:24 PM

Keegan's book was published in 1998.

"Keegan maintains a fine line between condemning general staffs for circumstances beyond their control and excusing them for their failure to understand and adapt to a new sort of war."

Current historians would point out that the British adapted far better than anyone else did.
The innovative use of artillery, and of air power and tanks was decisive.

"Erich von Falkenhayn at Verdun and Douglas Haig at Ypres had no strategy beyond bleeding the enemy to death."

Verdun was a desperate defence that almost failed to stop the Germans breaking through.
Haig had to keep fighting alongside Verdun on the Somme or all would have been lost

"On the subject of Haig, commander of the British armies at the Somme and Passchendaele and an object of execration for two generations of British survivors and commentators, Keegan is unambiguous: in his ''public manner and private diaries no concern for human suffering was or is discernible.''"

Since then many historians have found plenty of evidence for such concern.

So, Keegan is the last of the old school whose work has now been superceded and discredited.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:26 PM

So, you agree that you claim that all living historians substantiate your claim cannot be proven? Wow! We are making progress. But why should it be up to someone to disprove your claims when you are the one who is making them? You know, I think you would make an excellent religious leader. Ever thought of starting an organisation based on claims that cannot be substantiated and then challenging people who disbelieve them? I think it may have done before but you know how gullible people can be...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

Sorry Guest# - Keith has pre-discredited your guy. I guess he must have read all his works.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:30 PM

It can not be proven, BUT IT IS TRIVIALLY EASY TO DISPROVE!

So, why can't any of you manage it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:43 PM

""In 1914 Great Britain faced the choice of fighting Germany alongside powerful allies. Had Great Britain stayed out of the war as recommended by Niall Ferguson then Great Britain and her Empire would have been destroyed within ten years. Sir Edward Grey and the rest of the British Government saw that in 1914 and acted accordingly in the best national interest of Great Britain and her Empire.""

Wasn't this exactly what many of us were saying, and which Keith hotly denied, claiming that the sole cause was German aggression against Belgium.

We've said all along that it was about the defence of Imperial possessions.

Thank you Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 05:45 PM

Guest SBS....I think it is you who is confused, Guest immediately above my post recognised the "revisionists" referred to, but did not take into account the wealth of new information which has become available in recent times to serious historians.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:02 PM

By the way, can anyone confirm that Keith's patronym is "Thicke"?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Dec 14 - 06:09 PM

"So, Keegan is the last of the old school whose work has now been superceded and discredited."


Discredited? Keegan? You mean Sir John Desmond Patrick Keegan OBE FRSL who was a British military historian, lecturer, writer and journalist?

Well, I'll be.

As an incidental thing, I'd like to say hello to Teribus. Good to see you posting.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 12:07 AM

Keith A of Hertford: (From the opening post) "..... Laughable, but a group of Mudcatters, are saying exactly that about historians on the WWI threads.
Some of them ridicule others for believing without evidence on spiritual matters but do it themselves on history.
Is it just me or are they being irrational?"

I've read so many inaccurate bullshit on here,...oh, 'accurate' to their stupid 'talking points'...but completely off base, and not attached to reality....and yes, they are very irrational.....but they clump together in semi-literate groups, and back each other up, as if it gives the appearance of being true....but in reality, they like splashing together, and play in huge puddles of complete bullshit.....but that's the political way...they should stick to music....but alas, a lot of them aren't too good at that, either!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:26 AM

"Wasn't this exactly what many of us were saying, and which Keith hotly denied, claiming that the sole cause was German aggression against Belgium.

We've said all along that it was about the defence of Imperial possessions." - Troubadour

Sorry Troubadour but that was not the original argument relating to the First World War at all. On that Keith A of Hertford has always contended that:

1: The First World War was a war of necessity as far as Great Britain was concerned.

2: The population of Great Britain fully understood the reasons for going to war with Germany and backed their Government and supported the decision to go to war with Germany and that they maintained that support throughout the war.

3: That in general the British and Commonwealth Armies during the course of the First World War were well led in comparison to the armies of the other combatant nations.

As far as the first point goes most on this forum have argued that there was no need for Great Britain to involve herself in the war - That is wrong because it would have been against the best interests of the country to have stayed neutral. "Most WWI historians" agree with that and conclude that Sir Edward Grey did not have any other choice except to declare war on Germany after German troops invaded Belgium.

As far as the second point above goes, we have the facts about recruitment between 1914 and 1916 and the fact that among all combat nations involved in 1914 Great Britain was the only major power whose armies did not mutiny and whose Government did not have to face anti-war or anti-government riots throughout the entire course of the war. We also have the facts relating to changing over the industrial base of the country from one used to producing goods to serve the peacetime, civil needs of country and empire to one geared entirely to support the war effort, this was done with amazing speed and could only have been accomplished with the total support of the country. "Most WWI historians" support those facts.

Most on this forum are trying to tell us that all those 2.6 million volunteers who initially overwhelmed the recruiting offices as bad news was pouring in of a British Army being driven back and suffering losses had to be tricked and coerced into joining the Army. That they were all gullible dupes, so stupid that they must have been capable of believing any lie told to them. Most on this forum believe that the biggest lie told those volunteering in 1914 (1,200,000 of them) was that "It would be over by Christmas" - yet when asked to identify who it was in authority who started this lie they fall silent. Not surprising because you see the "Over by Christmas" as official propaganda was a myth. From records we know for certain that in August 1914 Sir Edward grey believed that the war would be prolonged and we know that in August 1914 Lord Kitchener told the Cabinet that the war would last between three to four years and that to fight it Great Britain would have to raise an Army numbering in the millions to fight it.

Keith's third point, is supported by every single metric for success that can be applied and the only ammunition used by those disputing the point with Keith have to resort to distortion. Neither Keith of myself are saying or have ever stated that Haig was a military genius, we are not saying that mistakes were not made, what we are saying is that in general and in comparison to those commanding the armies of the other combatant nations Haig proved himself to be a better commander than they were. That is borne out by the fact that he commanded an army that went through the greatest degree of change, that saw the greatest expansion, that conceived and adopted the greatest number of technological advances and changes, that rose to meet and overcome every problem and challenge thrown in its path. By 1918 even when Germany could instantly double the size of its Army, the most powerful and most professional in the world, and throw it against the British and Commonwealth forces in Northern France, Britain's two year old Citizen Army accepted everything that was thrown against it and succeeded in first stopping the German offensive then 21 days later went over onto the offensive themselves and in only 100 days succeeded in defeating the German Army - that offensive still remains to this day as being the most successful military campaign ever mounted by any British and/or Commonwealth Army and the commander of those armies and the architect of that offensive was Haig.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:54 AM

I've read so many inaccurate bullshit on here,... ...but they clump together in semi-literate groups

Wonderful, GfS. Thanks for reminding us why no-one should ever take any notice of you.

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:56 AM

So, Keith. You cannot prove that all historians support your views. So why keep saying it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:35 AM

GUEST: "I've read so many inaccurate bullshit on here,... ...but they clump together in semi-literate groups
Wonderful, GfS. Thanks for reminding us why no-one should ever take any notice of you.
Idiot."


I can see that you didn't either!......

What did I just post......about these same people being disconnected from reality......

...and they just don't see it!


Boy, Don's a dilly!


GfS


P.S. Puddle wallowers: Take notice...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:12 AM

I'll have a pint of what he's on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:14 AM

Glad to see the quality of your supporters has improved, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:00 AM

I keep saying all living historians agree on this because I know it to be true.
You people have proved it by failing to find a single one in over a year of frantic googling.
Look at the shit you come up with.
Anonymous bloggers, extremist sites and some kid's homework.

There is a reason why no living historian still believes what some used to believe.
It is because they have been proved wrong by subsequent research.

Why do you people dismiss the knowledge of all living historians?

Because, just like religious fundamentalists, you close your mind to anything that challenges your beliefs.

Political superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:23 AM

"What some used to believe", eh? Hello, the cracks are beginning to show. Or, more like, you are quietly aligning yourself with Teribus in order to keep him on board. We may not be historians but we're not stupid, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:37 AM

Explain your point Steve.
Some historians did used to believe what you people cling to.

Now none do.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:39 AM

Oh yes you are!!    You lack comprehension. Read Keith's post again and try to understand what he is saying.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:46 AM

I keep saying all living historians agree on this because I know it to be true.

No you don't and you have already agreed that you cannot prove that statement. The only thing that you can say with absolute certainty is that the work of all living historians THAT YOU HAVE READ supports your view. You have no idea of the number of living historians let alone read all their work.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:49 AM

"is that the work of all living historians THAT YOU HAVE READ "
He doesn't read - he has proved so often enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:09 AM

No you don't and you have already agreed that you cannot prove that statement.

Yes I do, and you people have proved it by failing to find a single one in over a year of frantic googling.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:34 AM

Interesting article on BBC News website today, all about the Xmas truce etc.

One very interesting point made by one of the historians about how we sanitise war to keep the population on side. It mentioned Wooton Basset and how we were encouraged to revere the dead boys and men coming back from our latest illegal war, as sympathetic media made it difficult to criticise the war without making you look indifferent to the dead sons and husbands.

Fascinating. And from a living historian too.

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 06:38 AM

Sorry Keith, I have never even attempted to disprove what you say. I do not know who you mean by 'you people' but it is phrases like that, coupled with 'over a year of frantic googling', that you cannot possibly prove either, that make a nonsense of any intelligent argument. Failing to find proof to the contrary is NOT proof of fact. Your fact is nothing but a theory and you cannot say that all living historians support your position until you have read the work of all living historians. Until you are in that position please stop saying that all living historians support you. Even the rider that all living historians WHO'S WORK YOU HAVE READ would be an improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:27 AM

Here is the BBC item Musket refers to.
It is by a newspaper correspondent not an historian.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30417641

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:16 AM

I didn't say it was written by Max Hastings 😂😂😂😂

Of course the writer is a historian. He is writing about WW1. Just like your oracle you call "the historians."

You get funnier with every post.

Although you manage to shame the memory of a whole generation with your disgraceful claims.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM

You said he was "a living historian."
That was a deliberate lie.
He is not, makes no claim to be and is no where described as such.

Except by you, who lies.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:15 AM

Since German strategy was based on the knowledge that a long war would be disastrous and the hope that a short one was made possible through quick action and by the enormous firepower of the day, the expectation that the war would be over by Christmas was probably more current in Germany than anywhere else.

A returning American businessman wrote in a trade journal (Iron Trade Review, Nov. 19, 1914: "The people in Berlin were very optimistic. I was in Berlin October 20 to 22, and a man who was supposed to be on the inside told me that they would capture Paris inside of ten days and the war would be over before Christmas. My opinion is that the war will least a year and possibly longer."

But ill-informed Britons (and presumably others) had the same desperate hope. From the Saturday Review (London), Sept. 29, 1914:

"But the gigantic part of the task lies yet before us; and we have no more patience with the comfortable armchair view that it will all be well over 'before Christmas.'"

So in the early autumn of 1914 the "armchair view" (which obviously was not that of the military or intellectually responsible politicians) was being rejected even by the press.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:15 AM

...that make a nonsense of any intelligent argument.

But Keith HAS no intelligent argument- they're all nonsensical arguments to behin with.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:32 AM

From the Indianapolis Star, Oct. 13, 1914, p. 10:

"London, Oct. 12-- Earl Curzon of Kedleston, formerly viceroy of India, in a speech at a war meeting at Harrow School tonight, ...said England was in for a long war and declared he was shocked that some people should think the hostilities should be over by Christmas.

"In his opinion more than one Christmas would roll by before the ending of the war."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 09:48 AM

Bar fight 

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 10:34 AM

I love it, Ed. Sure someone will point out everything that is wrong with it but I love it all the same.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:35 AM

About the only thing I find wrong with it is the assertion that
"America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France."

What I saw was Germany refreshing itself with a another stein, slugging Britain and France and then punching America after shouting to Mexico to land a punch too. Then I saw Britain, France, and Australia jump up from the floor and knock Germany groggy with a flurry of punches.

Then Britain bopped Germany with a bottle of Bass with one hand, then, with the aid of France, clobbered the Ottoman Empire with the other. While Germany was hearing birdies sing, America knocked him cold with the bar stool.

Finally, I don't remember anything about the winners buying drinks for their friends. But I do recall America swearing that was its last bar fight and it wouldn't go into a bar again.

It even made liquor illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:45 AM

speaking as a part time Musket, can I say that Keith has yet again called a respectable honest person a liar.

This would never happen if this site was moderated.

A person who writes about and comments on history is called a historian. Yet again, Keith struggles to keep his absurd definitions in one piece.

Prat.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:56 AM

Musket, you did claim that the piece was by "a living historian."
It was not.
You lied hoping to gain a cheap point.

You do it so readily that nothing you say should ever be taken at face value.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:13 PM

I really don't think you understand what history is about, Keith. You keep on talking as if it was a matter of proof, and it's not. It's about weighing evidence, and interpreting it and offering opinions. Evidence comes into it, and so does fashion and academic ambition. There'so no room for being dogmatic.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

I use two words myself.

Keith. What is a historian?

You know, putting aside living, having never voted Labour and all the other silly nonsense.

As you call me a liar, at least have the decency to indicate how and why.

(You can't, you lose, I confidently predict you can't etc ad nauseum. Not nice is it?)

🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:16 PM

I accept that fully Kevin, but on the specific three issues that I have discussed there is now a consensus among the historians.

I have been attacked for saying that, but no-one has found an exception apart from Ferguson saying we should have let Germany take Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:44 PM

"Consensus" can be another way of saying "fashion".

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:09 PM

...there is now a consensus among the historians.

Here we go again with the monolithic block "The Historians".

You mean the 6 bloggers you found that agree with you, don't you, Keith?

By the way, how far have you got with that list of all the living historians, Keith??

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:42 PM

In Keith's first post he said, "Is it just me or are they being irrational?"

This will be my last post to this thread.

Keith, I wanted to start a thread about the importance to world history of the Peloponnesian Wars but I won't if you know anything at all about the matter. RSVP, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:42 PM

One of the points I have been trying to make over and over again, McG. History is not an exact science. In addition to that, the assertion that 'all historians agree' makes the whole argument flawed. I am not even saying if Keith is wrong about the three points - he may well be right for all I know - but to be so dogmatic and try to back up the 'facts (read 'historians opinions') with an invalid assertion is nonsense. Sadly Keith cannot see this and insists that if no-one can find evidence to the contrary, it must be true. Flying in the face of reason. Teribus seems to have a better handle on it and at least provides reason and logic to an otherwise poor delivery. Sadly we are now embroiled in the Jim and allies vs Keith and allies bun fight that will never end well. I would leave but, sadly, I am now hooked!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:57 PM

> Ferguson saying that we should have let Germany take Europe.

Many of us fail to see what good that would have done, other than to shorten this particular war while leaving leave a fully militarized, emboldened Germany and Austria astride northwest, central, eastern, and southeastern Europe.

And perhaps "Hitler" would have been French, with a grudge against the UK and with German, Austrian, and Turkish allies. Or British, with a grudge against the politicians who stabbed the Empire in the back by letting Germany win without a fight.

Who knows? History would have been very different, but not necessarily any better or more peaceful. Hypotheticals tell us nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:12 PM

so basically the role of a historian is to justify the incompetence of the upper classes.

Haig was a genius.

Thatcher was a genius.

well its a point of view.......

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:18 PM

Not mine, however.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:07 PM

Precisely. "Hypothetics tell us nothing".

All we can know is that the history we had, with the catastrophe of the Great War leading inexorably to the even greater catastrophe of World War II, and the agony that followed, which is still unfolding, was an awful history. And that, at the time the choices made that led to it seemed sensible enough.

And the lesson should be to look at what we do today, and be aware of the terrible and unwished for things that can come from what seem like sensible choices.

But there can never be any guarantee that the choices we make will be the best ones.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:49 PM

> the terrible and unwished for things that can come from what seem like sensible choices.

Which is precisely the problem of history's "lessons."

Seemingly sensible actions can often lead to disaster. But seemingly senseless ones are even more likely to do so. And we must always choose on or the other.

Only hindsight is 20/20.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: LadyJean
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 12:24 AM

Historiography is a real word. It means the history of history. Seriously! One of the things we learn from historiography is that people's views of the past change as the times change. Because our perspectives change. Because we discover new information. Historians have been arguing back and forth about Richard III's back for generations. Then his skeleton was discovered and we learned he had scoliosis.
New information about the "war to end wars" means new views on the history of WWI That's how history is made.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:00 AM

I agree with all that Kevin.
On those specific issues there is a consensus.
Call it a fashion if you will.

I have never once invoked historical proof, but if there is a consensus/fashion among the historians, it must at least be a reasonable view to hold.

As you know, I was attacked and ridiculed for just expressing those views.
It would have meant much to me if you had spoken against that, but you chose not to.
Will you now?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:36 AM

Keith, by you fruits you shall be known......

look at the war cemetries. somewhere, somehow.....he should have stopped the insanity. you don't have to be a historian, just a human being.

he bought a dimension of suffering into the world that is almost unimaginable.

reasonable view...my arse!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:47 AM

Big Al who "b(r)ought? a dimension of suffering into the world that is almost unimaginable."?

Haig? So the Germans who started the war and invaded Belgium and France share no portion of the blame? They were the aggressors, they had to be defeated so to blame Haig is something like blaming the bully's victim for the fight.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:49 AM

Al, that is what the history books now all say.
That they are all wrong is a valid view, but is it reasonable?

Where should people go to discover history if not the history books?

You are not alone in knowing how many died.
I too have spent time in the cemeteries of Flanders and France.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 03:11 AM

See that first line of Keith's post above?

That's why taking the piss is the only option. Serious debate has never been possible with Keith. And when his inadequacy is exposed he just turns nasty. I accept he turns nasty against me because I go out of my way to invoke it but serious people wishing to have serious debate get in his cross hairs too.

Then Terribulus weighs in with waffle that makes Jim's posts look short and succinct. (Has anyone bothered reading them end to end?)

Anyway, I hear Keith's library got flooded and both his books were ruined.






And that's a shame because one of them wasn't crayoned in yet.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 03:26 AM

I have never once invoked historical proof, but if there is a consensus/fashion among the historians, it must at least be a reasonable view to hold.

Keith, the impression you give is that you are supplying us with undeniable facts. Phrases like 'you lose' and 'all historians agree' imply that what you say must be true. I read it that way and, judging by the response, many others do. You are now saying "it must at least be a reasonable view to hold" which I agree with. It is a view, an opinion, not a fact. Just like the views and opinions of various historians. Please don't come back with your usual 'find where I have said it is a fact' ripost as I am not going to wade back through all that mire. It is just not worth it and I will happily accept that it was a wrong impression. I, for one, have not attacked you nor your three points. I have attacked the idea that because the historians you have read hold the same opinion, your opinion must be right. That is just nonsense. You now seem to be saying "I believe (opinion 1, 2 and 3) and most historians currently writing about WW1 seem to be of the same opinion, therefore it seems a reasonable view to hold." Is that right? If so, I am sure that no-one can disagree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:05 AM

Were those the two he'd coloured in, Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:12 AM

GUEST - 12 Dec 14 - 04:05 AM

So you don't read Musket's posts either then.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:18 AM

Wrong impression Guest.
What I am saying is that my views are supported by the historians, because reading them gave me those views.

Of course the historians could all be deluded or lying, but do you think that likely?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:28 AM

So, what this whole argument and that on related threads boils down to is that you have a particular opinion and other people disagree with it? Your views are supported by the historians you have read while others are supported by the historians they have read? Your historians are better than their historians? My dad is bigger than your dad? Sorry but that is a pretty futile argument about something that is wholly academic anyway. What's the point?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:02 AM

Ehmmmmm No GUEST - 12 Dec 14 - 04:28 AM - Not that at all.

1: "you have a particular opinion and other people disagree with it?"

Obviously, basic start point for any debate or discussion.

2: "Your views are supported by the historians you have read while others are supported by the historians they have read?"

Ah if that indeed were the case, unfortunately it is not. While one side of this argument have read and studied the material (Including, most recent, recent, past and long past), the other side rely on selective and much narrower sources from the entertainment industry, unsubstantiated hearsay and past historical sources that lack the information available to and contained in more recent works covering the topic. If you agree with the premise that the more information you have on any particular topic the better your study of it will be then your:

"Your historians are better than their historians?"

Is correct, and your:

"Sorry but that is a pretty futile argument about something that is wholly academic anyway."

Is way off the mark (The study and application of History is about as far from being "wholly academic" as you can get if you think about "lessons to be learned").

On one side you have a point of view supported by well documented fact and extensive research while on the other you have reliance on myth, lies and fiction. If your life depended upon it which would you base your defence on?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:26 AM

Guest,
Your views are supported by the historians you have read while others are supported by the historians they have read? Your historians are better than their historians?

My views are supported by the historians I have read.
Those arguing against us can only cite long dead historians.

None of them have yet found an actual living one who still hold those old views that they have to cling to for ideological reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:27 AM

its forty years since i did history units with the open university.

i wouldn't know where to look for current historians. studying history is hard work. idid it to get my degree, but i found it tough going - not at all congenial.

one thing i did learn was to value primary sources, like my grandparents, and parents born 1916 and 1919.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

Sorry Teribus but I would dispute some of your contentions.

Firstly, opinions are just opinions and the opinions given here on both sides of the fence will not make an iota of difference to me, you or the world at large. I asked at the end 'what is the point'. I ask it again but it is rhetorical as I believe the answer to be 'purely for our amusement'. If that is the case, why get so heated?

Secondly, I still hold that study of history is purely academic. Yes, there SHOULD be lessons to be learned but the only ones we seem to learn about war is how to kill more people. Until the application of history actually prevents more conflict, in this case, it is academic.

Finally, if my life depended on it, I would not be asking a historian for advice!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:43 AM

GUEST look up the meaning of the word "academic"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:01 AM

"if my life depended on it, I would not be asking a historian for advice!"

Not the question that was asked was it?

If your life depended upon it which would you base your defence on?

A A defence based upon well documented fact and extensive research

B A defence based upon established myth, lies and fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:02 AM

I already know it, thanks Teribus, and believe I have used the term in the way I intended. Not sure what your point is. Sorry.

academic
adjective

1. relating to education and scholarship.
    synonyms:        educational, scholastic, instructional, pedagogical;   2. not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest.
    "the debate has been largely academic"
    synonyms:        theoretical, conceptual, notional, philosophical, unpragmatic, hypothetical, speculative, conjectural, conjectured, suppositional, putative;

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:05 AM

Omar Khayyam ( or rather Edward Fitzgerald) got it spot on:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

Maybe stopping the Great War once it was clear it was a futile conflict was too difficult to achieve, but drawing this futile squabble on the Mudcat to an end shouldn't be impossible.

Armistice time please!!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:11 AM

Sorry, Teribus, cross posted with your other point. It was a flippant answer to a leading question but if you insist on a serious one, here goes. If, as is often the case in law, my defence depended on people from the general public to believe me, I would chose whichever appealed to the 12 good men and true. Rightly or wrongly most people in this country currently believe the old guard. If it is wrong of me to rely on popular support then sorry, I am morally bankrupt. But my life does depend on it...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:14 AM

...and well said McG.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:43 AM

Because something is popularly believed does not make it true.

History and the teaching of history should represent events of the past as objectively and as accurately as possible - it should not perpetuate myths that were popularly believed at one time and which have long since been disproven. It should not misrepresent what occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:49 AM

It doesn't, Teribus, but you were being hypothetical in your life depended on it question so I thought it reasonable to continue on the same hypothesis. Anyhow - Done to death I think. Why don't we follow McGs advice and declare an armistice? On ALL the WW1 thread? They are never going to get anyone anywhere!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:53 AM

Sorry, one last point. The irony of your statement "Because something is popularly believed does not make it true." has only just struck me. Keith has been saying all along that because the current popular view of WW1 is what he is saying, it must be true. Does it not strike you as odd that you have just proposed the opposite viewpoint with regards to another scenario?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:57 AM

Here's a clip to illustrate Omar Khayyam's point:

http://youtu.be/c4V516KCRQg

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:43 AM

> he bought a dimension of suffering into the world that is almost unimaginable.

You mean Kaiser Wilhelm and his Austrian buddies, of course.

No one was threatening Germany, Austria, or the Ottoman Empire with attack in 1914. No one.

There is *no* reputable historian, now or then, German or otherwise, who disagrees.

Even the Germans claimed they'd been forced to wage a quasi-pre-emptive war on four sovereign nations (five if you throw in Luxembourg) because they'd given Austria a blank check to invade and overthrow Serbia, whose threat to the Dual Monarchy was minimal by any standard. When Berlin saw what was happening to Europe before the end of 1914 with a million dead in five months, it was incumbent upon them to call for a cease-fire and negotiations, which they had not the least desire to do. Because they were winning.

Without Germany's pledge of support, Serbia would undoubtedly have been deterred; if not, the war would almost certainly have been confined to the east, and probably could not have been sustained for four long years.

Hence the victors' insistence on "German war-guilt." It added insult to injury from the German perspective, but it was morally justified if politically myopic.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:18 AM

Don't say reputable. Keith hasnt added that clause to his long list of caveats yet.

😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:24 AM

"Keith has been saying all along that because the current popular view of WW1 is what he is saying, it must be true."

Unfortunately prolific GUEST that is NOT what Keith has been saying, he has never said anything close to that.

What he has said if I understand it correctly is:

That he has read about the First World War throughout most of his adult life, he has read the recently published works of various commentators and historians that updates previous histories and he finds himself in agreement with them. He did not first have a view point and then cherry-picked historians old and new to bolster his point of view. Go back and check the narrative if you want to.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:26 AM

I don't think anyone has suggested that the German government does not carry an enormous burden of blame for the disaster. There is no shortage of guilt to go around. Takes two to tango.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:38 AM

No, I think I will pass on that pleasure Teribus. Some phrase with 'red hot needles' and 'eyes' springs to mind. I will take your word for it and assume that I, along with some others, misunderstood. Keith has been quantifying his statements more of late of so I think he may understand that some of his earlier posts could have been ambiguous. As McG put above - it takes two to tango and I am happy to accept that I am as likely to have misunderstood as Keith was to have been unclear. Prolific at the moment due to the calm before the Christmas storm. Likely to be less so over the next couple of weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:00 AM

Thank you for that GUEST - 12 Dec 14 - 08:38 AM - Seasons Greetings and a Happy and prosperous New Year.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:02 AM

Sorry, Teribus, but you are being way, way too kind to Keith. He does indeed begin with an extremely fixed point of view which he then fleshes out on the fly. He states that the work of all dead historians is not valid and that all modern historians are of a mind (which he can't possibly know: his only evidence for that is our stubborn refusal to play his silly games), and he agrees with them. I never hear you saying to any "adversary" here, " hmm, you may have a point..", but at least you have some claim to scholarship, which Keith patently does not. Also he does have a track record of shutting his mind to any alternative point of view: we've seen plenty of that behaviour on any thread to do with Israel/Palestine. By defending him, you're not only giving succour to a sucker but you're diminishing yourself into the bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:39 AM

Mr T and Keith have a hell of a long way to fall before they reach the depths of you and the fraudulent "Muskets" Steve.

Not one of you admitted at any time that Keith and Teribus had a point, even when they supplied information and sources to back up their views.

Don't know how you can carry on with your one sided media view of life, do you not realise you are being manipulated and in turn attempting to manipulate others.

Interesting to watch media darling Russell B***d on "Question Time" last night being quietly demolished by intelligence, knowledge and a desire to solve obvious problems. His hysterical out bursts reminded me of you and your gang.

It was also interesting to see a baying audience start to realise what was happening; in the end B***d was a figure to be pitied rather than laughed at.

I hope the light also shone on the viewers at home and they also come to realise how media manipulation works......how the emperors really have no clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:47 AM

It does take two to tango, but only one to plunge the world into chaos.

I don't believe that the nations invaded by Austria and Germany in 1914 had any alternative but to defend themselves. I believe too that Britain's fifty-year legal, diplomatic, and moral obligation (shared with Germany) to defend Belgium from invasion, as well as its own self-interest in halting German aggression against Belgium and France, sufficiently justified its entry into the war.

Surely British interests were as obviously and immediately threatened by the German attack on France in 1914 as by Germany's later attack on Poland in 1939.

Passive resistance would have been of no use in either case.

But maybe it's just me....

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:48 AM

Al, that is what the history books now all say.

So now you've read ALL the history books in existence, Keith?

Moron.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:53 AM

"Takes two to tango."
Several, in fact
THE SLEEPWALKERS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:56 AM

That is untrue, Akenaton. I posted to state that whilst I would not agree with Teribus about the war leadership, I was listening to what he was saying about the causes of and justification for the war. I have credited him several times with possessing a degree of scholarship which justifies his arguments, if not his conclusions and demeanor. He doesn't need enemies like me (an example of which I am not) with friends like you, does he?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:03 AM

Hmm, Russell Brand. I am absolutely no fan of that fellow, but he acquitted himself with passion and reasonable consistency and clarity last night, even though I disagree with him about most things. He did that rare thing, make Nigel Farage look the complete twit that he is, and was only shouted down by a rather inarticulate and aggressive fat fellow in the audience. I refer to his obesity for identification purposes only, of course. Glad I wasn't sitting next to him.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:33 AM

Not all the history books in existence Greg, but I am familiar with the ones in the shops now and their authors.

Steve, if I am wrong about all historians agreeing with those points, why has no-one found one.
They have tried.
We have had all the long dead and discredited put up for reconsideration, an anonymous blogger we were supposed to take seriously, and an author who turned out to be 15 years old.

If anyone does come up with a couple, I will willingly change my claim to just the overwhelming majority instead of all.

You can not deny that very many current historians agree my points.
That alone should make them acceptable views to express.
So why the derision and ridicule?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:38 AM

I really think a bit more information is necessary, is it "musket" of the beer gut, "musket" the Scottish "wife", "musket" the libeller, "musket" from Wells Cathedral, or "musket" the bell ringer?

You sad people.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:41 AM

, but I am familiar with the ones in the shops now and their authors.

How many of the books "now in the shops", have you actually READ, Keith? And what percentage of "all the books now in the shops" does this constitute?

Oh yes, and what shops are you talking about? Tesco or Blackwell's?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:42 AM

media "manipulation" is highly relevant to this discussion.... whichever Musket you are.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:57 AM

> If anyone does come up with a couple, I will willingly change my claim to just the overwhelming majority instead of all.

This is called a "consensus based on the evidence," and it is the best anyone can do in interpreting any history and many other things. Nobody has godlike knowledge or understanding.

Anything else is just picking and choosing what makes one feel good (which is often synonymous with "righteously indignant"). It results in unsupportable claims that those who hold a different and better informed opinion are simply liars and fools.

Check out the evolution threads for a comparable example - though historiography is admittedly not a physical science like chemistry, biology, or genetics.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 11:00 AM

Keith, Keith, Keith! I keep trying to get away but you keep doing it! I am only trying to help. Honest. I have pointed out over and over again, and I thought at one time you had agreed, that someone not being able to disprove your theory does not make your theory a fact. No one, well not Steve or I anyway, are saying your points are wrong. We are just saying that there is some uncertainty about them, even if that is only perceived, and because of that we are not convinced. I have said, and I think Steve did as well, that I am not a history buff let alone a(n) historian so I will leave the arduous task of ploughing through the data to the people, like you and Teribus, who enjoy it. However, when you come out with logical fallacies, like if it cannot be disproved it must be right, you do yourself no favours. Teribus, although a bit long winded for my butterfly brain at times (yes it is my fault, not yours, T.), does make sense with his analysis. He is believable and makes good arguments. 'I must be right because no-one can prove me wrong' is not a good argument.

You're welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 11:34 AM

Guest, I have indeed been ridiculed by Steve and the others for expressing those views, even though I showed that a number of well known historians, including those on a BBC international list of "leading historians," held those exact same views.

Over the last fourteen months I have added more and more quotes from more historians saying the same.

It became clear to me that none of the currently working historians had different views on those specific issues.

How do those people who deny that know that it is not all?
They do not know of any.
They can't find any.
Yet they know.

Have a go at them for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 11:57 AM

I have a great idea for a compromise, Keith. Let's ask Baldrick! Best of both worlds - he was both there AND he's not dead yet!!



Well it's a damn sight better idea than anything you've come up with...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:16 PM

Keith, I do not think I have ever 'had a go' at you. Apologies if I have given that impression. I have disputed your arguments but it has never been personal. I have given my reasons for doubting your arguments and I cannot comment on the reasons other people do. I will not take sides in an 'I win, you lose' battle when there are too many grey areas that I do not know about. If it makes you feel any better I do not agree with a lot of what Jim says or how he says it but there are some things I do agree with. I do not agree with Musket on some things but he is very astute in his observations. I am sure you understand that the 'multiple Muskets' are not one person but a device brought about to mock those who believe others are posting with multiple identities. Don't take it so hard. It's only politics. Or folk music. (But don't start that argument again)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 02:37 PM

Apparently the large gentleman with the walking stick who led the 'baying audience' on question time was the brother of UKIP MEP, James Carver. Wonder whether anyone would care to comment on that?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 03:00 PM

Scot Bloke, you mentioned a history book and pointed out that the author lived.

Was that relevant?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:00 PM

I'm rather bemused by what the point at issue really is. Clearly most soldiers on both sides believed what they were doing was worth doing, more especially to begin with,and clearly the leaders believed that the choices they were making were the right choices.

And equally clearly the outcome at the time and ever since has been catastrophic. No one can say whether different choices would have been less catastrophic. Speculation about that kind of thing can be entertaining, and it might even be helpful in some ways, but it's not something where meaningful conclusions can be made. Basically it' s a form of fantasy fiction. No different really from arguing about the War of the Rings.

The real lesson to be learnt is perhaps that when you're in a hole stop digging, and don't think that loyalty to those who have gone before means you should carry on the same way they went - and that is a lesson that still has not been learnt, as shown in any number of conflicts in recent years. And in other settings as well.

The last verse of In Flanders fields is the one we should always remember, and always recognise as representing the fatal, and so enticing, chalice:

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:31 PM

Quite a bit of drift going on. I take it none of the Punch & Judy nonsense includes a definition of "historian" then?

Waiting for our taxi, I recall the concert tonight. Introducing his version of The Maginot Waltz, he said how WW1 has had so much revision over the last few years, the lessons to learn have become blurred as the establishment seeks to restore the reputation of military top brass.

I sat smiling. Perhaps real people read Mudcat too?

Anyway, off to err Wells Cathedral apparently. I think I know where Wells is. I used to see the signs for it when we used to go to Glastonbury. (Any idea what the worm is rattling on about? I somehow doubt he is a Freemason you know. I didn't think they let the lower orders in.)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:56 PM

you've got to admit its odd all the historians have come to the same conclusion all at once. it never occurred to anyone before that he was anything but a completely useless wanker.

i've been reading about this 1988 book by Laffin that comes to somewhat different conclusions. everybody says it was biassed. but how come he came to sensible conclusion whereas Keith would seem to be asking us to accept that these vile acts of murder follow a rationale that was not utterly depraved.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 02:52 AM

You can not deny that those highest profile historians agree with me.

Right or wrong that makes them reasonable views so the ridicule and abuse are misplaced.

You say there must be other historians who disagree, but you can not name one.

That is not a strong case.
That is open to ridicule.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 03:33 AM

See? Even Keith gets bored of perpetuating myth.

He is copying and pasting his own posts now. Must have run out of living, eminent, highest profile, non Labour voting "historians."

By the way, I have decided that henceforth I am a historian.

Live with it, peasant.

🙊🙉🙈

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:53 AM

You would rightly ridicule me if I used extremist sites as evidence.
If you quote Counterfire, a revolutionary activist site, expect the same.
Gary Sheffield is a Labour voter and my views are his views.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:58 AM

The Independent.

Professor Gary Sheffield of the University of Wolverhampton, who was praised by Mr Gove for his recent study of Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force whose Western Front offensives cost nearly one million British lives, said it was not a question of ideology.

"Mr Gove's politics and mine are pretty different but the view he has put forward is right. What he was wrong about however is that there is a left-right split – there isn't," he said.

"The publicity that has been kicking off around the centenary has reflected the Black Adder point of view although he (Mr Gove) is wrong to single it out – it is satire not documentary."

Professor Sheffield said mainstream historians had been revising their opinions of the conflict over the past three decades overturning the "bad war" theory which had taken hold in the 1930s.

"The war was fought for defensive reasons and Europe would have been a very dark place if Germany had not been defeated. Imperial Germany wasn't as bad as Nazi Germany but it was bad enough," he said. "We don't want this year to be a jingoistic carnival of celebration but rather a sober understanding that what Britain was fighting for was important. It was a war against aggression," he added.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cambridge-history-professor-hits-back-at-michael-goves-ignorant-attack-9037502.htm

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:12 AM

The BBC put Sheffield and Hastings on their international list of "ten leading historians" of WW1.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

From quote above,"Professor Sheffield said mainstream historians had been revising their opinions of the conflict over the past three decades overturning the "bad war" theory which had taken hold in the 1930s."

You people are clinging to old, discredited myths.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:29 AM

Steve, Teribus agrees unequivocally with Keith's views on this issue (IMO), but you have seen fit to abuse and attempt to ridicule Keith at every opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

Ridicule because he is incapable of supporting his views except by digging up long dead historians.

He should read again how Clark and Tayor were scathingly dismissed in th Guardian this week.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:37 AM

that's because we are old enough to have had contact with people for whom the war was a very bad war indeed.

we may be old and discredited, but it seems to me that distance is leading to enchantment.

we lost an entire generation of the young, and the talented because of the old and unimaginative. any alternative to going to war was worth considering, because it was a fucking bad idea. My grandfather was a professional soldier, and he served in both the Boer War and the First World War. He maintained that after the horrendous experiences of the Boer war, they knew damn well exactly what was about to happen.

there are always alternatives to going to war, but they don't have quite the same profit potential for the movers and shakers.

i take my late Grandad's word over some armchair professional twaddler any time - what ever his political beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:43 AM

No-one is making you believe the findings of the historians.

Just do not ridicule and insult people who believe historians know more about history, or who learn history from the history books they write.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 06:24 AM

I like the bit about Sheffield which Keith started his quote with. ".. Who was praised by Mr Gove..."

Not much point in carrying on reading it. I'd miss out on arse scratching time. It was on the Internet, it must be true.

Tell me Keith. When you watch a shampoo advert, do you sit making notes when the hired bimbo says "here comes the science!"

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 06:40 AM

It was in the Independent with real quotes from real historians.

You refused to read it!

Like any superstitious fundamentalist you close your eyes, ears and mind to any and all evidence that challenges your beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 07:51 AM

"No-one is making you believe the findings of the historians"
Very true - you've managed to go through life without doing so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:02 AM

John Laffin was a professional journalist and a teacher of English and history in secondary schools.

More:

http://www.johndclare.net/wwi3_laffin_polemic.htm

The easily accessible review by "top cat1980" at Amazon.com is also informative:

http://www.amazon.com/British-Butchers-Bunglers-World-War/product-reviews/B000TYWJ60/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOne

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:06 AM

I have read it. I was referring to your withering post.

Pillock.

😴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:08 AM


I like the bit about Sheffield which Keith started his quote with. ".. Who was praised by Mr Gove..."
Not much point in carrying on reading it.

Like the most superstitious of religious fundamentalist, you close your eyes, ears and mind to any and all evidence that challenges your beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:16 AM

Tsk. Shouldn't you be out praying with the other 0.001% of Hertford?

Say one for the war dead whilst you are there. Make up for the shameful slur you keep piling on them.


💀💀💀💀💀

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:24 AM

No slur ever from me.
It is you who claim they were too simple to understand anything.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:46 AM

Really? If they were well led, the massive number of casulties was planned. Heavy losses were a tactic. Or the men weren't capable of doing what was asked of them.

Either way fits "well led" and either is an insult to their slaughter.

Did you say that prayer? What did the little baby Jesus have to say on the matter?

🙈🙉🙊

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:57 AM

Strangely enough I remember an interview with the late Ewan MacColl where he spoke of his dislike of Oh What a Lovely War for exactly the opposite reasons, Keith.

He said something like, I knew Theatre Workshop was going along the lines with that show. We Had old Generals coming out, saying What a damn fine show! All those wonderful songs.....

in other words really to that generation, who were even closer than we were - it was rather too light on the horror of the war, and moral turpitude of the Generals.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:04 AM

Did you read that piece about how veterans responded to the show?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 07:06 AM

Musket, the surivors themselves felt that the leadership was good.
They actually revered Haig.
Too simple to understand I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 09:26 AM

Are you sure about that?

Really?

Does it include George Cooper? Do you think he revered Haig?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 10:03 AM

Can you link us to any of your claims Keith?
No?
I thought not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 12:13 PM

'Too simple to understand I suppose'

they would have been simple indeed....none of mine or my wife's relatives were that daft.

i really do think you are being seriously misled Keith. these people need controversy, more than they need truth.

i wish i could express the anguish and resentment that was just common conversation when iwas a kid.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 01:13 PM

For Jim, an Irish Times link.





First published:Wed, Oct 22, 2014, 00:00












Few historical figures were so revered in life yet vilified after their death than Douglas Haig, the commander-in-chief of the British Army during the first World War.

When Haig died in 1928, a day of national mourning was declared in Britain. "Not within living memory had the nation accorded to any of its sons such a demonstration of loyalty, fidelity and affection," wrote one commentator at the time.

Haig ended the first World War as a hero. Despite the appalling slaughter of 1.1 million British and Commonwealth military dead, the British public believed the first World War was a just war and Britain had triumphed.

However, the reverence accorded to him in death did not survive the demolition of his reputation by the former British Prime Minister David Lloyd-George in the 1930s.

The relationship between Lloyd-George and Haig was one of the great psychodramas of the first World War. The brilliant, self-made and loquacious Welshman and the stolid Scot, who was born into a life of privilege, detested each other. Haig had a disdain for politicians and resented their interference. The disdain was reciprocated with interest.
http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/irish-doctor-defends-haig-1.1950996

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 01:24 PM

In 1928 came the death of Sir Douglas Haig, the Commander of the BEF. Reviled by his critics, the taciturn Scot was, as Todman reminds us, revered by the vast majority of his men, though possibly more for his tireless work in setting up the British Legion than for his military competence. (The vast turnout for his funeral was probably the largest public demonstration in Britain between the wars).
http://www.historytoday.com/nigel-jones/first-world-war

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 01:33 PM

He was a hugely popular public figure in the post WW1 years and revered by those who served under him. His death in 1928 was a major occasion for mourning. Only later was he heavily criticized for the slaughter of the trenches.

http://www.shimply.com/p/douglas-haig-the-preparatory-prologue-1861-1914-diaries-and-letters-by-douglas-scott-9781844154043-p147

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 01:46 PM

But Canberra-based military historian Peter Stanley of the University of NSW was scathing at the idea of the name change.

Professor Stanley conceded that Haig's reputation has been patchy over the decades, but to change the name of the park would be ''grotesque revisionism''.

''The park was named after Douglas Haig because at the time he was regarded – justifiably – as the general who had led the British empire's armies to victory on the Western Front,'' Professor Stanley said.

''Haig's reputation has been both attacked and defended. The thrust of current military historical thinking is that he did as good a job as could have been done.

''To rename the park would be grotesque and unjustifiable revisionism.''
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/push-to-remove-douglas-haigs-name-from-park-20140810-102j2t.html

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 02:14 PM

Until his death in London in 1928, aged 66, DH continued to serve on various Great War ex-servicemen's welfare committees and charities such as The Haig Fund and The Haig Homes. His relatives certainly believed that the strain so incurred was instrumental in his relatively early death.

At DH's state funeral more than 30,000 military veterans followed the cortege to his final resting place at Dryberg Abbey near Alnwick, Northumberland, England. It was said to be the largest assemblage of British subjects at such a public event up to that date. That so many of his former soldiers made the effort to travel to this isolated place is quite extraordinary. One can only wonder how many would have turned out if the ceremony had taken place in one of the more densely populated area of the country.
http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/71-gen-ls/227-haig-command-great-war.html

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:33 PM

Talking to yourself again, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:08 PM

Don't think so Greg, it's just that they have run out of ideas.

I'm afraid they will just have to accept the general concensus on the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:08 PM

no explaining to me his beliefs. i can think of no way to convince you, Keith. but just think of the hoo hah at Churchill's funeral.

do you find it hard to believe that churchill was utterly detested by many many serving men - i can assure you, he was.

i knew a guy who worked on a anti aircraft gun. he used to tell me the war years were the best years of his life. he thought the sun shone out of WC's arse. his wife did, and his kids did.

the people who actually did the killing and dying were probably a bit more measured in their praise. my dad hated the fucker. i don't think he was on his own - hated the grandiosity, the talk of acceptable casualties, the mad ventures like Dieppe, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:20 PM

Churchills's funeral did not come close.
Not even Diana's.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:24 PM

Dream team of Keith A and ake strike again.

What is it about judging some one by the company they keep?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:29 PM

I certainly judge you by the company you keep.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:33 PM

I am astounded by your wit ake. How do you do it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 08:37 PM

sorry.....in what way didn't they come close. i sat in church the week of his funeral - the sermon was on how we needed another Churchill.....it was national phenomenon.

don't you remember?

Princess Di.....did they mass at every train station carrying the body, like they did for Di at every motorway bridge.

I think you are ......deluded.

There aren't really a lot of statues to the bloke.....doesn't that say something to you?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:33 AM

Wonders never cease. Akenaton was actually correct when he spoke of the consensus.

Unfortunately, he mean't Keith, Terribulus, Michael Gove, out of context quotes from a select few historians and that bloke in Doncaster market who shouts at lampposts.

The consensus is as it always was. Poor leadership leading to unnecessary deaths of men caught up in the jingoism and propaganda of the day.

You know, just like "the historians" actually conclude.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:06 AM

"No-one is making you believe the findings of the historians."
One of your historians has just pointed out that nobody has a clue how good a general haig was - care to comment on that?
Any chance of your substantiating your lies about historians backing up your argument - a few simple links should do it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:42 AM

On a bitter February day, a million people lined the route in London.
Hundreds of thousands qued in the driving sleet for hours to pass his body.
"At DH's state funeral more than 30,000 military veterans followed the cortege to his final resting place at Dryberg Abbey near Alnwick, Northumberland, England. It was said to be the largest assemblage of British subjects at such a public event up to that date. That so many of his former soldiers made the effort to travel to this isolated place is quite extraordinary. One can only wonder how many would have turned out if the ceremony had taken place in one of the more densely populated area of the country."

This is all hard evidence that the man was overwhelmingly loved not hated.
You can see it all on Pathe News.
Why do you feel driven to close your eyes, ears and minds to all this?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:43 AM

Hundreds of thousands queued in the driving sleet for hours to pass his body in Edinburgh.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 06:25 AM

Earl Haig is buried in the ruins of Dryburgh Abbey just North of Melrose in the Scottish Borders.

Haig's Grave - Dryburgh Abbey

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 06:37 AM

But Keith, the guys who gave us Pathe News are all dead...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:18 AM

No new film has come to light that discredits their film, so its OK Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:27 AM

Having entered this relatively late in the day can I ask you a favour, Keith. Can you post a link to where you first posted the three points you mention and where you said that all historians now agree with them. That way we may avoid the continuous pantomime repetition of "Yes he did, no he didn't!" Thanks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:29 AM

Or in fact, even easier, you keep mentioning 'over a year' and '14 months', can you link me to what started this whole thing off please? Ta.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:47 AM

"Why do you feel driven to close your eyes, ears and minds to all this?"
Your own historian has pointed out that, as far as they are concerned, Haig's leadership is in doubt - o conclusion.
Are you choosing to close your eyes to this, despite your hiding behind historians for your argument?
Your historian is still living b.t.w. - so he must be right!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:51 AM

Guest, just refresh the Armistice discussion thread and Christmas truce thread.
I first made my 3 claims in November 2013 in those threads.

While others complain about our discussion, you want to join it?
Why now?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM

No particular reason, Keith.

The only threads I can find with the word "Armistice" are -
Armistice 2014         
9
        12 Nov 14 - 09:34 PM
Armistice Pals         
8
        09 Nov 14 - 04:21 PM
Armistice poem         
3
        12 Nov 10 - 09:21 AM
Song for Secular Armistice Day         
15
        24 Aug 07 - 09:04 PM

None of them seem to have November 2013 posts in them. The onlt thread I can find with the words "Christmas truce" is
The Christmas Truce         
14
        13 Dec 14 - 03:30 AM

Again, no posts from November 2013.

Can you be a bit more specific? Thanks again.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:00 AM

What's up Keith? A bit concerned that someone is asking you to justify?

Haig's funeral and all the outpouring of grief. Reminds me of Jimmy Saville laying in state in Queens Hotel in Leeds whilst people queued to pay their respects.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:30 AM

Armistice Day Thread November 2013:

1: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:39 PM

Musket.
I doubt Taylor supports your view as your view isn't easy to fathom.

My view is easy to fathom.
1. Britain had to fight. (Taylor and all the other historians agree)

2. Our people understood and accepted the need to fight. (Taylor and all the other historians agree)

3. The British Army was well and effectively led. (Taylor disagreed, but all the military historians do agree, and Taylor was politically motivated.)

2: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 09:22 AM

Musket.
Can you please state the items that have consensus. You haven't yet.

Certainly.

1. Britain had little choice but to stand against the invading German armies.
2. The people understood and responded by volunteering.
3. Despite some disasters as the new warfare was mastered, the British Army was well led.

3: Teribus - PM
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 09:06 AM

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

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

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

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

1. That overall the army was well led.

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

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

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

3. People mostly volunteered because they understood that.

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

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:43 AM

Many thanks Teribus.

Truce thread,
thread.cfm?threadid=133984&messages=807

Armistice thread,thread.cfm?threadid=152785&messages=777

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:46 AM

Thanks Teribus - They were off my page when I did the search and I only spotted the results linked to 'above the line' threads.I will get used to the search facility eventually. In the meanwhile, thanks for the help. So, in summary, those three points and whether 'all historians agree' are what is being argued about? And this has been going on since November last year? Crikey.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

That's a link to two huge threads, not to quotes by historian - are you out of your mind?
Piss off Keith
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:23 PM

"And this has been going on since November last year? Crikey."
Much longer than that.
Keith has developed a technique that, whenever he rns into a snag, he invents mythical historians who, he says, prove his case.
He refuses to tell us exactly what they say, s here, and more often as not, they have a habit of blowing up in his face, also as here (see Irish Famine thread).
He has no intention of linking us to what he claims, as is pretty obvious.
He will no go on tho claim that his linking to two massive threads have proved his point - hope the bookies isn't closed!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:32 PM

yes but requoting bollocks doesn't make it other than bollocks.

It just reminds everyone how cherry picking and context bending is live and well in Hertford.

In the words of Keith, "thanks Teribus."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:44 PM

Jim, you are telling lies about me.
Anyone who looks at any of these threads will see me quoting the actual words of named historians.

Have you found one that contradicts me yet?
Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:34 PM

well lets just agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:30 PM

Of course Al.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:16 PM

"Have you found one that contradicts me yet?"
You refuse to link us to one single statement we can challenge - even funnier that.
This non-historian clown has just put up a quote from a historian to prove he has a consensus then has attempted to withdraw it because he hadn't read it properly and it turned out to be saying the opposite.
It's getting more like a Kafka novel by the minute.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:27 PM

i think its obvious that Keith believes what he does quite sincerely. just as i have my rather oddball views about the nature of folk music.

we disagree with you Jim. it doesn't make us clowns.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 02:40 AM

"we disagree with you Jim. it doesn't make us clowns."
Didn't know you did Al - what you say has made far more sense that Keith has offered so far
Keith's clownism doesn't come from his disagreements - it is the crass way he has gone about things.
He bases his arguments on historians he hasn't read and he goes on to claim that the only opinion worth taking notice of are those same historians (which he hasn't read) - worth saying this twice.
He claims to have proved his point by providing definitive evidence from historians (which he hasn't read), yet he refuses to link us to that evidence.
In fact, all he has done is provided us with a list of names of historians (which he hasn't read), because they appear to agree with his arguments on one point or another - not one of them have confirmed, or even mentioned all of the three points he has now reduced his arguments to - not one single one (he could, of course, prove that this is not the case by linking us to them - he claims there are twelve - in fact there are around six out of around 100 historians studying World War One - he was given the list, but he says it is too big for him to read).
On the basis of this tiny number of historians (which he has not read) he claims that there is an overwhelming (if not monolithic) view of World War one which has overturned everything we have been brought up to believe over the last half century - even though these historians have admitted that they are in the minority and have set out to "change the popular view of history"
He has claimed that the only opinion of importance is that of those with a University education and letters after their name (qualified historians) while at the same time, claiming the support of a tabloid journalist (Max Hastings), with no letters after his name (unless you count a knighthood) and no formal historical qualifications.
He dismisses the word of the men who fought in the trenches (presumably because they have no letters after their name) and suggests that they are liars and attention seekers when their opinions differ with his own - a pretty disgusting way to describe those who riked their lives for Britain.
In his desperate attempt to provide evidence for his argument, he puts up a site in support of General Haig - when he finds that th writer doesn't support his case, he hastily attempts to unsay what he has just said because the writer doesn't have letters behind his name (there is a name for a society run entirely by academics - som 'ocracy' or 'archy' - I'm sure someone can remind me.
All he has managed to prove is that he doesn't even read his own postings, let alone history books.
That, for me, is a sign of true clownism - high farce, in fact.
That we all should aspire to such heights of scholarship.
Wsan't referring to anybody else Al - just Keith, so don't try to deprive him of his truely earned notoriety.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:59 AM

"requoting bollocks doesn't make it other than bollocks."

I know Muppet that is why I am amazed that you persist in doing precisely that.

Now which one are you again the fat bloke, the gay Musket (Hmmm not a bad name for a rather dodgy club that) or the typical "Bully's mate", giggling hyena Musket?

At least looking through the threads on this topic of WWI It can be seen that anything stated by the side generally supporting the three contentions voiced by Keith come in the form of reasoned argument, supported by fact and substantive links. What we get from the likes of you eedjits are snide remarks, personal insults, deflection and "Made-Up-Shit". C'mon tell us again about those RED TOPS (No military policeman has ever been called a RED TOP the only time I ever heard of something being called a RED TOP during my time in the forces the person was referring to an Air-to-Air Missile which quite appropriately did have a RED TOP)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:11 AM

It is so easy to find all the historians publishing on WW1.
We have, and they all support us.
You are not going to find one now.
When are you going to give it up?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

look Jim, i don't agree with Keith. someone so positive about their point of view is almost guaranteed to be wrong.

describing the bugger who killed off half my family as competent is actually offensive.

but i think Keith really believes this stuff, and if historians are writing it this way - what can we do? not much. Keith and Terribus are probably the first in line for a whole load of deluded people.

Its like when Sir Thomas More wrote the history of Richard III as a skunk. the rich people won the war. they always do. they write the histories.

can't blame the bloke. he knows what he's read. I know what I was told by people who were there. he can't blame me.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:16 AM

"describing the bugger who killed off half my family as competent is actually offensive."

Killed off half your family did he?? What personally? or were any of the enemy involved? I take it that they, like my grandfathers, had enlisted and that they were aware that there was a war on and had some understanding of what that might involve?

Just as well that they fought under Haig in the BEF and that they were of the family that gave us "Big Al Whittle", because if they had been French as opposed to British and given us "le Grand Al Whittle" it would have been two-thirds of your family killed off and of course had they been German as opposed to British then there wouldn't have been a "Gross Al Whittle" at all so competent was their leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:19 AM

It isn't the conviction of the two disgraceful clowns that gets my goat, after all my mate genuinely thinks the moon landings were a con and they landed in Arizona. Other than that, he's house trained and doesn't bugger off to the bog when its his round. Can't ask for more in a mate.

No. It's the insistence that those who aren't blinkered by establishment attempts to sanitise the reputation of those responsible for deaths are somehow liars.

Rather pathetic really. Just read Terribulus's attempt at a joke above. Or Keith's backfire attempt at mockery when he started this thread.

Notice how pointing out political aspects of historians, then fantasising over the physical attributes of other contributors....

No. It isn't conviction. It's personality disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:21 AM

Again nothing to add

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:31 AM

Stop trying to add it then.

My tuppence.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 07:25 AM

It's the insistence that those who aren't blinkered by establishment attempts to sanitise the reputation of those responsible for deaths are somehow liars.

So you believe that the historians are lying to save the "establishment" whose members are so long dead.

Funny how from 1930 to 1970 "the establishment" was fair game for them!
What has changed?

You seem to finally accept that I am just saying what the historians are saying.
Your case is that they are all lying.

Lets us all agree to differ on that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 09:40 AM

i think its obvious that Keith believes what he does quite sincerely

That don't make it any less total bullehit.

Madison Grant was sincere as well, and look what HE spawned ca. 1939.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 11:42 AM

"We have, and they all support us."
Then link us to them - simple as that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM

Jim, I have been linking you to quotes from historians for over a year.
Denying that shows either stupidity or desperation.
I could sit down for half an hour copying them on to one of these threads, but no doubt you would deny it all over again.

There are several already on these threads anyway.
And, still none from your side.

Al, it is so sad that you never had a chance to know those family members.
An older cousin to my fathere died in France too.

They went out, willingly in the vast majority of cases, to save Europe and Britain from a cruel invader.
Their leaders were not incompetent fools, but no-one knew how to fight such a war.

There were as many views afterwards as there were surivors, but from 1918 to about 1930 they overwhelmingly believed the war to have been right and Haig and the leadership worthy.

After that Lloyd George got his knife into the now dead Haig, and class war advocates denigrated the officer class with powerful propaganda.
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:10 PM

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

I wish to pursue this statement. Give me the Guardian link please.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 11:11 PM

the point is Keith that the Boer war and to some extent the American civil war showed what was likely to happen. my grandfather always reckoned the fighting conditions in the Boer war were actually worse than in the trenches. i don't really buy this idea that it was all a complete surprise that approaching a machine gun nest was a tricky business.

my family lost four members that i know of in the trenches. i'm sure some families came off much worse. they didn't go off willingly in every case. some like my grandad were in a military reserve, and they had to leave their homes and businesses. others got nagged and conned by the posters and propaganda and white feather giver outers.

i think the problem with your analysis is that it implies we must accept the inevitability of war. could Germany have been brought to heel by no other means. its something we don't know. We defeated the Soviet empire without embracing open nose to nose mayhem. i believe there has to be alternatives.

when the dogs of war are loose, its no use whining about the use of torture. or any kind of bestial behaviour. and as for military genius - read War and Peace - for Tolstoy's brilliant expose on so called military genius. once the fighting starts the genie is out of the bottle - anything can and does happen. and no one has any real control.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 02:04 AM

"could Germany have been brought to heel by no other means. its something we don't know."

No and yes we do know - all you have to do is read up on it.

The plain fact of the case was that as soon as Germany mobilised its forces in the west, i.e. the forces assigned under Von Moltke's modified Schlieffen Plan, they had to move as they could not be held in waiting on German soil.

Now the Serbs could mobilise then stand their troops down.
The Austro-Hungarians could mobilise their troops then stand them down.
The Russians could mobilise their troops then stand them down.
The French could mobilise their troops then stand them down.
The British could mobilise their troops then stand them down.
For their war plan to work the Germans could NOT.

The ONLY window of opportunity to prevent the war from happening occurred between the 28th July and the 31st July, 1914. By the 25th July Serbia had virtually capitulated to all but one of the ten Austrian demands - the Kaiser opted for war:

1st August Germany orders full mobilisation and declares war on Russia
2 August 1914, Germany invades Luxembourg and demands that German armies be given free passage through Belgian territory.
3rd August Belgium refuses free passage to German troops, Germany declares war on France.
4 August, German troops invaded Belgium. Great Britain declares war on Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 03:39 AM

Yeah I remember seeing some such stuff Terribulus, on The History Channel.

Although of course it was a programme debunking myths.

All opinions of course, but you and your mate with toy soldiers insist on opinions you like being the truth.

First was that if our attitude, both government and family, towards The Kaiser had been a bit less of humiliating him, the doves in his government may have prevailed.

Second was "poor little Belgium." We were busy negotiating an imperial pact with Belgium to help them out of their empire hole. Our experiences in South Africa and growing discontent in India meant the damned scrap of empire was crumbling. Ulterior motive in our relationship with Belgium, and Germany, not to mention Austro Hungary etc were needing stable trading in far shores.

Any thoughts of western powers showing concern for the citizens of neighbours are rather far fetched to say the least. It was greedy government being assured by incompetent military that "going for gold" will sustain the empire and give German imperialism a bloody nose.

So much for your side show eh?

Al is spot on. I visited some of the Boer War sites the other year and the visitors' centre at Spion Kop, run by us by the way, not South Africa, has a section showing how mistakes in South Africa were merely repeated in Europe and how Kitchener was allowed to carry on bungling till the end of 1915 when the government had had enough of his poor leadership and bad planning.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:42 AM

Psssst "our attitude, both government and family, towards The Kaiser had" S.F.A. influence or impact on what Kaiser Wilhelm II was all for pushing Emperor Franz Joseph into in the spat between Austria and Serbia - on that subject the opinions, attitudes and policies of the Government of Great Britain didn't feature at all.

With regard to ""poor little Belgium." We were busy negotiating an imperial pact with Belgium to help them out of their empire hole."

Really?? What imperial pact was that then Muppet?

And pray tell which incompetent military leaders in Great Britain or in France were assuring their greedy governments "that "going for gold" will sustain the empire and give German imperialism a bloody nose." - or is all this tripe just more Musket made-up-shit.

As for Boer War/ Great War similarities I just can't wait for the astounding degree of incomprehension that the three of you will demonstrate over this.

You know it really is funny that for all our incompetence, all our uselessness, we do tend to learn from our mistakes and learn rather quickly at that. Or have I got things wrong and that in reality the Boers won the Boer War and that it was the Germans who were victorious in 1918.

Another funny thing is that under the direction of Lord Kitchener amazingly enough between August 1914 and the end of 1915 absolutely no work had been done to raise Britain's first citizen army and that not a single rifle, machine-gun, artillery piece or any ammunition had been produced and that how as if seemingly by magic after his death David Lloyd George in the space of a few weeks had managed to create a fully equipped and trained army of some 1.8 million - amazing eh?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:56 AM

just attempted clause analysis on that last sentence to find out what you are talking about. no luck. you are in a confusing abusive mindset Teribus. Calm down.

pyrric victory,,,,a few more like the Boer War and the first world war and we would have the economic importance of madagascar.

how much equipment and training does it take to get mowed down by a machine gun?

if Cuba proved anything - it was there is always a way back from the precipice.   

and lastly. for god's sake THINK! THINK FOR YOURSELF! NEVER MIND WHAT 'HISTORIANS' SAY.

Who picked up the tab for the mistaken idea that they could influence events by this military nonsense. Careerist generals......or all the widows and bereaved parents and the poor sods buried under those white crosses.

who ended up running South Africa for the next hundred years the English or the Boers?

Which is the richest industrialised nation in |Europe?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 08:16 AM

Al do keep up, there's a good chap!

The Muppets wished to claim that between being appointed as Secretary of Stae for War the day after war was declared until the end of 1915 (Why they selected that date I have no idea - possibly something to do with the 1915 "Shell Scandal") Lord Kitchener had done nothing apart from bungling things. Then on 5th June 1916 when he was killed it took them one month to appoint a successor so on the 6th July David Lloyd George became Secretary of State for War and as Kitchener had done nothing but mess things up until then it must have been David Lloyd George who between the 6th July 1916 and the 1st August 1916 single-handedly recruited 1.8 million men, equipped them, trained them and transported them over to France to partake in the Somme Offensive of that year. As well as manufacture the British Army's new Heavy Artillery and manufacture all the shells required - My, my he must have been a busy boy eh?

"how much equipment and training does it take to get mowed down by a machine gun?"

Not very much at all. Now how much training does it take to successfully get past it? How much training does it take to successfully destroy it? Because that is what that Army that Kitchener raised did between August 1916 and November 1918 and they did it in steps against what was considered to be the largest, most powerful and best trained army in the world.

"for god's sake THINK! THINK FOR YOURSELF! NEVER MIND WHAT 'HISTORIANS' SAY."

Don't know about you Al but if I am going to think about something and form an opinion, then the first thing I need is information. If what I am thinking about is something that occurred in the past (In this case 100 years ago) then where do I get this information from and how should I qualify the sources giving me the information I need? Are you seriously suggesting that the considered work of qualified scholars should be ignored?? If so then you Sir are mad, barking mad.

Politicians took the country to war Al not Careerist Generals

South Africa in the 100 years after the Boer War?

1902 to 1910 - The British until the passing of the 1909 South Africa Act.

1910 to 1948 - The Dominion of South Africa was ruled by elected South African Governments. In 1931 the country was fully sovereign from the United Kingdom. In 1934 the South Africa Party and the National Party merged to form the Union Party. This unification came to sticky end in 1939 when the Union Party voted to enter the Second World War on the side of the United Kingdom and the predominantly Boer National Party set up shop again. They won the election in 1948 and the system of apartheid was introduced.

1948 to 1994 - The National Party. In 1961 South Africa became a Republic.

1994 to Present - The ANC.

"Which is the richest industrialised nation in |Europe?"

Now I think that that would be Germany, partly through their own efforts but also due to them having been brought to ruin by two world wars (that they started) and then given massive assistance. The destruction in 1945 was almost total and after their defeat they were granted a "clean sheet" on condition that their entire social and industrial sectors were "constructed" for them under extremely tight guidelines and that the country be occupied and divided into US, British, French and Russian Sectors. The Germans sensibly spent their "Marshall Plan" money on rebuilding their industry where they were only allowed five trades Unions and there could not be any "wildcat strikes" (Japan by the way was only allowed three trades unions in their rigidly supervised reconstruction). The United Kingdom, under a Labour Administration, on the other hand stupidly spent it's "Marshall plan" money on funding and building our Welfare System. Germany ended up with a labour force and means to create wealth by which it created a sustainable welfare system, we ended up creating a culture of benefits dependency.

The Hague Convention of 1948 helped Germany as did the 1952 creation of the European Coal and Steel Community linking Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and West Germany - a cosy little club dominated by France and Germany that guaranteed their financial and industrial well being. This grew with the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to become what was formerly known as the European Economic Community. This cosy little club still exists today although it is a great deal larger. It is still dominated by France and Germany who do whatever suits them best. Germany may well be the richest industrialised country in Europe but she was given a great deal of help to secure that position.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM

Steve, here it is again.
"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."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war

Al,THINK! THINK FOR YOURSELF! NEVER MIND WHAT 'HISTORIANS' SAY.

The historians do not just say things, they research them and provide evidence of their sources.
Research uncovers history.
Sitting and thinking just amplifies all your preconceptions and prejudices because it produces no new facts.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:19 AM

Hmm. Interesting that you link to an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft (who basically seems to disagree with everybody about everything). Couple of points, Keith. You fibbed when you say he called AJP Taylor fraudulent. He doesn't like his stuff, for sure, but that was not a word he used against him. Still, it's asking a lot to get you to be accurate, I suppose. Incidentally, you implied that it was "the Guardian" that said he was fraudulent. It wasn't. It was a Guardian columnist. The Guardian, more than most papers, invites opinion from a wide spectrum. Slightly iffier even than that is you choice of Wheatcroft in your support in the first place. I mean, have you read what he has to say about Israel, Keith? If you haven't, gird up your loins, old chap, you won't like it. Another case of Keith's cherrypicking here?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:56 AM

Keith telling porkies? Why, slap my thighs!!!

Terribulus, by the way changed a sentence of a few words by me into a whole paragraph just back there, saying I said this , that and the other.

Fuck me, anybody can read what I put and you misrepresented it, so what price believing any of the other shite you put, quoting sources...

Al, nobody can get their heads around "the historians" on account of it being a moving target for starters. Keith seems to put them on the same level as his other faith. Although I don't think the little baby Jesus ever sent men over the top in any of the novels he appears in as part of the New Testament.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."

Al,

i think the problem with your analysis is that it implies we must accept the inevitability of war. could Germany have been brought to heel by no other means. its something we don't know.

I have never expressed any opinion about the turmoil in Europe before August 1914.
The historians argue endlessly about the rights and wrongs of it.

I just say that when the German armies were unleashed across Europe, there was no choice but to resist them.
That is the view of the overwhelming majority of the historians. (all but Nial Ferguson)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:35 AM

I do not do "fibbing" Steve.
I was just referring back to that quote .
If you had read it when I first posted it just days ago, you would have seen the whole paragraph, and with a link so it could be seen in context.

So I was being scrupulously honest, but I naturally abreviated when I posted a reminder about it.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:36 AM

"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively"
I suppose there's as much chance getting linked to this as there is to all your other "historian" claims!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:53 AM

I gave the link just a couple of hours ago, and also when I first gave the quote a few days ago, but just for you Jim, here it is yet again!

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 01:36 PM

Naughty naughty, Keith.

KA of H - "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent.""

The actual quote -

"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."

KA of H "I do not do "fibbing" Steve."

No, you don't do you Steve. The article did describe the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent didn't it. As everyone can see. Errrr

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 01:52 PM

a bit like saying Mudcat has views on WW1, gay marriage, Israeli atrocities or putting guns in the hands of twisted rednecks.

zzzzzz

Somebody said "in The Guardian" as opposed to "The Guardian said" would make the difference. Steve is right to pull Keith up for this.

That's why newspapers have editorials, so you can see the view of the editor / owners.

In any case, and considering Keith is insisting on "historians," such an article cannot pass his own clauses, as it is not the place of a historian speaking as a historian to use such subjective terms as "largely fraudulent."

A historian would analyse and weigh up contrary evi...

Fuck it. Keith! What do historians do? Any fucking idea?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 02:23 PM

Q: Keith! What do historians do? Any fucking idea?

A: No.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 02:23 PM

"but just for you Jim, here it is yet again!"
As has just been pointed out - the fraudulent claim is a reference to a specific book by Clark - nothing to do with Taylor - you took the statement out of context to implicate both
You have rejected Taylor as a historian yet his entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica (usually written by peers of the subject reads:
"P. Taylor, in full Alan John Percivale Taylor    (born March 25, 1906, Birkdale, Lancashire, Eng.—died Sept. 7, 1990, London), British historian and journalist noted for his lectures on history and for his prose style.
Taylor attended Oriel College, Oxford, graduating with first-class honours in 1927. In 1931 he began writing reviews and essays for the Manchester Guardian (later The Guardian). He continued his studies in history, and in 1934 his first book, The Italian Problem in European Diplomacy 1847–1849, was published. A second book on diplomacy, Germany's First Bid for Colonies 1884–1885: A Move in Bismarck's European Policy, appeared in 1938. Taylor was a tutor in modern history at Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1938 to 1963 and a research fellow there until 1976. He became a panel member of a BBC-TV news analysis program in 1950 and made regular television appearances thereafter. He was also popular as a journalist and lecturer.
Though often sparking controversy with his unorthodox views, Taylor nonetheless maintained high standards of scholarship. Among his more than 30 publications are The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848–1918 (1954; published as volume 1 of The Oxford History of Modern Europe) and English History 1914–1945 (1965). His most widely read and controversial book was The Origins of the Second World War (1961), in which he maintained that the war erupted because Great Britain and France vacillated between policies of appeasement and resistance toward Adolf Hitler. Taylor's autobiography, A Personal History, was published in 1983."
Taylor is not rejected by historians, as you claim, o the contrary, he is still highly regarded for his honesty and accuracy.
His unpopularity with the establishment and their lackeys is based on his summing up of Britain's attitude to Nazi Germany "that the war erupted because Great Britain and France vacillated between policies of appeasement and resistance toward Adolf Hitler."
Now you've taken the first teetering steps towards linking us with your claims - how bout all those (6) historians you are so coy about.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM

The Guardian.
"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."

Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

Honest and accurate, unlike you people.

Jim, You have rejected Taylor as a historian

No I have not.
His work has been superceded and discredited by later historians.
I am not qualified to have an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:21 PM

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
...
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM
...
Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:13 PM
...
Me.
"The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent" respectively. "

Honest and accurate, unlike you people.

You made BOTH statements Keith and I honestly and accurately pointed out that said specifically The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Which you did. It is there in black and white for everyone to see. OK, fine, you did then change your mind but only because you were challenged by Steve Shaw. You still said the Guardian described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent. Why even try to deny it when you so obviously made the statement? You are doing yourself no favours at all.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:22 PM

"I am not qualified to have an opinion. "

Doesn't stop you from voicing one though does it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 06:31 PM

Nothing quite like being jabbed by the sword of truth, eh, Keith?

Now, as to your choice of Guardian columnist to (mis)quote, well, what about his views on Israel, Keith? Gone all quiet, have we? Apart from being a bit of a fibber, which we now know about, what else are you? A cherrypicker, or an all-or-nothing man? Do apprise us of your overall view of Geoffrey, Keith! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 03:23 AM

Oh dear..

Looks like "futility" and WW1 do go hand in hand after all.

Eh Keith?

Keith?

😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 04:09 AM

The Guardian.
"AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book,....Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, "

You fools.
Even if I was the kind of degenerate sociopath who would lie in a Mudcat debat, I do not need to because I have already won!

The points you all ridiculed have been shown to be the views of the current historians.
You have failed to find one who disagrees, and you won't.

It was YOU who tried lying about there being such an historian!
You were exposed.
Tough.

I do not need the Guardian's scathing dismissal of that earlier work.
The historians dismiss it, so you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 04:16 AM

"His work has been superceded and discredited by later historians."
Then prove it has - his Britannica entry prescribes him otherwise - it says he is "controversial' - nothing more.
The views of all six historians you have claimed (but who refuse to link to) have described their own views as controversial.
You continue to write as if you have any knowledge of history and historians when in fact, you haven't a clue on the subject - arrogant bullshit.
Show us how you can possibly know Taylor's work has been superceded if you haven't read his or any other historian's writing.
As has been pointed out, you deliberately edited the Guardian posting by carefully removing the word "respectively", giving he impression that Taylor had been accused of dishonesty, when in fact it was aimed at Clarke's book - which neither of us has read, so are not qualified to pass judgement on (one article does not confirm anything).
Your arguments here, based on your hiding behind books you have not read, are ignorant, arrogant and totally dishonest
Your cowardly practice of hiding behind books you have not read, making claims you refuse to qualify and suggesting knowledge you imply don't possess, has now become a regular practice.
Time after time you have been caught out - recently you posted link to an article you had not read, denied posting it when you found it contradicted your claims, then finally, when you were left with no alternative, asked that it be withdrawn from your claimed list of supporters - that is not just dishonest, it is downright bizarre.
You certainly have proved your point - you are no historian, you have no knowledge of history, on this, or any other subject you have ever posted on
Knowledge requires having enough interest to read up on the subjects you pronounce on - I cannot recall a single claim you have made which has been made on the basis of pre-possessed knowledge on your part - you swim in a world of hastily gathered, half digested and often totally misunderstood cut-'n-pastes.
You insult the subjects you involve yourself with (often literally, as in the case of the military heroes you describe as "liars") and you insult those people who have a genuine interest in these subjects.
You really need to take a close look at yourself and ask yourself whether this is the person you wish to be know as.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 04:39 AM

Even if I was the kind of degenerate sociopath who would lie in a Mudcat debat, I do not need to because I have already won!

Keith, if there was such a thing as winning in this type of debate and you had indeed already won, why are you still arguing about it? The only reason I can think of is to crow about it and rub the 'losers' noses in the dirt. The act of a degenerate sociopath if ever I saw one.

And you STILL said "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent." A blatant misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 04:57 AM

For those like me who are having trouble following this through all quotes of quotes the relevant post was
From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
and it was picked up on by GUEST, Steve Shaw in the next post.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 05:55 AM

The historians hold the same views of mine that you ridiculed.
None still believe those old myths you cling to.

You are reduced to claiming that the historians are all lying!
Funny and ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:01 AM

Guest was being rather kind to you, Keith, when he referred to your blatant misrepresentation. Big porkie would have been more like it. The really stupid thing is that you didn't have to do it. The accurate quote would have been just as supportive for you but, lazily, you sort of half-remembered it, faultily as it turned out, churned it out and failed to credit us with the intelligence to notice. A sloppy approach that would have disgraced any of your vaunted historians. Credibility totally shattered. So what are we to believe from you from now on, Keith?

By the way, any thoughts yet on the views of your favoured correspondent on Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:10 AM

The Guardian.
"AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book,....Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, "

It supports me not you, and I do not even need it.
It is the view of the historians that matter.
You have to lie about that, but I don't.

The current ones dismiss those old myths.
You can't accept the fact because it challenges your beliefs, and so you close your minds like any superstitious fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:19 AM

How entertaining that a desperado in this thread, just like one in another thread (The Snail shall remain nameless), is now resorting to calling me some kind of a fundamentalist, in both instances following an embarrassing public inaccuracy on their part. Personally, I've never been scared to say "oops, sorry, got that wrong", then the moment quickly passes. I recommend the approach.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:19 AM

It does. No one is disputing that it supports your view. But "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent." is still blatant misrepresentation. Or big Porkie as Steve Shaw says. Why are you now saying you did not say that when you so obviously did and why, if you have 'won', are you still here? I just don't understand.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:26 AM

This is about historians.
I don't care about The Guardian, and certainly do not need to lie about it.
As Guest said, it supports my views anyway.

Steve, you have ctiticised fundamentalists for clinging to their beliefs in the face of hard evidence that they are wrong.
That is EXACTLY what YOU are doing here.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:38 AM

So, your answer to the accusation that what you said - "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent." - is a misrepresentation is just to ignore it? And your idea of winning is to carry on fighting the same fight, even though you believe you have already won? And you call other people 'funny and ridiculous'. Ah well, takes all sorts to make the world.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:46 AM

It described one as fraudulent, and the other just as vulgar.
The whole piece supports my views, so why would I need to lie about it.

Musket had to lie that the historians in his programme contradicted me, because they actually supported me like all the others do.

Will any of you be criticising him for blatantly lying to you?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:52 AM

No, Keith, "The Guardian" does not support your view. One columnist, not representing the editorial position (if there is one on historians), said that Clark was fraudulent (well, couldn't stand the charlatan meself, either) and that Taylor's book was rather vulgar. Actually, I think the Rolling Stones are rather vulgar but I still approve of them. That does not add up to the Guardian as a whole supporting your position. Porkie after porkie, Keith. Amusing in a pathetic sort of way.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:04 AM

The whole piece supports my views, so why would I need to lie about it. So, why say "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent." at all? That is the whole point!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:11 AM

"The whole piece supports my views, so why would I need to lie about it"

This is what you posted - your own exact words:
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."
Taylor has never been described as "fraudulent by anybody
You tell us why you lied.
You have claimed that his work has been "superceded" - where?
You claim historians back your case on all your 3 points - where?
You claim to hve put up evidence of a consensus - where?
You claim that all dead historians are to b disregarded - where did you get this mind-boggling information?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:13 AM

The whole piece does support my views.
You should read it.
Here it describes the position the paper took in 1914.

"The Manchester Guardian had been very strongly opposed to war, and frankly isolationist. No one was more insistent on the need to keep out of a European war than the paper's chief leader writer and deputy editor, CE Montague. But when war was declared, he was so appalled by German perfidy that he enlisted, aged 47, dying his grey hair to conceal his age."

No need for me to lie about it.
Anyway, my case rests on the historians, not any lefty newspaper.

The historians hold the same views of mine that you ridiculed.
None still believe those old myths you cling to.

You are reduced to claiming that the historians are all lying or deluded!
Funny and ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:18 AM

You claim that all dead historians are to b disregarded - where did you get this mind-boggling information?

No I do not.
Many challenged the likes of Clark and Taylor back then too.
Now there is consensus, and those views you still cling to have been rejected.
That is why you can't find one Jim.

Do you think that Montague of the Manchester Guardian was deluded into enlisting by jingoism Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:53 AM

No need for me to lie about it. But you DID lie about it. Proven beyond reasonable doubt. You said "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as fraudulent." That was not true.

You now say "Anyway, my case rests on the historians, not any lefty newspaper." So, now, nothing in the Guardian can be relied on because of it's political leanings? What about the Mail? Times? Sun? All paragons of impartiality I suppose. What about the BBC you so heavily lean on? They have had many accusations of political leanings. If you remove all the support you claim from any part of the media because they may have a political agenda your foundations start to look rather shaky indeed. Dismiss political leaning by all means but if you dismiss one, dismiss them all.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:32 AM

Guest, the Guardian disparaged them both, one as fraudulent, the other vulgar.

(Synonyms of vulgar, tasteless, gross, crass, unrefined, tawdry, ostentatious, flamboyant, over-elaborate, overdone, showy, flashy, gaudy, garish, brassy, kitsch, tinselly, flaunting, glaring, brash, loud, harsh, tacky, over the top,)

Your point against me is trivial.
The piece supported me anyway, so no need to lie.
It takes a strange kind of mentality to think it worth lying on Mudcat anyway.

Musket actually did lie about what historians said in that programme.
I gave you the quotes and the link so you could see for yourself.
Why no criticism?
Because you are all him?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:56 AM

No, I am not Musket. Please feel free to check with the moderation team. You were caught misrepresenting an article that anyone could easily check. Not a trivial point as your whole argument hinges around you representing the views of various people accurately and this shows that you have not always done so. I am happy to let it lie at that but you have still not addressed the issue of why you dismiss some sources as being unreliable because of their political leaning yet will happily quote other sources that have other political inclinations. And you are STILL fighting although you believe you have already won.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 11:04 AM

"No I do not."
Are you mad - that has been the basis of your rejection of your rejection of historical statements that disagree with your own living historians supecede dead ones.
As you have read none of them (you have yet to show you have) this has been your sole defence of your claims, and you even refuse to back up those with links to living historians.
"The whole piece does support my views."
Where does it deal with any of your three points?
You really are something else
At least have the decency to stop faking your cut-'n-pastes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 11:13 AM

Lefty paper? The Guardian invites occasional columnists from all parts of the political spectrum. I've read articles from extreme right-wing Zionists in The Guardian that have made me want to throw up. I've read articles by archbishops peddling their religious orthodoxy and I've read arrant nonsense penned by anti-abortionists. I've read articles written by well-meaning lefties who have managed to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've read pieces supporting Ukip and other wacky parties and I've read articles by Cameron and various Tory cabinet ministers. If you don't need the support of the leftie Guardian, I suggest you desist from cherrypicking articles from it that happen to suit your agenda. As for your invitation apropos of the article you misquoted, " you should read it", well I already did. A bit more carefully than you, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:06 PM

"Lefty paper?"
You have to remember that Keith and his ilk believe Narsty Nige Farrago and his followers 'Fellow Travellers' and believe that anybody left of them should have all freedom of speech surgically removed - in the other hand, his outbursts of racist and cultural abuse have brought down from the Mount carved in stone.
Senator Joe and Eunuch Powell would have had him canonised
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:11 PM

Guest, I did not misrepresent the piece.
He used a different word of disparagement to dismiss each of them, but I just used one.
It does not alter the contempt he expressed for them and their work.

Compare that to the total misrepresentation Musket put on here about the Coast programme.
Why no criticism?

Jim, that piece says how intelligent, well informed people like the Guardian sub-editor, although strongly anti war, were moved to enlist not by jingoism but by disgust at the German war machine.
It tells us how false perceptions were formed after the thirties by relentless propaganda from the likes of Clark and Taylor.

But all that is irrelevant to my case.
My case is that the historians have rejected those old myths, and that is why you can not find one who supports them.

Let us know when you have.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:39 PM

That's a laugh is that, Keith. You said he referred to Taylor as fraudulent, but he didn't. If that isn't misrepresentation then I'm the bloody Queen of Sheba. Tell you what. Admit that you simply ballsed up, no ifs or buts, and we'll move on, eh? That's what I do if I make a mistake and it works. Last time, I got Costa and Starbucks confused and I demeaned the wrong one. I apologised and not one person ever mentioned it here again. Know what I mean? No mud sticking and all that? But we won't forget this piece of intransigence in a hurry now, will we?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:50 PM

He contemptuously dismissed both, but using a different word for each.
I only bothered with one, changing absolutely nothing of the intended meaning.

I did not realise how desperate you people were to score the most trivial of points against me.

Any criticism of Musket's blatant lying to us?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 01:00 PM

"My case is that the historians have rejected those old myths,"
Oh dear
Link us to the proof - refusing to do so only underlines your dishonesty in making this claim
"My case is that the historians have rejected those old myths, and that is why you can not find one who supports them."
Ypou have produced sx historians who you claim (they don't and your refusal to substantiate your case proves it)
These six have all stated that they are set on changing the popular view of history - ie, they are in the minority.
Had they gained enough support for their argument we would have known about it, the teaching of history would have been turned upon its head
You have been given at least a dozen examples of historians sayying the opposite to your gallant little band YOU HAVE REJECTED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM BECAUSE THE AUTHORS ARE DEAD OR BECAUSE THEY ARE "LEFTIES" - SOME OF THE OPPOSITION TO TYOUR CASE COMES FROM YOUR OWN POSTINGS - ONE OF WHICH YOU FELL ON YOUR ARSE TO DISOWN
That said, it would be extremely difficult to find an astronomer argung that the world isn't flat, or made out of green cheese - it is not an issue.
You treat these discussions as competitions and you are incredibly dishonest and extremely stupid in trying to win the prizes
Make your point by proving it, not by claiming that you've made it - you haven't, and if you had you'd b the first to rub our noses in your proof - that's the type of individual you appear to be.
Your "historian" gambit is long blown.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 01:02 PM

Vulgar and largely fraudulent not exactly synonyms are they? You cannot expect to use one word for both and get away with it. Asking anyone to criticise someone else is simply a diversionary tactic and is completely irrelevant to the criticisms leveled at yourself. Although I do notice a pattern here. The other leaders were worse, Musket tells bigger fibs, etc. Does not matter if it is true or not. It simply does not detract from the point being made. It is also a diversion from why some politically motivated pieces are acceptable and some are not. As well as the question as to what you are fighting for if you have already won.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:21 PM

Both historians were contemptuously dismissed.
Not repeating both terms of contempt did not alter anything.
No attempt to deceive.
No dishonesty.
Unlike Musket.

Why do none of you criticise his deliberate attempt to deceive us about the content of the Coast programme.

Jim, there is now a consensus so I do reject those views once held by some but now discredited.
It is not because they are dead or lefty, just proved wrong by more recent work.

You have produced not one current historian who still believes those old myths, and you never will.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:27 PM

Troubadour.

Funny, isn't it Musket, how Keith always knows more than those who were there, in any situation?

Of course I do not and never claimed to.
It is the business of historians to establish what was known and believed by those who were there.
They have, and I accept their findings.


Funny, isn't it Troubadour, how Musket always knows more than those whose business is to know, in any situation?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:40 PM

They have, and I accept their findings.

Yup, Keith - all six of 'em out of thousands.

Moron.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:45 PM

No, it just means I get out more than you.

Talking of which, got to load up. I'm going to a folk club now. Lots of explanations behind some of the songs i sing about war, with no apologists to try to look clever.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 03:13 PM

"Jim, there is now a consensus so I do reject those views once held by some but now discredited."
No there isn't and your historians have said so themselves when they describe themselves as having to correct the present popular view of the war
If there was a consensus, you could easily have shown there to be - you refuse
You are telling lies as you deliberately distorted the Guardian article - it is your stock in trade
If there is a consensuss - prove it, doesn't get more complicated than that
Jim Carroll
Throughout this argument you have rejected alternative views because they are not by qualified historians.
The Guardian article, on which you base your condemnation of one of Britain's leading and most respected historians, is by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, a tabloid journalist with no historical qualifications whatever - YOU ARE INSANE, AREN'T YOU?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 03:57 PM

You ask why you are criticised and Musket is not, Keith. I am not sure if you would accept the truth but I will try. Both you and Musket are criticised over and over again, by different people for different things. I am not even going to say whether I believe the criticism is justified in either case. That is not the question. The question is, I repeat, why are some people critical of you and not Musket, yes? Well, firstly, is that really the case? Have you gone through the threads and compared the number of criticisms you have had with those leveled against Musket? If not, I suggest you do so and come back to us with some facts rather than assumptions. If it is true that more people level criticism at you than at Musket then you need to ask yourself why the consensus is against you. If indeed the majority opinion is in Musket's favour then maybe it is something in your style of posting compared to that of Musket. I would guess that as many people on Mudcat know you personally as know Musket. So if we can exclude personal support from the issue, it may be with the online persona. Maybe, and this is the bit you will not like, more people like the Musket persona than yours? I know you may say that a lot of the support that Musket gets is simply himself posting as multiple people. I do not believe that but even if it were true then surely it proves that support for you is greater than that for Musket and that is the whole point of a debate. To get people on your side. Is that why you will not give up, even though you believe you have won? To try and get a consensus against Musket? Even if most of his supporters are made up? It does seem a pretty pointless exercise and it is not really working is it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 06:30 PM

Good post, guest. Now Keith, here's the thing. On the whole, I enjoy a reasonably convivial online relationship with Musket. I happen to see eye to eye with him on certain things, but on far from everything. I suspect that he's a bit less left than I am for a start. You will never in a million years see me using the language he occasionally employs. What you will see is me shutting up when you might think I'd chime in with him. That's possibly because I do not happen to agree with him. Likewise, I always notice when he fails to post occasionally when I've said summat he doesn't agree with. Thing is, Keith, he doesn't slag me off, call me a liar and tell me that I lose. And I'm the same with him. Why is that, Keith? Because we are mutual sycophants? Because we are in conspiracy against the world? I don't think so. He's seen something in me and I've seen something in him that engenders a smidgeon of mutual respect, if not agreement on a lot of things. That's as far it will probably ever go. You have been a complete, pig-headed twit in the last couple of days, Keith. You screwed up over the Guardian article but you twist and turn and writhe and wriggle and your erstwhile allies here are silent, not wishing to be tarred. Being a contrarian is great fun, Keith. I love being it myself sometimes. But you really do have to have some substance behind you first. Getting things wrong and failing to admit to what everybody here can plainly see you've done is a poor strategy, unless of course you revel in your lonely furrow. Hey, maybe you do.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 08:03 PM

poor old Keith!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 03:58 AM

We have been restricted to only LIVING historians (who agree with Keith.
So far he has offered (without evidence)
Two living historians
Two tabloid journalists
Two army employees
One television comedian
Add a partidge in a fir tree and with a bit of work, he's got the makings of a song
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:39 AM

Best bit being, Musket doesn't always agree with Musket but rule #2 of The Tea Club states that "you will defend what Musket types, even when doing so in itself is taking the piss somewhat." It makes for interesting fun.

But here's the thing; Musket was only ever dreamt up as a concept in order to prick a few pompous bubbles. It is getting beyond its sell by date now. I post "above the line" under another name and like the other two, ask about, inform and enjoy the musical side.

But down here? Some rather weird people, let me tell you..

Musket 1. (Original) -Also uses the Musket handle above the line. Capitalist bastard who used to be a pit moggy. Almost exclusively does the co Messiah stuff with Steve and winds Jim up over interpretation of "folk" yet curiously admires Jim's work. Reckons to know people who know Keith.

Musket 2. - Err.. That'll be me. I live far from the other two but we used to work together and play in the clubs. I teach medical students and like to put up facts on the subject in such a way that blinkered bigots would blindly think are not representing reality. It is fun seeing people squirm. I also lead the way in questioning how moderation does not apply to misrepresenting public health statistics in order to justify hatred. It really isn't nice for gay members of Mudcat to come across the posts over the years from the "well known gentleman" who lives round the Loch from my husband and I. I always say if people read his posts and applied them to their loved ones, they'd be about as restrained as I am.

Musket 3. - Drinking partner of Musket 1. Spends a lot of time these days in USA since leaving NHS to work for a company making medical devices. Most likely to moan about spray on cheese. Joined the Musket idea after being shouted down by redacted when asking a perfectly civil question on a thread once.

All of us. - Knew each other both through the folk clubs and by coincidence came together in an NHS organisation which Musket 1 chaired, I advised the board through my role as public health specialist and Musket 3 was director of operations.

Musket might add to this (not allowed to detract ha ha) but I am sure we all thank guest and Steve for their analysis. But please note the difference between us and Keith.

We are, even when the subject is as tragic as WW1, taking the piss. For us, point scoring isn't having peolle agree with us, it's seeing Keith spend time researching our comments. I doubt we can ever repeat the coup the other day of having him view a programme on iPlayer with his notebook just to check up on us! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:56 AM

The Three Musketeers
The Three Muskets Here
Will the real Musket stand up (to scrutiny)?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:08 AM

And I am not a Musket at all. FWIW I can see good and bad in both. It just ain't just black and white. That's the way of the world I'm afraid, Keith. Love the phrase "The Three Muskets Here", Al. I reckon you should change them for it :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:10 AM

...In both the Muskets and KA that is.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:12 AM

I'm the original and best if that helps Al? Also used to haunt some of the same clubs you did.

To be fair, the Ian behind this Musket has been confused with the background of the other two, which is a bit of a bugger.

Mind you, we will take our cue from the shareholders. The technical committee reckons a shared VPN covers IP issues and whilst Keith wants to end all disagreements with everyone (nice) but by agreeing he is right (I'll eat celery first) it seems to remain "all for one and one for getting the next round in." His insistence on "winning" precludes niceties.

Anyway, sadly for some bloke in Scotland a thread has just been closed where homophobic comments have been left for all to see, not deleted, but nobody allowed to challenge it. Shame, as in shameful.

By the way, posting as some bloke in Scotland means Musket can contradict. Err but so can he if he logs in. Oh.

As we used to say in Creswell, "more faces than the drill hall clock."

And just in case Michael is reading and wants to remember that the world spins round him
😋😋👴👴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:26 AM

So Musket lies to you and that's OK by you.
Everyone finds that perfectly acceptable conduct.
Interesting.

Jim,
No there isn't and your historians have said so themselves when they describe themselves as having to correct the present popular view of the war

The popular view is wrong.
The historians have discredited those old myths, but ordinary folk who do not follow the debate have been left behind.
Some people still think you can catch a cold by getting wet.

I have quoted all the actual historians publishing and writing on WW1.
There are not "thousands" greg.

On those basic issues they all agree.
That is why you have failed to find a single one to support you.
You never will.
There are none.

Leave me out of the equation.
I only know what I read in history books.

You either accept what they say, or claim as Musket and Jim do, that they are all lying.

I am amazed that intelligent people struggle with that dilemma.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:40 AM

I would rather listen to 100 people tell me that the sky is green than one telling me that the sky is green, he can prove it with cut and pastes from the internet, he knows it because he read it in a book and if I don't believe it I lose. Does that explain it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 06:21 AM

Can we put the false names bi in context
Keith was the first one I encountered, using it to give himself support when nobody else would (surprisingly!!)
He was reprmanded by the site administrator and claimed he was doing so to expose a "troll" -(ie interfering with the rights of a non-member)
It's not a particularly savoury practice, but give us a break Keith.
If you have posted evidence of what yu claim - link us to it or stop making a fool of yourself - a joke's a joke, but!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 06:54 AM

I wish had remembered earlier.I knew a bloke that would spout forth whenever we were in the pub with all sorts of bollocks. Now, that's fine in itself, we all talk bollocks when we have had a few. Some of it is true, some isn't, but this particular bloke used to make his points by prodding you in the chest and emphatically stating "and that's a fact". You are doing the online equivalent of prodding people in the chest, Keith. This is a cautionary tale. He lost most of his friends.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:20 AM

"I knew a bloke that would spout forth whenever we were in the pub with all sorts of bollocks"
Tommy Kenny (the "lying veteran", according to this pair of jobbies) who we recorded in 1969, told us of how the officers in charge would occasionally select enthusiastic Tommies to give a pep-talk to the men - attendance was compulsory.
Invariably, the response was for the speaker to be drowned out by the loud singing of the Salvation Army hymn "tell me the old, old story".
The officers retaliated by threatening to put the culprits on a charge, so the men settled for humming it audibly under their breaths so they couldn't be identified.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:21 AM

With "friends" like you and the "muskets" guest, who needs enemies?
You are far from unbiased, as can be seen from almost everything you post, the people who read these threads are not stupid.

The myths promoted by you people have been demolished by Mr T and Keith, end of story.

There has been not one satisfactory response to the view that the revisionism of the 30's was false and that the additional information available to historians and scholars over the last few decades validates the actions of General Haig.
Having been allowed to start, the war had to be won and Haig helped to accomplish that victory.

The Germans turned out to be bad losers, but not as bad as you lot!!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:32 AM

"The myths promoted by you people have been demolished by Mr T and Keith, end of story."
Where - perhaps you might provide the links Keith won't - no - didn't think so!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:41 AM

Musket lied about what the historians in his programme had said, completely misrepresenting the message, but no-one minds.

You people ridicule the views of the historians as if you know more!
There is not one who supports you.
Your only reply is that they must all be lying!

That shows how totally closed your minds are.

Either the historians are deluded liars, or you people are.
That is the only dilemma in this.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:44 AM

The search box on the Mudcat main page allows you to look at what Akenaton said about war going back eleven years or so.

To be fair, we can all change our minds. Especially the bit about "fighting for equality."

Anyway, let's have a game of myth buster. Count the graves and read the accounts of men in the trenches.

Then look at the selective quotes about particular days of the war that Keith and Terribulus expand to conclude that the war was well led.

Demolishing myths.. That's what we do whenever the three of them print myths

😼

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:49 AM

You are far from unbiased, as can be seen from almost everything you post, the people who read these threads are not stupid.

3 points there. 1. Address the points, not the person. 2. You have not read 'everything I post' and 3. Some people are not, some people are.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:52 AM

And Keith, still fighting while you believe you have won? Why? Explain to me what mileage there is putting the boot in after you believe the opposition has been disarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 08:11 AM

Links will do the trick Keith simple as that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 08:36 AM

Jim, I have provided links and quotes for about a dozen historians.
You reject them all for various reasons, but you can not produce a single current historian to challenge any of them.
Nor will you.

Musket, you suggest "count the graves and read the accounts of men in the trenches."

We all know the count, and I have read many accounts starting with Sassoon and Graves.
The historians have researched all the accounts available.

On history, I believe the historians.
You people believe all the historians are deluded liars.

Which is the most rational view?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 08:41 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_nh4wKKlhE

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 08:46 AM

"Jim, I have provided links and quotes for about a dozen historians."
You are continuing to lie - you have listed about half a donzen and you have given no quotes whatever which back up your three claims - none
YOUR SOLUTION IS SIMPLE - INSTEAD OF CLAIMING YOU HAVE GIVEN QUOTES, LINK US TO THEM
Your claim that nobody has given examples of historians is a simple lie - you have been given dozens which you have rejected
What kind of an idiot are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:00 AM

I have done Jim, and everyone has read them over the last year plus.
The most recently repeated one was the Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan.
Is she deluded or a liar or both?

There are all the historians on one side, and you people on the other.

Sorry, but I still believe the historians.
For that you think it appropriate to ridicule and insult.

If it was an insult competition you would win.
As it is, you lose.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:03 AM

Your claim that nobody has given examples of historians is a simple lie - you have been given dozens which you have rejected

My claim was that nobody has given a single example of a living historian.
I know that there used to be some who pushed those old myths you cling to.
Now there are none.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:03 AM

You obviously have no intention of substantiating your dishonest claim, which is proof tht it is just that - dishonest
To revert to your own values, checkmate - think
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM

As it is, you lose. Yes, that's it Keith. Someone has lost, which means you win. Quit while you are ahead. Please!!!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:40 AM

You even lie about Margaret McMillan backing your case
She wrote only on the causes of World war on and said from the outset that the claaim of blame was "inconclusive"
She never wrote about support for the war or how it was conducted
Jim Carroll

While there is broad agreement about the consequences of the war, the causes have always been contentious. Who, or what, was to blame? What role do we attribute to underlying trends such as militarism, the arms race and imperialist rivalry? How important was the system of alliances that divided Europe into two armed camps? Then there is the question of which power or powers carry the greatest responsibility for the coming of war. The victorious allies stuck the blame on Germany at the Versailles Peace Conference, in the "war guilt clause". The idea that Germany was the prime mover has enjoyed a brilliant, if chequered career ever since. It was widely questioned in the interwar years, not only in Germany but in Britain and the US (although not in France). After Hitler's war, though, English-speaking historians were more likely to see a pattern of German aggression stretching back before 1914, and in 1961 the Hamburg historian Fritz Fischer made the controversial case (bitterly opposed by most German historians) that Germany had mounted a pre-emptive strike. The "Fischer thesis" became the orthodoxy for a while, but has been plausibly challenged in recent years by historians who have pointed the finger almost everywhere except at Berlin. The current consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. There is, finally, the question of the decisions made by a score or so of men (and they were all men) in half a dozen capitals. Did it matter that during the July Crisis both Austria-Hungary (Berchtold) and Russia (Sazonov) had foreign ministers who were weaker and less decisive than their predecessors? Would it have made a difference if Austria's chief of staff Hötzendorf had been less of a fire‑eater or German chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg less of a fatalist? In our post‑structuralist age, the importance of individuals within the decision-making process has returned to centre stage, along with counterfactual ("what if?") history.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:51 AM

Jim. Musket Co-operative. Stop it please! Just let Keith do his little victory dance and walk off into the sunset. It is obviously important to him and will make his Christmas. Besides, just imagine another few weeks of this:-(

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:58 AM

I have expressed no view about events before the German invasions, so why quote Macmillan on that?

Here are some more relevant quotes from her, covering all my 3 points, and the fact that historiography has moved on.

"Yet far more novels and memoirs at the time were either ambivalent about the rightness or otherwise of the war or, indeed, saw it as something that had had to be fought. And not everyone who had been in the war wanted to forget it."

"Now is surely the right time to challenge the accepted views. The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked. And was the war just a dreadful mistake or was it about something? At the time people on all sides thought they had a just cause. It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. British soldiers felt they were fighting for their country and its values; "

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 11:58 AM

The mystery solved!

The Works (that great emporium of remaindered rubbish that once stocked my line dance album alongside Gerry Adams' memoirs) has got the at half a big picture book called The First War by the much vaunted Gary Sheffield. its right next to 50 Shades of Grey.

If only Haig and Von Luddendorf had had a 'safe' word.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:04 PM

What mystery does that solve Al?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:13 PM

It was published 12 years ago, and is described as a best seller.
That is a surprise if not a mystery.
A history book that costs £79 hardback or £21 paperback and it sold!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 12:21 PM

It has just been republished as an e book.
That will be why the printed versions are remaindered.
Amazing run for a history book though.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

"I have expressed no view about events before the German invasions, so why quote Macmillan on that?"
Becayuse that is all she covers - she discusses nothing else - you claim her as a supporter - on what?
Where has she commented on recruiting, the blame for WW1 or how it was run?
Pratt
Nobody claimed the generals were cowards and no one has defended the "Donkey's" book
Sge clearly stated that the blame for the war was shared by all sides.
She is typical of all the historians you have claimed as supporters, as you have adequately illustrated - she supports nothing you have said - end of story
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:08 PM

Your link to Margaret McMillan is totally irrelevant to this argument as she does not cover a single aspect of what is being discussed except to describe the war as one of "attrition" which you both have denied
More 'smoke and mirrors'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:16 PM

She says, "It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. British soldiers felt they were fighting for their country and its values; "
And,
"Throughout the 1920s, the British mourned their lost ones as heroes who had fought in a good cause, not as helpless cannon fodder.
It was only at the end of the decade that doubts crept in;"

That is one of my points.

She says, "It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. "

That's another of my points.

She says, "commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked. "

That is all my three points.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:27 PM

More quotes of Macmillan,
"But seeing the war through the poetry of Wilfred Owen, who came to prominence decades after his death, is dangerous. Most of the poets who were widely read at the time – notably Rupert Brooke – were writing patriotic verse, and the "futility of war" line only emerged later. "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says."

"The great war was nobody's fault or everybody's," she writes. But "some powers and their leaders are more culpable than others. Austria-Hungary's mad determination to destroy Serbia in 1914, Germany's decision to back it to the hilt, Russia's impatience to mobilise, these all seem to me to bear the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of the war."
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/25/margaret-macmillan-just-dont-ask-me-who-started-war

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Som.. Err Ok, as Musket
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:28 PM

Does she address why the policy of sending waves of men into enemy fire wasn't "back to the drawing board" after the first tragic failure? Does she say why the only strategic change was to use more stretcher bearers and more admin staff to deal with the telegrams?

Sheffield does. And Taylor. Clark refers to it for that matter.

People who don't need historians for a ready made view may also take a view, given that happened.

Perhaps they may assess it in light of an absurd claim that the men were well led?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:39 PM

All out of context Keith
She claims that there was no evidenced to blame any single nation for the war
A contradiction to one of your points
She says that there in no evidence of overwhelming support for the war
A contradiction to one of your points
She says it was a war between Empires
A contradiction to one of your points

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:39 PM

She says it is wrong to denigrate the leaders.
You disagree.
She is an eminent historian with decades of research behind her.
You are some bloke from Scotland sometimes called Musket.

You ridiculed and insulted me for saying just what the historians say.
I learned it from them.

You said "those historians should know better."
You really imagine yourself superior to them all.

You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:43 PM

"She says it is wrong to denigrate the leaders"
She says it is wrong to denigrate any leaders or any single nation
You are deliberately choosing half statements to prove support
You are a moron to even claim having won anything - that is not what these discussions are about.
One thing is certain - you will be laughed out of existence if you ever mention the words "historian" or "you lose" ever again
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:50 PM

i'm eminent too, according to my husband.

Have been for decades if you add my Mum's opinion.

Keith, any chance of extending your sources of where your learning comes from? More historians? History channel? back of cornflake packets?

Anything for crying out loud, but just open your eyes and mind. Your insular parochial patronising is getting on peoples' tits. How can we ever debate the atrocities, poor leadership, jingoism and propaganda surrounding WW1 whilst you keep chipping in with odd irrelevancies from cherry picked half sources?

Fer fooks sake.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:51 PM

She says, "The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."

That is clearly saying it is wrong to denigrate the British Army leaders, and that the new generation of historians all say the same.

You people all ridiculed and insulted me for saying that.
You were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 01:55 PM

Some Musket In Scotland, are you also an acclaimed and prizewinning historian with a string of definitive books behind you?

I think that it is more likely that you are wrong, than that all the historians are.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

"The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents "
Nobody has argued they "all" were, but her statement indicates that she believes some where
One more time - nobody has supported Clark's boot - a red herring
You claim Britain had no alternate - she says all sides failed to seek peaceful means
You claim that it was a war against German tyranny (your words)
She says it was a war between Empires and actually stared around 1905 with conflicts over territory
You say that it was German aggression which started the war
She says it was wrong to blame any one side, that all were to blame.
You continue to lie
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 03:18 PM

Blind men describing an elephant...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:33 PM

Jim, I claimed that Britain had no choice but to resist the German invasions.
She said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says."

I said that the people supported that.
She said"It is condescending and wrong to think they were hoodwinked. British soldiers felt they were fighting for their country and its values; "

I said that the army was well led.
She said, "A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation (incompetence) and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked."

Those were and are my only claims.
She supports all three and says that "new generation of British historians, among others" have "exploded" those old myths.

She also said that "some powers and their leaders are more culpable than others. Austria-Hungary's mad determination to destroy Serbia in 1914, Germany's decision to back it to the hilt, Russia's impatience to mobilise, these all seem to me to bear the greatest responsibility for the outbreak of the war."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 05:39 PM

so Ian - you're not the gay bloke in Scotland....well that's a surprise. I thought you'd moved.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 02:24 AM

Had to give it up mate. Made my eyes water.

Must be allergic to midges......

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 02:26 AM

bum bum.

Don't give up the day job...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 04:07 AM

"I claimed that Britain had no choice but to resist the German invasions."
History describe it as a war between Empires and points out that it led to the destruction of the Imperial system.
The "war against German tyranny" was no more than a wartime propaganda slogan to persuade the people that the slaughter of a generation was worthwhile.
Even those who you claim (and have yet to show) support your argument say exactly that.
You claim that it was well conducted, yet both of you are reguced to defending one General - Haig - French and Kitchener have been established as non-runner buffoons.   
You have both claimed that the "enormous catastrophes" that took place were down to the politicians and not the military - you haven't even bothered too deal with that claim with your mythical historians, but the fact that you have both stated it indicates that in fact that you are admitting that the war was appallingly run - how can you claim otherwise when you paint a picture of politicians and generals stabbing each other in the back while British youth are dying in the mud?
That is your own description of what was happening - straight out of 'Oh What a Lovely War'
You claim popular support for the war, yet you describe soldiers own accounts of the war as "lies" - that is sick.
We do know that the views of soldiers who returned wounded were heavily censored - Sassoon was committed to lunatic asylum for writing of his experiences and only released when he agreed to be silent.
A century after the war began, the contents of the forbidden diaries kept by soldiers on the front are still not general knowledge and have been made public in dribs and drabs, the overall picture of the view of those who fought are totally unassessed.
Paxman's programmes described the attitude of the war back home as "complacent" - soldiers coming home on leave to find the people acting as if there wasn't a war taking place, mass corruption within the rationing system and the better off being able to eat and drink whatever their wealth would buy them.
All the reasons for joining up in the were also well covered - you refuse to respond to them.
You have not made a single one of your points and you are now trying to add another historian to your claimed six.
You have refused to link us to your claimed support because it does not exist - your anachronistic view of the war is dead, apart from in the mind of you few flag-waving, National Anthem standers-uppers.
Even your revisionist historians (those who wish to revise the popular view of history) have not made the jingoistic claims you have - that is the stuff that Ukip and the B.N.P. go in for.
The only thing you have proved here is that you truley are not a historian and you never will be - that requires being interested enough to read a book on the subject.      
Once again you have come to a topic in order to prove the establishment is never wrong and you end up trying to save face.
I'm done here, unless you are prepared to produce proof of your claims of support - I've got better things to do with my time than waste it arguing with idiots.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 04:59 AM

Not one assertion in that whole post is true Jim.

This whole thing can be reduced to one simple either/or.
On WW1, either all the historians are deluded, or you are.

It hardly needs saying, but you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 05:10 AM

I'm done here, unless you are prepared to produce proof of your claims of support -

I am Jim.
I have just shown that Macmillan supports all my three points.
Here is another from my long list of historians, William Philpott.

Were the Allied generals of 1914 unable to adapt to the evolving nature of war?
This is one of those long-standing myths about First World War commanders. Because the battles often took place in the same areas, people assume the generals were just repeating the same mistakes. That's far from what happened; they actually adapted very quickly. In 1915 the generals engaged with the tactical problems of fighting on entrenched battlefield. In 1916 they took those models and applied them to the bigger question of how to conduct a long, drawn-out battle to engage and defeat the enemy's army. In 1917 they were able to retrain their armies in new techniques, which allowed them to maneuver more effectively and ultimately win the war in 1918.

When you look at the way the armies were organized and equipped, the way the defense had to adapt to new offensive techniques combining infantry, artillery and new technologies such as aircraft, tanks and gas, you see that the warfare of 1917 was very different from that of 1915. Commanders came to grips with the problems and found solutions."

"I think the decisive factors were the Allies' development of the right techniques for taking on and beating the German army, and Allied superiority in munitions, weaponry and doctrine."

"They were willing to go through the conflict and make the sacrifice for their belief, which would result in a better world. In the early 1920s the Allied nations felt they achieved something of that goal; it was only with the advent of the Great Depression and the reappearance of belligerent nationalism and rearmament that the public attitude about the war began to sour. The memory of the war that we have is the memory of the 1930s refracted through the lens of World War II. I've tried to tell the story of the conflict from the mindset of those who participated at the time rather than through the lens of hindsight."

http://www.historynet.com/interview-with-world-war-i-historian-william-philpott.htm

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 05:23 AM

All your assertions were false, for instance those about Paxman/Open University.

About 9 minutes in, Paxman to camera.

"Most people seemed to have accepted that the war had to be fought.
To honour treaties. To defend the empire. To protect Britain.
And, what else were they supposed to do?
To sit back and watch as Germany amassed an empire from Russia to the shores of the English Channel?
Now war had broken out, almost everyone backed it.
Most trade unions suspended strikes, which had been common."

43 minutes in. Paxman to camera.
"The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."


37 minutes in. Paxman to camera,
"But it seems to me remarkable that a country which considered itself in the grips of a struggle for national survival, none the less allowed individual citizens to decide whether they could reconcile that struggle with their personal conscience. It didn't happen elsewhere in Europe."

29 minutes in. Paxman to camera,
"Britain now had a tactically smarter, better organised army, capable of deploying men and machines to devastating effect"

He and the team clearly saying that the army was well led.

57 minutes in. Paxman to camera, "
Later generations would contend it had been a futile war. The war was terrible certainly, but hardly futile.
It stopped the German conquest of much of Europe, and perhaps even of villages like this.

Never before in the nation's History had a war required the commitment and the sacrifice of the whole population, and by and large, for 4 years, the British people kept faith with it."

11 minutes in. Paxman voice over,
"The British High Command believed that Britain might be invaded at any time."
" the first British trenches were not in Belgium or France, they were here in England."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

we seem to have added television personalities to the list of eminent historians now..

Where you said "he and his team clearly said the men were well led" where does he say that? How many minutes in?

Having the capability and using it are two different things. I could own a F1 car but I couldn't do a lap without spinning off on the first bend.

You mention the attitudes of people at the time. You mention that we were put in a position where fighting seemed inevitable. Attitudes based on what they were told. Situation based on incompetence causing the situation in the first place.

"Honour treaties, protect the empire."

Paxman was bang on. Pity you can't digest what you read....

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 07:06 AM

William Philpott
"'This is a war of attrition," an anonymous British Army officer advised readers of a populist periodical, The Vivid War Weekly, in February 1915: "attrition in the trenches, in the home, in the markets, in the workshops, in the counting-houses and stock exchanges." In its most notorious form, attrition was the strategy pursued on the Western Front, defined by William Philpott as "the cumulative exhaustion of the enemy's fighting capacity". What this in fact meant was a mathematically simple form of combat in which opposing armies launched wave upon wave of attack and counter-attack with the notion that eventually one side would have too few men left to carry on fighting. As The Vivid's correspondent warned, it was "just a matter of slaughter and maiming and sickness for months and months, until at last the combatant men are thinned down to a lesser density".
n recent years the First World War has been fought over almost as much as Flanders was, with revisionist military historians involved in a heavy bombardment of entrenched public opinion, which stubbornly holds fast to its view that the war was futile, badly conducted and wasteful of human life. Philpott, who is professor of the history of warfare at King's College, London, may belong to the revisionist camp, but he takes a refreshingly balanced view of the war. No sneering at "whingeing" War Poets, no railing against Oh, What a Lovely War! or Blackadder Goes Forth, no Gove-like rants against the distortions of history by Left-wing academics. Instead the author provides a sober and sobering account of how the war started, how it was conducted, and how – eventually – it was lost and won.
VISIT: Our complete guide to the best books to read, from novels to histories and memoirs
He shows that attrition was indeed adopted in other arenas than the battlefield, and that this too wore down the enemy's fighting capacity. As with the Army, which had pursued a war of movement until the Germans settled into defensive positions along the River Aisne in 1914, so the Royal Navy's period of engaging with the enemy in major sea battles was comparatively short-lived: thereafter its principal role was "disrupting the supply of war materials". In August 1915 Lord Selborne, president of the Board of Agriculture, promoted a policy of "economic and financial attrition", suggesting that though blockades may cause morale-destroying food shortages for the Central Powers (and in Germany during the winter of 1917 "almost all food consisted in whole or in part of turnips"), "the financial difficulties of both their government and of their commercial and industrial interests may bring them to their knees before their military force is exhausted". In the end, however, it was attrition on front lines that had most impact.
Much of the criticism of the conduct of those such as General Haig has centred on the notion of soldiers being regarded merely as manpower units rather than sentient human beings. Philpott criticises individual decisions and actions but does not see it as his job to defend or attack the strategy itself. "Attrition was controversial as a strategy then, certainly misunderstood, and morally questionable ever after," he writes; "but the slaughter of a large number of Germans and the reciprocal sacrifice of Allied troops determined the nature, course and outcome of the war more than anything else." This pragmatic approach to the subject will not please everyone, but then in essence waging war has always been about trying to kill as many of the enemy as possible."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 11:08 AM

Paxman has written a book on WW1, and the programme was made in conjunction with the Open University.

This whole thing can be reduced to one simple either/or.
On WW1, either all the historians are deluded, or you are.

It hardly needs saying, but you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 11:27 AM

Jim, historians do not agree on much.
Philpotts ideas about attrition for instance.

On my three points he is with all the others.

"The contention that the British army was ill-prepared for war in 1914, and continued to muddle through the killing zone of the industrial battlefield, while still popular, lacks credulity with most historians of the First World War. While it was inherent in the nature of industrialised mass war that casualty lists would be long - and societal trauma deep - to ascribe those wounds to the incompetence of the military practitioners, in particular higher command, has been consistently challenged by historians of the British army's battlefield performance over three decades. Rather than 'lions led by donkeys' a paradigm of 'citizens led by soldiers' deserves to be substituted."

https://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4AF97CF94AC8B/

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 12:12 PM

"Jim, historians do not agree on much."
Tell you what Keith
You have had my analysis bases on my interest in European history and politics.
I don't ave to scurry behind the names of historians as you have done, nor do I have to invent opinions of others to hide behind, a you have also done - these are my understandings of the subject - nobody else's
If you disagree with them, feel free to put me right - not with words you have cut-'n-pasted (and edited to suit your case), but with your own opinions and your own understanding
Every single argument you have put here has been from a carefully selected and edited cut-'n-paste - every single ******* one - there is nothing you have put up here that has come from your own knowledge.
If you haven't the interest to have an opinion that you can claim to be your own, without hiding behind the supposed words of others, kindly fuck off and leave these discussion to those who have.
If I want an accurate account of what Margaret McMillan or Gary Sheffield or any other exert on the subject believes to be true, I'll go and read their books - your behaviour here had proved to us all that your interpretations are not to be trusted - the number of times you have been forced to write "I win" is evidence enough to prove you are a feeble-minded obsessive.
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 09:31 PM

don't be mean minded Jim. Keith has won.

i feel he should treat us all to a drink to celebrate his victory. mines a Talisker. i take paypal.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 01:34 AM

I don't ave to scurry behind the names of historians as you have done,

You can't Jim, because not one single historian still believes your discredited myths!

And I have not "invented opinions," I have quoted the historians' own words.

I have endured months of ridicule and insult just for repeating what all the historians say.
Your case is that they are all deluded or lying.
It is your case that is ridiculous.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 01:44 AM

the number of times you have been forced to write "I win"

That would be none Jim.
I have just given you the findings of the historians.
No great achievement.

I have not won.
You have lost.
You have closed you eyes and ears to all the evidence to keep you mind closed.
You have to believe those myths because of your other beliefs.
You have ridiculed and insulted me just for giving you the straight facts.
I did not win.
You lost.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:18 AM

Makes a change from "I win, you lose."

I wonder if Keith read one of his own posts by accident and squirmed at the sanctimonious pomposity of his words?

Come to think about it, perhaps not. He still reckons he is right. So not a revelation after all.

I'll not bother getting a Talisker from him though. I reckon I could get one on the same principle from that bloke on Doncaster market who shouts at lamp posts.

👅

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:49 AM

This is one of several occasions Keith has wrecked threads by hiding behind doctored and invented quotes from historians he hasn't read
His stonewalling war of attrition, his pesonsl rule-making (only living historians, for Christ's sake, what historians handbook did that come from?) and his egotistical desire to "win" just drives the topics into the ground.
I suggest that this should be the last time he is allowed to get away with it and that, if he should resort to it again he should be boycotted.
It adds nothing to our knowledge of these topics and it certainly destroys any pleasure the rest of us might get out of them - it really is no fun taunting the village idiot interminably.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 05:45 AM

yeh....still its Christmas.

goodwill to all men and all that swaddling....you know what Jesus said . love thine enemy. everybody loves their friends -even the Philistines do as much.

I always got more sense out of the man that shouts at lamp posts than those buggers in the Music Ground.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 05:50 AM

He sends on his regards

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

I have not won.
You have lost.

Is it one of those Zen things? The sound of one hand clapping and all that? Or maybe like the new non-competitive sports at schools, except instead of no-one losing, no-one wins. Whatever it is, I'll have a pint of what he is on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 11:44 AM

From Keith,


"I have not won.
You have lost.
You have closed you eyes and ears to all the evidence to keep you mind closed.
You have to believe those myths because of your other beliefs.
You have ridiculed and insulted me just for giving you the straight facts.
I did not win.
You lost. "

So very, very true....."liberalism" is ruled and driven by mythology, and twisted fraudulent ideology. George Orwell had it right, they will rewrite the language, redefine society in their own image.....truth no longer exists, now truth is weighed by which version makes the best TV comedy.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 12:20 PM

YOU LOSE

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 12:25 PM

You'd be first up against the wall.

Any chance of Keith clarifying whether he is comfortable with being aligned with Akenaton's interpretation of being against "liberalism?"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 12:33 PM

hiding behind doctored and invented quotes from historians he hasn't read

Now you revert to lying.
The quotes were given with links to the source.
Not doctored or invented, but the historians in their own words.

You people could not find one single hostorian who still believes those old discredited myths you cling to.

Unless all the historians are deluded or lying, then you people are.
Unless all the historians are deluded or lying, you lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

Makes no difference whether Keith agrees of not.....I presume he is a proper liberal.

However, the tactics employed by pseudo liberals are obvious, and very evident in "team Musket" posts.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 01:03 PM

Thought not.


A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words
Dr Winston O'Boogie



Still. This thread might be over by Xmas. After all, everybody on Mudcat knows why we are here, what we need to do and all agree with the bosses, whose leadership is beyond reproach. Especially in knowing what to moderate.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 02:03 PM

Teribus is silent, Keith. You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 02:55 PM

You are the ones who denigrates women, by your obscenities.

I would certainly never describe any of your fraudulent gang as "well adjusted members of society." :0)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:09 PM

"The quotes were given with links to the source."
Edited - see Clark - Taylor stunt
"You people could not find one single hostorian who still believes those old discredited myths you cling to."
Total lie - you rejected them because they were either dead or left wing.
"Unless all the historians are deluded or lying, then you people are"
AS you refuse to link us to those who you claim bck up your case - another lie I'm afraid.
"I would certainly never describe any of your fraudulent gang as "well adjusted members of society."
Not bad, from someone who obsessively hates homosexuals and Liberals and informed us that Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik "had a point that should be listened to".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:11 PM

Closing time?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:49 PM

Steve, Lighter and Teribus both agreed with my points and their knowledge of the history and historiography was greater than that of anyone here, myself included.

Gratifying though that was, my case was just that all historians agree my points and none support you.
And that is the case.

Jim, you lied "hiding behind doctored and invented quotes from historians he hasn't read"
If it is not a lie, produce one.
Confident prediction, you never will.

I have been scrupulously accurate with each historian quote.
You lie.

I did refer to, not quote, some Guardian hack.
He dismissed those old discredited historians with two separate words.
I only referenced one, which did not change the meaning one iota.
I only put it in for your interest as Guardian readers.
It was not a historian and not a quote, so no part of my case anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Jim,
AS you refuse to link us to those who you claim bck up your case

Are you not ashamed to lie so blatantly.
I just gave you linked quotes of Margaret Macmillan supporting each of my three points and stating that the new generation of historians had exploded that generalisiation of the leaders as incompetent.

I also gave linked quotes of William Philpott also confirming my points.

Do you want to see them again?
You could then lie about them again.

Subject: MRE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 04:08 PM

You don't know what my position is, Keith, so you can hardly come up with anyone who "opposes" me. You simply can't know. And you did misquote the Guardian article because you put your chosen altered extract into speech marks. You do that only when you want to quote verbatim, not just "refer" to the article. And your verbatim quote was a lie because it was not what the man said or meant. You simply can't be believed or trusted, can you, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 05:38 PM

The only word I put in quotes was "fraudulent" which was one of the words used, but my case is about historians not hacks.

Re your position, I did assume that you disagree with me.
If I was wrong, welcome aboard.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 06:17 PM

I would make the same point, Keith. I believe you tried to purposely mislead people with your reference to the Guardian quote. If it was not for Steve Shaw's vigilance you would have got away with it. You do yourself no favours trying to justify or deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 06:25 PM

BTW - We can all use selective quotes to try and prove a point. On of your pet historians says that most people did not know what they were volunteering for here.

The particular quote I am referring to is "Soldiers progressed alongside the evolution of warfare between 1915 and 1918. Most went into service with an outdated impression of warfare as heroic and dynamic yet ultimately found themselves becoming, essentially, technicians."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 07:42 PM

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

There ya go, planet Earth. What Keith said. Now, lest we forget, it wasn't "the Guardian". It was an occasional Guardian columnist. And that columnist referred only to a work of Clark's as fraudulent. It referred to a work of Taylor's as rather vulgar. By no stretch of the imagination was there even the slightest reference to Taylor as "fraudulent". Now please read that quote of Keith's, above, again. Keith has stoutly defended his quote by means of all manner of twists and turns. Keith is a very dishonest man who is incapable of confronting his error. In fact, he seems to be ploughing on as if, in some perverse way, the error strengthens his case. Well all I can do is present the facts here, all of which are checkable and all of which I stand by. Keith, you are a thoroughly discredited liar. Back down and oblige us all with a spell of silence, please.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 07:59 PM

That last post was a little on the serious side, but you know me. Always looking for a bit of levity. So let's contemplate for a moment Keith's relegating of his vaunted Guardian columnist's authoritative and elevated status to that of mere, dismissable and dispensable hackdom. Gosh, how Keith can shed his friends!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 09:43 PM

i think an element of cheating has entered. keith definitely won. the judge's decision is final.

make that a double on ice with a cocktail cherry, and side order of honey roasted nuts.

the blokes who ran the first world war were really clever. fucking brilliant, in fact.

i never doubted them for a moment.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:43 AM

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

He did describe one as fraudulent and used a different disparaging word for the other.
He disparaged both.
I did not change the meaning, and a link had been given anyway.

My case is about historians not hacks anyway.

Guest, of course no-one knew exactly what the new kind of warfare was like before they got there, but the historians say that the people and soldiers overwhelmingly supported the war until the end and long after.

So what is your position Steve?
You did ridicule me for my three points.
Was I (all the historians) wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:00 AM

My original reference.
The link had been provided earlier that same day.

Keith A of Hertford- PM
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: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:51 AM

Guest, of course no-one knew exactly what the new kind of warfare was like before they got there, but the historians say that the people and soldiers overwhelmingly supported the war until the end and long after.

I am sure you will correct me if the wording is wrong but one of your three points was that people overwhelmingly supported the war because they were not stupid was it not? Well, how can they support the war without knowing what the new kind of warfare was like without being stupid? It's pretty much like saying you support a political party but do not know what their policies are.

And vulgar still does not mean fraudulent no matter how many times you say it is the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:12 AM

"My original reference."
That's what I said, your claim that Taylor and Clark were fakes was a lie.
"The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."
"I just gave you linked quotes of Margaret Macmillan"
You have been claiming thoughout the latter half of this that you have proved a consensus amng historians - Choosing MacMillian proves no such think WHERE IS YOUR CONSENSUS?
THROUGHOUT THIS, YOU HAVE BASED YOUR ENTIRE CASE THE IDEA THAT ALL HISTORIANS AGREE (your phrase) AND THE NONSENSICAL IDEA THAT ONE GENERATION OF HISTORIANS HAVE SUPERCEDED ANOTHER IN AN ANALYSIS OF THE WAR - UTTER NONSENSE.
10 VIEWS OF THE WAR
There is no one view of the war - your own handful of historians have stated that in their own description of their objectives "to correct the popular misconceptions.
Tou prsent your six as a monolith - all agreeing with each other - most have described the war as a conflict of Empires, one has suggested it was a a fight against Germany tyranny, some have said it was inevitable, yet one historian, in his book 'Sleepwalkers, says it could have been avoided with diplomacy.
MacMillan points out that it is wrong to blame any any one single power, others have made similar points........ and so ad infinitum.
Fra from their being one view, there are dozens
You have made a set of rules suggesting that no dead historian can be trusted and you have written off historians, not on the basis of their being wrong, but because they are dead - understandable in your case, as you have read none of them and have not offered a single piece of information that you haven't hastily cut-'n-pasted and presented out of context and occasionally doctored.
One again you have fucked up an intesting discussion with your ignorance, your arrogance, your outright dishonesty and above all, your desire to win.
You treat these discussions as one-upmanship competitions and once again, you have managed to make a total idiot of yourself with hour couple of dozen claims of having done so.
You are one of the most dishonest self-declared Christian I have ever come across - New Year is coming up shortly - perhaps a resolution is in order.
I reiterate my suggestion to all that if you ever indulge in this sewer-like behaviour again with a viw to taking over and destroying another thread, you be boycotted - you are the antithesis of the very concept of honest discussion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:16 AM

I'd give up whilst you are behind if I were you Keith.

You can't say, quote, mislead or cite anything that contradicts the fact that poor leadership and propaganda are the two main issues with WW1.

Far too many graves, far too many false reasons given for filling them. You should read what Jeremy Paxman said about the reasons for war. Or look at actual timelines, there for anybody to see and make up their own minds.

The problem is, most people laughing at you do so because they are capable of reading, viewing and assessing, and coming up with their own slant. You look a fool when you say "the historians" because you make it sound like you should believe what a vicar tells you about God. Blind faith in either sphere is the sign of a shallow mind.

Never mind. Akenaton still loves you, although Terribulus seems to have written to "Dear Deidre" for advice.
😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:19 AM

You are dishonest to the last
The Guardian quote you have just given comes from a tabloid journalist, yet you have rejected quote after quote from the rest of us because "they are not living historians" - are you insane, or do you just believe the rest of us are?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:38 AM

I think I have cottoned on to the rules at last. Little scenario here. I say "Joseph Stalin was really a good guy". Of course every man and their dog jumps up and down on until I modify my standpoint to be "Joseph Stalin had a really good mustache". Whenever anyone jumps up and down on me from then on in I simply link to pictures of Uncle Joe and say "Look - everyone agrees that he had a great 'tache. The rest of you must be idiots. You lose!"

Yay! Sorted :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:06 AM

Just about sums up Keith's historical method
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:15 AM

Jim you have just linked to "ten views of the war."

In fact it is "ten leading historians" including Hastings and Sheffield, on who was to blame.
Not one singles out Britain and most exonerate Britain.

Irrelevant anyway because I expressed no opinion about events before August 1914.

Guest, who the fuck are you to call those men stupid?
There had never been such a war.
It was entirely new.
They overwhelmingly continued to support the war as experienced soldiers.

All my claims are supported by the historians.
There are none who challenge those claims, so ridicule is misplaced.

Unless all the historians are deluded, you are.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:27 AM

I didn't call the 'those men' stupid, Keith. But someone certainly is.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

I recall Keith berating me for using the f.. Word.

By the way, when you write, try to be consistent Keith.. It isn't Max Hastings the military historian, its Max Hastings the newspaper hack who makes donations to the conservative party. After all, thats how you refer to historians with other political views.

You started linking historian credibility with other factors, not us. I see a Corporal Jones moment coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:35 AM

"Hastings and Sheffield, on who was to blame."
Hastings is not the "qualified historian" you have demanded from the rest of us - proof enough of your dishonest attitude
Neither is the author of your Guardian article - further proof.
"Not one singles out Britain and most exonerate Britain"
Neither do most of them single out any other nation - as you have claimed.
"and most exonerate Britain."
No they don't - most have not mentioned blame, MacMillan says it is wrong to apportion it, as have others.
You have claimed the war was against "German tyranny - the product of a century old war propaganda, not historical analysis   
"Irrelevant anyway because I expressed no opinion about events before August 1914."
s the causes war of war have been dated to events as far back as 1905 by historians, you have no basis for claiming who was to blame - yet you persist in doing so - why?
The point in ll this is you have no view of your own other thn "the establishment is never wrong"
You have gathered disparate and often contradictory quotes, one from one historian and one from another and all out of context, cobbled them all together, rejected all contrary opinions as "invalid", and on this basis, claimed a 'consensus of view' on the war.
There is no consensus (your revisionists have said that themselves by describing themselves as "correcting the popular view) - this is why you still refuse to link us to your evidence that there is one.
"who the fuck are you to call those men stupid"
He/she didn't - you are the one who treats those who disagree with you as stupis, both in word and attitude.
Who the fuck are you to claim "we lose" and you win when you and your little band of brother#s (which includes a ravig homophobic anti-liberal who supports the views of the views of a mass-murdering fascist) stand alone in this argument - you have no other supporters here yet you treat us all as - what's your favourite word - "Muppets".
Prove us wrong simple as that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 06:50 AM

Keith just put

Irrelevant anyway because I expressed no opinion about events before August 1914.

Have you ever thought of going into politics Keith? Notwithstanding your ludicrous claim that everybody knew what was going on and joined up on the basis of being in full possession of the facts.

I would expect a politician to be taught the soundbite

All my claims are supported by the historians.
There are none who challenge those claims, so ridicule is misplaced.
Unless all the historians are deluded, you are.

For that matter.

Which party would you stand for? 🇬🇧

👳👳🔫

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:04 AM

"Irrelevant anyway because I expressed no opinion about events before August 1914."
Originally Keith defended every single aspect of the war - eventually he retreated to three aspects
Now he has set an incredibly stupid date limitation to his claims - and no doubt, there's more to come.
You think you've seen an acrobat - you ait seen nuffin yet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:15 AM

I didn't call the 'those men' stupid, Keith.

One of you Guests said "Well, how can they support the war without knowing what the new kind of warfare was like without being stupid?"

It isn't Max Hastings the military historian,

I did not call him that.
BBC and Guardian did.

No they don't - most have not mentioned blame,
The piece you linked to asked who started it.
By the name of each historian is the countries they blame.
Not one singles out Britain, and most exonerate Britain completely, but I am not even debating that.

You have claimed the war was against "German tyranny - the product of a century old war propaganda, not historical analysis

No.
Britain went to war because Germany invaded France and Belgium.

There is no consensus (your revisionists have said that themselves by describing themselves as "correcting the popular view)

There certainly is, at least on my three points.
The popular view is that of people like you who have read nothing published on it in the last 20 years.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:20 AM

Another of the historians on my list, Catrionna Pennel,

Dr Pennell says: "Traditional views of public opinion towards the First World War are over simplified and inadequate. A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

Whilst enthusiastic crowds certainly existed in August 1914, the new research suggests that this didn't reflect the whole picture. "Other gatherings around late July and early August opposed the war," Dr Pennell explains, "and many more people were shocked and disbelieving that such an event could happen."

"Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:43 AM

"Another of the historians on my list, Catrionna Pennel,"
Please stop adding to your claimed list by dredging up more out-of context quotes on insignificant quotes this is a diversion away from the fact that you have lied that you have proved a consensus when none exists
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:53 AM

"One of you Guests said "Well, how can they support the war without knowing what the new kind of warfare was like without being stupid?""

Yes, that was me Keith. Just like you said "The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."" Apart from mine was a question to you, which you have not answered, and yours was a blatant misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 07:57 AM

I did forget the link Jim.
Sorry.http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html

It is not insignificant or out of context.
It supports my view that the people agreed with the government on the need to fight.
2 of my three points.
Macmillan and Philpott got all three!

You of course have found no-one to challenge any of my points, and you never will.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:03 AM

"I did not call him that."
You have dismissed our historians because they are not qualified or are dead - on this premise you have lyingly claimed you have been given no evidence which disputs your argument nad you continue to present unqualified tabloid journalists as historians,
Because a tabloid Newspaper describes someone as a historian doesn't make him one.
History describes the war as a clash of Empires - one dates it back to 1905 - in fact Imerial disputes are as old as Empires.
I suggest you go back and gather your evidence of a consensus on the basis of what you have already claimed and not compound ypour idiocy by adding to it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:04 AM

Guest who can not manage a name, I merely referred to a passage that I had already quoted in full just days before, with links supplied.
No misrepresentation from me.
Any comment on Musket's misrepresentation of what the historians said on Coast?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:08 AM

Nope - none at all. Only interested in you, Keith. You are really special...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:10 AM

By the way, your claim that you didn't claim Max Hastings was a historian is yet another blatant lie.
Both you and The Braindead Brigadier argued vehemently that he was way back beyond this thread - certainly before the Guardian described him as one
You seem totally unable to distinguish truth from fiction.
Simple question that yu will not answer.
Why are our historians not historians while yours are - do you have to be a Freemason or something to make such claims?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:16 AM

Jim, I have dismissed out of date historians because the consensus is recent (20 years).
There used to be a few historians pushing those old myths, but now there are none.

Because a tabloid Newspaper describes someone as a historian doesn't make him one.

Agree, but BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent,....
If I accepted that Hastings was not an historian, it would still be true that all historians agree my three points.

I suggest you go back and gather your evidence of a consensus on the basis of what you have already claimed and not compound your idiocy by adding to it

My listed historians have all been quoted agreeing one or more of my points, and many like Macmillan all three.
There are none who challenge any of them.

(Nial Ferguson alone thought Britain might have kept out)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:19 AM

Macmillan and Philpott got all three!
Likewise Paxman and the Open University History Department.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:28 AM

"Jim, I have dismissed out of date historians because the consensus is recent (20 years)."
Prove it and stop alluding to it
I suggest you read Pennell's argument more carefully

"By the end of 1914 people in of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland (north and south) had largely embraced the war, but the war had also embraced them and showed no signs of relinquishing its grip. The five months from August to December 1914 set the shape of much that was to follow and Pennell's research attempts to explain that twenty-week formative process.
No such surveys existed at the time so the book also marks the first-ever comprehensive public opinion survey of the outbreak of the war. It provides a detailed insight in to British and Irish popular reactions that challenges traditional understanding of public feeling at the time.
While historians in France and Germany have dismantled their equivalent myths of war enthusiasm, British and Irish responses to the war have remained largely unexamined. British people are often viewed as enthusiastic and the Irish often characterised as being disengaged.
Dr Pennell says: "Traditional views of public opinion towards the First World War are over simplified and inadequate. A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."
Whilst enthusiastic crowds certainly existed in August 1914, the new research suggests that this didn't reflect the whole picture. "Other gatherings around late July and early August opposed the war," Dr Pennell explains, "and many more people were shocked and disbelieving that such an event could happen."
"Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do "IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES"
The circumstances where that Britain was committed to an Imperial war and political decisions left no alternative other than to fight - nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of tyranny - they were all a bunch of tyrants
I aske again, what gives you the right to quote tabloid journalists and reject our qualified ones?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 08:43 AM

The circumstances where that Britain was committed to an Imperial war and political decisions left no alternative other than to fight

No.
The circumstances were that German armies were raging through Europe and threatening Britain!

I aske again, what gives you the right to quote tabloid journalists and reject our qualified ones?

You have not found a single living historian.
I acknowledge that decades ago SOME were still pushing those old myths, but now there is consensus.

If we discount Hastings, it is still a fact that no living historian challenges one of my points.
(except Ferguson alone on one point only)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 09:14 AM

Stalin really did have a lovely mustache didn't he.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 09:50 AM

He grew it for Movember but nobody had the courage to tell him it was now December... I wonder if Keith has a Russian ancestor whose job it was to remind everybody how many tractors they were making in their factories?



This gets more surreal by degree..

First, I watched a programme and mentioned what was said.

Then Keith said it doesn't exist. I was lying for saying I had watched telly presumably.

Then my kindly co McMusket pointed out he found it in three seconds flat on TV guide.

Then Keith, and I love this bit.. Sat down in front ot his TV and watched it on iPlayer.

Then Keith.. Are you ready for this? Keith said I was a liar because he reckons the historian on the programme didn't say what he said, there, on the telly!

I love pantomime season! I especially like how, after his embarrassment, he chose to bring it up again today!

We shouldn't laugh, you know. We really shouldn't..

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🐴😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🐮💩

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 10:50 AM

"You have not found a single living historian."
So what - neither have you found any singnle historian who backks all your points.
You're lastest claim of Pennell is typical - entirely based on superficial half truths on one aspect of the war.
You continue to refuse to present your proof of a connesus so, as you have just admitted that your basis for rejeefting the stateents you have been given - that they have been "suprceded" makes no sense
You refuse to respond you your own revisionist historians' description of themselves as "seeking to alter popular misconceptions", which is an admittance they there is no consensus - you have no case.
You've blown your own claim that "the war was well-conducted" out of the water by your describing internecine warfare between the military and the politicians, each busy blaming each other for the massive catastrophes which took place - do you honestly claim that this Keystone Kops description of the prevailing state of affairs is one of a "well-conducted" war.
The fact that you totally ignore the recruiting techniques, the wartime rationing corruption, the disillusionment soldiers on leave - all described by Paxman, totally scuppers your claim that the war was fully and consciously supported and you compound this with your suggestion that soldiers whose descriptions contradict your jingoistic crap.
Now WHERE'S YOUR PROOF OF A CONSENSUS - PUT UP OR GO WAY
"I love pantomime season"
This guy's an idiot - oh no I'm not - oh yes you ******* are.
Jim Carrtoll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 11:40 AM

Then Keith.. Are you ready for this? Keith said I was a liar because he reckons the historian on the programme didn't say what he said, there, on the telly!

No Musket.
They did not say what you claimed they had said, and you misrepresented it.

So what - neither have you found any singnle historian who backks all your points.

Yes I have. You have just seen one and there are others.
There are about a dozen that I have quoted each supporting one or more.

There are no historians disputing any of my points.
That is why you can only find long dead ones.
That is consensus. (except far right Ferguson on one point only)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 11:47 AM

sorry Jim , the judge's decision was in fact final. Keith has won. he has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first world war was whatever he said it was.

he's the king of the castle, and you're the dirty rascal.

you really must accept that you can't climb to the lofty heights of knowledge that Keith has ascended to.

he's not a historian, but he's pretty hot stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:02 PM

"There are no historians disputing any of my points.
You are lying - you have been given them
You are even lying about Niall Fergusson's politics - he is no more far right than any of your crowd - he has been
"In October 2007, Ferguson left The Sunday Telegraph to join the Financial Times where he was a contributing editor.[27][28] He also writes for Newsweek.[17]
Ferguson has often described the European Union as a disaster waiting to happen,[29] and has criticised President Vladimir Putin of Russia for authoritarianism. In Ferguson's view, certain of Putin's policies, if they continue, may stand to lead Russia to catastrophes equivalent to those that befell Germany during the Nazi era.[30]"
Fergusson id a rRepublican supporter - no more than that
Your description of him being "far right is a simple fabrication in order to score points - nowhere is he described as being far right
What kind of lying twot are you?
WHERE IS THE PROOF OF YOUR CONSENSUS??????????
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:06 PM

You realise Al, that it would be cruel to say he has won.

He loves defending the indefensible, based on his ideal view of the world. The sort of world the corporal sign writer from Oswestry waxed lyrical about.

Considering he is capable of sitting watching an episode of Coast just to see if I was right, he obviously would have something missing in his life if he couldn't call everyone a liar. Must have brilliant when he saw I was right.

Hey Keith! What about that historian on BBC4 last night? Doesn't seem to agree with you!

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:28 PM

"he's not a historian, but he's pretty hot stuff!"
Plenty of that around her - it comes out of the backsides of the local cows
Jim Carrroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:08 PM

lofty heights of knowledge that Keith has ascended to.,

Actually, if you check back on Keith's level of education, he's pretty much a self-confessed uneducated dolt. Explains quite a lot, really.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:32 PM

Jim, Guardian on Ferguson,

"so I ask if it's true that he loves provoking the left.

"No, they love being provoked by me! Honestly, it makes them feel so much better about their lives to think that I'm a reactionary; it's a substitute for thought. 'Imperialist scumbag' and all that. Oh dear, we're back in a 1980s student union debate." But didn't Ferguson himself admit that his conversion to Thatcherism while a student at Oxford in the 80s was motivated chiefly by delight in taunting student union lefties?


"Warming to his theme, he cites one reviewer of Civilization who clearly hadn't even read the book before attacking it. "You know what?" he says crossly. "There's a lot of intellectual shoddiness in this country. My interest in my work now is not to wind up British lefties; I couldn't care less about them, not really. I couldn't care less about how they feel. So the problem is not that I like to wind them up. It's that they like to be wound up by an imaginary rightwing historian who satisfies all their emotional needs."

Let's say then, I suggest, that he's absolutely right; that the left has got itself into a tizz and accused him of all sorts of views he does not actually hold. He is forever insisting he is not rightwing – so could he offer some examples of his thinking which would demonstrate that he isn't?

"Ask me not are you rightwing, but ask me are you a committed believer in individual freedom, the values of the enlightenment? Then, yeah, if being rightwing means believing Adam Smith was right, both in the Wealth of Nations and the Theory of Moral Sentiments, then I'm rightwing. If being rightwing is thinking that Karl Marx's doctrine was a catastrophe for humanity, then I'm rightwing. If you think that it's rightwing to say that the welfare state has trapped 10-20% of the population of western Europe in a dependency culture, an abyss of social failure, then I'm rightwing."




"Ferguson's politics don't appear to rest on semantic definitions of rightwing, so much as a refusal to recognise the validity – or even possibility – of any alternative way of looking at the world. Such certainty presumably explains the other thing everyone always says about him – that he has an almost superhuman absence of self-doubt"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:35 PM

Link to that Guardian piece.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/apr/11/niall-ferguson-political-debate-england-america

Jim,"There are no historians disputing any of my points.
You are lying - you have been given them

If I am lying, name one.
If you can't, it is you who lie.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 01:41 PM

Musket, no WW1 history on BBC4 last night.

If you really find an historian who disagrees my points, I am sure you will tell us all the details
You never will though.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:05 PM

All this and Adam Smith too. Gripping stuff.

I'm sure you'll let us all know what happens to the 20% in the poverty trap once capitalism rescues them!
😂😂😂😂😂😂

Oh. By the way. I'm a rotten dirty stinking capitalist. Be buggered if it makes you "right wing." The last time I looked, it did a nice old farm house, new BMW on the drive with a Merc for the Missus, first class flights, bloody good guitar collection and a Burberry winter coat for the greyhound.

I don't recall a wish to wear uniforms, support UKIP or call Palestinian schools and hospitals legitimate targets though.

Perhaps your confusion between capitalism and right wing is about as good as your grasp of WW1 history?



Go on. Please tell me you searched through BBC 4 listings for last night. Did you?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 02:45 PM

"f I am lying, name one."
Fergusson for one - A J P Taylor as another - Margaret MacMillan,
Christoper Clark, Max Hastings........
If you have any objection to any of these, then you are goingh to have to prove the claim that they have been superceded - a link maybe???
Fergusson is a middle-of-the-road Conservative which makes you a right wing extremist
He warns about the dangers of not taking Nigel Farage and Le Pen seriously and uses as an example Charlie Chaplin making Hitler and Mussolini out to be clowns.
NIALL FERGUSSEN
You are a racist, an Islamophobe and an Empire Loyalist - far to the right of Fergusson.
You have deliberately selected out-of-context bits you would have no problem defending because he says something you disagree with - par for the course for you.
Once again you are refusing to link us to your claims of having proven there to be a consensus - fine by me - the more you repeat it, the more of a lying idiot you appear - pleae keep it up, it saves me having to do it.
I don't go in for hiding behind cut-'n-pastes, accurate or doctored.
I ask again, how can you claim that the description of wartime leaders and politicians stabbing each other in the back represents in any way a "well conducted war) (all these points you have deliberately avoided answering will be repeated until you do so or alternatively, till you piss off and stop nausing up thread after thread, though, like your description of all Muslims being culturally implanted to rape children (now that's what I call right-wing extremism), they will be around for the forseable future.
A step in the right direction would be for you to stop lying
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:19 PM

And if you dare say none of them contradict you - I've pointed out each time where you have lied by actually distorting what they say
- particularly Max Hasting
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:32 PM

Jim, I have tried this before

Dominic Alexander is a member of Counterfire, for which he is the book review editor. He has been a Stop the War and anti-austerity activist in north London for some time. He is a published historian whose work includes the book Saints and Animals in the Middle Ages, a social history of medieval wonder tales

Here is an article by him that contradicts Keith.

Ten lies told about WW1

I am pretty sure Keith will dismiss him as left wing, not been heard of or some such but at least you can provide positive indisputable links to a historian that disagrees with him. See if you have any better luck than I did.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:40 PM

Oh, I don't know. I reckon most historians would find him disagreeable.

🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:54 PM

Al,
you really must accept that you can't climb to the lofty heights of knowledge that Keith has ascended to.
he's not a historian, but he's pretty hot stuff!

Al, I am interested in that war, so I read the history books on it.
When it came up here, I said what they say.

Why does that make you post such shit about me?
It really is what they say.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 03:58 PM

And if you dare say none of them contradict you - I've pointed out each time where you have lied by actually distorting what they say
- particularly Max Hasting
Jim Carroll

None of the living ones do except Ferguson alone, and him only on one of the three points.

If that is not true, quote one.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:12 PM

"f I am lying, name one."
Fergusson for one - A J P Taylor as another - Margaret MacMillan,
Christoper Clark, Max Hastings........

Ferguson thinks Britain could have let Germany occupy the whole of Europe.
I have always acknowledged that he alone disagrees, but only on that.
I never claimed there was a consensus back in Taylor's day!
There is now.

If any living historian disagrees my point, give us a quote.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:14 PM

Is Hastings an historian or not?
Make up your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:27 PM

He writes a good yarn if that helps.

Comes from being a journalist and novelist I suppose.

Keith. If you really have read so much about it, I doubt you, an obviously intelligent man in your own way, would just point to what you read. You surely would have assessed and formed an original opinion rather than blindly saying a (moving) group of people with differing views on aspects of the war all seem to be saying the same thing. Or indeed that you never read enough to question conclusions.

Ok, back to the fun.

Ha! Ha!
😋

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 04:54 PM

I keep getting a feeling of deja vu.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:15 PM

When it came up here, I said what they say.

But you started the thread Keith.

If any living historian disagrees my point, give us a quote.

Already have. You dismissed him. No point in going round in circles.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:24 PM

You don't even need to read this one.

Neil Faulkner

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

"Neil Faulkner is a freelance archaeologist and historian. "
That means he just calls himself one.
He is a revolutionary activist, and such people always sacrifice truth to make a political point.

Subject: BS: I am not a Mudcatter, but...
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:07 AM

Dropped in to look for some lyrics after a lengthy absence. Made the mistake of looking below the line. Bloody hell, this place has turned into a festering pit of ignorance, bile and personal abuse, hasn't it? Maybe those of you who hang on here haven't noticed it, in the same way a frog doesn't notice the water in the pan getting hotter, but - take it form me - the Mudcat looks pretty nasty!
And just to add my two penn'orth, KeithA is quite correct in his assertions. Trouble is, the veil of maudlin sentimentality and ignorance which clouds the issue is more seductive than the truth.
Yes, The Great War was unpleasant, yes, the casualty rates were horrible, almost as bad as earlier wars. But nine out of 10 do those who marched off to war came home, and those who did said it had to be done. The victory of 1918 was hard won, but ultimately so successful that Hitler was inspired to base his blitzkrieg on it.
That's all Keith is trying to say, but the sentimental shroud wavers of Willie McBride seem determined to shout him down.
Not for nothing is the stereotype of a folk-singer that of a bore with his finger in his ear.

---

This post seems more appropriate here than in it's own thread just started. It's probably a regular, under cover, venting a little spleen. --mudelf, tidying below the line

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:41 AM

Before becoming an archaeologist, Faulkner studied political economy at King's College, Cambridge and later became a teacher.[1] He subsequently earned his doctorate at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 'with a study of late Roman towns',[1] where he would later become an honorary lecturer.[2] He is currently a Research Fellow at the University of Bristol.[3]
...
Faulkner is the editor of Military Times, a military history magazine launched in October 2010. The magazine is published by Current Publishing and the Chelsea Magazine Company. According to his editorial welcome, 'The aim is not only to bring you action-packed narrative, but to provide all the technical detail, in-depth analysis, and cutting-edge controversy you need to understand not just what happened, but also why'.

Yet, according to Keith, he just calls himself "a freelance archaeologist and historian."

Keith, you asked for ONE historian that disagreed with you. I have given two. Is there any point on finding more or will you just dismiss them as well?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 03:31 AM

Gervase misses the point entirely.

This isn't about the outcome. It is about the revision and sanitisation of a few people writing as historians which Keith is claiming to be the oracle and anybody who sees through the rewriting of history is therefore a "liar and psychopath."

Keith reckons "the historians" say everybody actually knew what they were there for and that sending waves of men into enemy machine gun fire systematically was good leadership.

Snag is, he cherry picks his precious "historians" and quoted them out of context even then.

If you think he is being genuine, ask him what he means by "the historians" or even what defines "historian."

Good luck!

(By the way, learning the words to an Eric Bogle song isn't necessarily the limit of WW1 knowledge. Comes over somewhat condescending. After all, we have Baldrick too! 😂)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:23 AM

Baldrick? But I always thought he was into cunning plans. Isn't this thread more about cunning stunts?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:43 AM

His credibility at least matches Keith's cherry picking.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:45 AM


Snag is, he cherry picks his precious "historians" and quoted them out of context even then.

That is a lie.
I have ignored none, so no cherry picking.
My quotes are all in context with links so they can be seen as such.

Guest whichever one, you make my case.
A year later and no proper historian found.
You provide his Wiki page.
Who do you suppose wrote that?

Why can't we see his CV on the university site like real historians?
What is an "honarary lecturer" anyway?
Not paid obviously. Do they even know he calls himself that?

He is not the kind of proper historian whose work you can see at a library or book shop.

When historians discuss eaach others findings on WW1, his name never comes up.

BBC has tried to include evry historian with an interest on its site, but no Faulkner obviously.

He has never been seen, heard or published on the subject in the press or broadcast media like all mine have.

Have you ever seen his book never mind read it?
Do you know anyone who has?

If someone linked to an extreme nationalist site and pasted pro-Britain propaganda, how you would sneer.
So would I, but I also sneer at extreme Left, class war agitprop.

So again Guest Who, thank you for showing the difference between my case and yours.

I can back up my claims with a host of well known and esteemed historians, while all you can find is this bloke.

(btw Gervase was a member and regular contributor here when I first joined 15 years ago.)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:52 AM

Fifteen years eh?

That's nothing. On the music threads, someone posted yesterday for the first time. That makes their contribution on a level with yours and mine.

"I have ignored none."

Wait for it....

😂😂😂😭😂😂😂.         ☺️.    ☺️☺️.   😊. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:54 AM

Re Baldrick, you should not dismiss his work as the mindless repition of a meaningless piece of onomatopoeia.
That is like calling those men who went out to save Europe stupid, stupid.

He clearly uses the word boom as an antonym for bust.

Boom, the British army morale was booming!
Boom, the new technologies of tanks and air power were booming!
Boom, the new tactics of creeping barrage and combined operations were booming!
Boom, British and allied troops pushed the invaders out and ended the cruel occupation!
Boom, boom, boom, boom,.........................

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:58 AM

Scots Musket Bloke, I did say "I have ignored none."
No proper, actual historian.
That is why you can't name one.

The claim that I cherry-pick is a lie.
There are no-others to pick from.
You have to lie or you have no case.

Tell us why you posted abbout the Hattersley book.
You are a dishonest person.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:07 AM

I can back up my claims with a host of well known and esteemed historians, while all you can find is this bloke.

You asked for any living historians who disagreed with you. I provided two. Now you are asking for living, well known and esteemed historians. To save me wasting any more time can you specify who they should be well known and esteemed by, what colour their hair should be, their month of birth and any other means by which you chose to dismiss their findings.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:08 AM

Keith obviously does not intend to show us where he has hidden his secret postings proving he has made his case - maybe they'll turn up under the Christmas tree - who knows.
"You are a dishonest person."
Spoken from personal experience, no doubt.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:12 AM

What is wrong with asking for esteemed, well known historians?
That is what I provide.

I am sure I could provide your sort as well, but why would I?
They have no credibility.

You make my case.
You highlight the difference between mine and yours.

I am just saying what all the historians say.
The real ones that is.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:19 AM

Jim, look at my quotes of Dan Snow, Margaret Macmillan, Catriona Pennel, Gary Sheffield, Dan Todman, Barry Bond, De Groot and all the others.

They say what I say.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:22 AM

"He is a revolutionary activist, and such people always sacrifice truth to make a political point."
By the way - you seem to be in the process of making a takeover bid for your extremist B.N.P. politics.
As long as I have been on this form you have filled this forum with your racist and sectarian filth,aas has your Friend Ake with his right-wing intolerance and homophobia
All views are worthy of consideration and argument on an open forum - long may that be the case.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:29 AM

just in case anyone missed it, as I know many gloss over Keith's diatribe, he just posted

Boom, the British army morale was booming!
Boom, the new technologies of tanks and air power were booming!
Boom, the new tactics of creeping barrage and combined operations were booming!
Boom, British and allied troops pushed the invaders out and ended the cruel occupation!
Boom, boom, boom, boom,.........................

Just wanted to make sure everyone still with us saw it, that's all.

Now, back to reading Buster.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:34 AM

You highlight the difference between mine and yours.

That really takes the biscuit. My historian is bigger than yours. :-D Well, my Dad's a policeman so nya, nya nya, nya. Do you accept that they are indeed historians though and that they are alive? That is all you asked for isn't it?

He is not the kind of proper historian whose work you can see at a library or book shop. Huh? Who are you trying to kid here?

Neil Faulkner in a bookshop

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:44 AM

you two deserve each other

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:53 AM

"They say what I say"
Still catching up with the nonsense
No they don't - you have been given examples of where they contradict what you say and - to repeat No single historian has ever confirmed all of your three points - not one - THERE IS NO SINGLE VIEW ON THE HISTORY OF WORLD WAR ONE, AS ALL YOUR OWN HISTORIANS HAVE STATED - YOU ARE MAKING IT UP
You and Captain Mainwearing have demonstrated how badly the war was conducted with your descriptions of the politicians and military at war with each other instead of giving the leadership needed to those dying in Europe - (your own description)
Stop lying - don't you know it's Christmas
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:54 AM

Oh yes, and I have been here for nearly 15 years as well. In fact, my first post pre-dates your by 4 months so seeing as we are into who's Dad is bigger, you lose :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:57 AM

Now why would I look at your quotes, Keith? Why, last week I looked at one and found that you were trying to mislead us. Don't think I'll bother with any more of 'em, thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 09:33 AM

"last week I looked at one and found that you were trying to mislead us"
One??
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 10:08 AM

I'm not excluding other possibilities, Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 10:53 AM

we are not going to change each others opinions

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 10:57 AM

I always thought we were! Thanks, Al, I shall revise my views now :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:16 AM

Opinions van cary. The appalling incompetence, contempt and arrogance of military leaders of the time however are a matter of historical record.

That's why revision is such a wicked stunt.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:23 AM

"we are not going to change each others opinions"
Maybe not Al, but one of these days somebody (no names, no pack-drill) is going to have to take a long, hard look at his public image
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:40 AM

can we have a christmas truce please,could you all go off and play football for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 11:48 AM

I change, or at least tweak, or undergo the tweaking of, my opinions all the time, frequently as a result of what I read here.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 12:04 PM

As long as I have been on this form you have filled this forum with your racist and sectarian filth

Lies. resorting to personal attack and lying smears.. You might as well admit you have lost.

"Neil Faulkner in a bookshop"
Amazon!
They sell anything and everything.
How about a real bookshop?
How about a library?

No they don't - you have been given examples of where they contradict what you

Not true.
Not one single proper living historian.
You can not name one!

No single historian has ever confirmed all of your three points - not one -
Margaret Macmillan to name just one.

Not all historians have written about all three.
No living historian has contradicted any of my claims, except extreme Thatcherite Ferguson who only does one.

THERE IS NO SINGLE VIEW ON THE HISTORY OF WORLD WAR ONE, AS ALL YOUR OWN HISTORIANS HAVE STATED

True, but on my 3 points they all agree.

- YOU ARE MAKING IT UP

I don't need to. They really do say what I say because I learned it from them.

Why, last week I looked at one and found that you were trying to mislead us.

Not true Steve.
I am scrupulously accurate with all my quotes. I just paste them in.
If that is not true, put up any false quote I have ever made.
You are being dishonest Steve.
When I did quote that Guardian paragraph I quoted it in full, with a link.
I later just referred back to it.

"last week I looked at one and found that you were trying to mislead us"
One??
Jim Carroll

No.
Not one.
Put one up if that is not true.

The appalling incompetence, contempt and arrogance of military leaders of the time however are a matter of historical record.

It should be very easy to quote one of the historians agreeing that then.
Why can't you?

Maybe not Al, but one of these days somebody (no names, no pack-drill) is going to have to take a long, hard look at his public image

All those people caught lying I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 12:47 PM

After your little rant you still fail to produce one scrap of evidence that you have ever put up the proof that you claim - can you imagine the satisfaction it would give you to simply do so and prove us all wrong?
We seem to have moved on from "!rel historians" to "real bookshops" - 'curiouser and curioser'
Your racism in "Pakistani Implants" is a matter of record, so your rejection of historians as being either too "right wing" or "too left wing" really is a joke - the cream on the Christmas pudding, in fact.
I would say that is just about you done and dusted, wouldn't you.
We're all mad and you are the only sane one
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
jIM cARROLL

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 01:23 PM

Really scraping the barrel now Keith if you reckon Amazon is not a bookshop. Dunno about anyone else but I get all my books (yes and lots of other things) from there now. Still, if you insist. Is Waterstones not a bookshop either? Anyway. I have mentioned 2 historians who disagree with you and you keep evading the issue. They are historians. They are alive. They disagree with you. What other criteria should they meet?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 01:52 PM

I keep telling you. He only has two books and one isn't coloured in yet. Give the man a chance!


(When I typed "give" just then the iPhone turned it to "Gove". Even my phone was him weighed up!
😎

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:30 PM

"What other criteria should they meet?"
They need to agree with Keith before they qualify as historians, they can't be too left or too right and can't have been born earlier than 2002 and they must be qualified, unless they work for the Daily Mail or the Guardian (and say the right thing, of course) - pay attention and you'll soon get the hang of the rules
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:39 PM

Did I mention that they all had to agree with Keith?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:43 PM

Keith; seriously mate, leave it. They really aren't worth it. Step back and look at 'em. Purblind imbeciles every one; convinced of their own rectitude while they put their hands over their ears and go "la la la" as loudly as they can. The puerile insults, the venom and the sheer unpleasantness of the comments must make you realise you're dealing with idiots. To quote GBS, don't wrestle with pigs. You get dirty and they enjoy it.
Get yourself above the line and leave the BS to the ignorant and the childish. Any sane and sensible person knows you're right - but stay here and you're just wasting your energy swatting mosquitoes. No matter how many books or papers you reference, someone will come back with "Yeah, but you smell and your mum does too". It really isn't worth a tuppeny damn. After all, it's not as if anyone with a serious interest in history would turn to the Mudcat for enlightenment. Would anyone honestly expect to see a thread here referenced in any other than a musical context?
Anyway, time for me to go back to lurking for another few years until the present crop of yahoos and trolls moves on.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:59 PM

"Keith; seriously mate, leave it. They really aren't worth it. "
There's always one who keeps his head down and lets hiss oppo dig themselves deeper into the shit - the nips out and claims "I was with you all along mate"
If you have anything positive to add please do - all Keith has proved is what he entitled this thread - he certainly is no historian - it takes a bit off effort - not to mention a bit of reading
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:01 PM

Wot Gervase said earlier:

Bloody hell, this place has turned into a festering pit of ignorance, bile and personal abuse, hasn't it?

And wot Gervase sez now, irony-free of course:

Step back and look at 'em. Purblind imbeciles every one; convinced of their own rectitude while they put their hands over their ears and go "la la la" as loudly as they can. The puerile insults, the venom and the sheer unpleasantness of the comments must make you realise you're dealing with idiots.. To quote GBS, don't wrestle with pigs. You get dirty and they enjoy it.
Get yourself above the line and leave the BS to the ignorant and the childish. Any sane and sensible person knows you're right - but stay here and you're just wasting your energy swatting mosquitoes. No matter how many books or papers you reference, someone will come back with "Yeah, but you smell and your mum does too". It really isn't worth a tuppeny damn. After all, it's not as if anyone with a serious interest in history would turn to the Mudcat for enlightenment. Would anyone honestly expect to see a thread here referenced in any other than a musical context?
Anyway, time for me to go back to lurking for another few years until the present crop of yahoos and trolls. moves on.

Hey, laugh a minute, aren't you Gervase? Yet we're supposed to respect you cos you're feted as some kind of Mudcat elder who's bin around for fifteen years or decades or wottever it is. You know, Gervase, yes, you the Gervase who is a blast from Mudcat's glorious past, the truth is, ol' chum, going from this brace of posts, you're just an old burnt-out troll with nothing to say, aren't you. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, Keith's uncle, maybe. Crawl back into your hole, why don't you. Just a suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:07 PM

I keep telling you. He only has two books and one isn't coloured in yet. Give the man a chance!
Cor. You're a roistering roustabout of a keyboard warrior, aren't you? Or are you? You might be a snivelling piece of pusillanimity, getting his jollies by sticking his tongue out at the grown-ups. With a moniker like that it's hard to tell. Hang fire or squib?
Now tell me. What are the chances of you saying that to Keith in the flesh. To his face. Of squaring up to him in a public space and letting rip with that sort of thing, without a pseudonym behind which to hide?
I post under my own name, and many of the older lags here have met me and know who I am. Care to put your name into the public domain?
I thought not.
Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:32 PM

I don't think I ned to say anything else really. Thank you Mr Shaw. Your eloquence does you and the Mudcat proud.
And the Brits scratch their heads and wonder why the Americans think they're such jerks...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:38 PM

Ooh, Steve! Called out on your playground bullying and you start to squeal. Why don't you run to teacher and start tugging at her skirts?
The behaviour I've seen on this thread is pathetic. If all you can offer is childish insults and personal abuse, it's probably best to stick to crayons, poppet. If you disagree with Keith's premise, do it like a grown-up. Cite primary and secondary sources and argue your case. But perhaps it's easier to join in the gang and just start kicking.
Reading these replies reminds me why I left the Muscat and why I felt ashamed to be part of the English folk scene.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:41 PM

My name is Steve Shaw, Gervase. So what's your second name then? Piss, old fruit, or get off the pot.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:44 PM

Instead of marching in when it's all over bar the shouting, why not answer some of the questions Keith's refused to - no?
Thought not - you must be right then - that'a the way he works
"If all you can offer is childish insults and personal abuse,"
He's had the arguments - now you have it - your turn to respond to it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:48 PM

Incidentally, Gervase old chap, whatever else I do here I don't squeal. Cool as a cucumber, me. It's me mantra, darling. Yes, quite annoying, I know. I let others squeal around me. Your sudden resurrection, whoever you actually are, is the best example of over-loud squealing I've heard here for ages. Refreshing, in a way. Now are you or are you not Keith's uncle?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:48 PM

One last sally...
If you have anything positive to add please do,/>
I have neither the wish nor the energy to waste going back over this thread, but you will find that most academic historians writing since 1970 will largely agree with what Keith has said.
I could provide you with a bibliography but that would be a pointless exercise, and I sincerely doubt you would ever read any of the works cited, and would simply prolong this pointless exercise for another 600 odd posts. But, if you actually did want to learn some history, why not expend a little bit of effort in actually reading it, rather than ranting. It's out there and remarkably easy to find. And most of it's free.
Yeah, we all love the poignant, shroud waving stuff and to get maudlin over a jar or two. It's all happened again and again and again and again, an' all that. But reality - well, dammit - reality has a nasty habit of being slightly more complicated than sentiment or received opinion would have it. Ain't that a bugger?
And it's Max Hastings, by the way, not Hasting. But it doesn't appear that accuracy matters much in this current scrap.
Nighty night.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:55 PM

You could ask Keith to read it, Gervase old fellah, cos he hasn't. And, as for accuracy, didn't you see what Keithie did here last week? Don't mention the Guardian. Keith mentioned it twice and he didn't get away with it (with apologies to Basil Fawlty - oops, wrong war...)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:21 PM

Forgotten how to Google, Steve? Never mind. Though I do wonder what brought you here. Looking at your posting history, the only faintly musical contribution I can see in the past couple of years is a snide remark about Eliza Carthy.
Oh well. Crack on.
I left when the forum was taken over by BNP sock puppets (which adds a little spice to the Googling of my name), but it seems that the Augean stables are still full of BS. I'll bow out and leave it to you to continue smearing excrement over the walls.
Pip pip.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 07:44 PM

Well, Gervase, you bow out more often than Frank Sinatra. I mean, that's twice in an hour. The Comeback Kid par excellence, aren't you just. So sorry to hear of your little spat with the extreme right. Perhaps Keith and Ake, two men of that predilection, could have offered you strategies apropos, but you probably didn't ask. As for my little do with Eliza, gosh that was a lot longer ago than in "the past couple of years". As you purport to be a bit of a stickler for accuracy (except in the case of Keith, who clearly has the bar lowered right to the ground in that regard in your opinion), I just thought I'd mention it. Nighty night, Gervase. Don't let the sword of truth bite. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 03:00 AM

In the meantime, Keith calls anybody who has actually read anything about WW1 as psychopathic liars. He then puts words in your name you never said in order to make you look a cunt.

Are you sure it is others who are "trolling" Gervase? You see, if you read up, Keith is pushing an agenda where he selectively quotes and misquotes, calls any historian not impressed with revision a "lefty" and even started waffling on about Adam Smith being a knight in shining armour to Marx's devil.

If you want to defend UKIP be my guest, but like most of his comrades, he ends up a laughing stock.

No. Read up why situations occur before looking at them. Keith started this thread to heap scorn on people who have reached their own conclusions on history. That he needs conclusions written for him is his problem.

If, as you say, you have been following Mudcat so long, you also know he has form. Going back a long way, refusing to accept society's dim view of war and the disgusting way military leadership and inept MOD waste public money and go looking for the sympathy card whenever they come under scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 03:10 AM

This is getting more and more hilarious. I thought it had reached it's climax with Amazon is not a book shop but Gervase has bested that. Come on, G, don't give up now. I don't find your namesake particularly funny but you have got it made man. Thought of writing comedy sketches for a living?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 03:47 AM

This is about the dozenth thread Keith has driven to destruction with his arrogance, his ignorance and his desire to "win".
His stonewalling tactics, his dishonesty and his last-man-standing approach to subjects he obviously has no interest in (certainly not enough to have read up beforehand) have driven people away from subject after subject they obviously do have an interest in, robbing the rest of us of their knowledge and experience.
In the past, his extremism has infringed British laws - it certainly has made Mudcat an uncomfortable place for ethnic minorities.
My suggestion, that, should he continue in his behaviour, he should be boycotted is a serious one - as far as I am concerned, Keith has ruined enough interesting subjects.
Seasonal greetings to all (including Keith)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:13 AM

Amazon is hardly a selective bookshop.
They sell anything and everything.
Does any real bookshop in the world stock Faulkner's WW1 book like they do proper historians?
No.

I have quoted enough historians who hold my views.
Just in the last few weeks, Pennel, Philpott, Macmillan, Bond and others.
All agree my points.

You people just play games.
You claim there are other historians, but you will not name them.
Why is that?

Faulkner is a joke.
We could all put up wacky extremists, but that is all you can put up.

Apart from ridicule and insults, you have nothing to say.

Put up some names of real historians, or you have lost.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:22 AM

Thank you for making my point so well
Have a good one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:29 AM

Does any real bookshop in the world stock Faulkner's WW1 book like they do proper historians?
No.

Do you ever follow the links I put, Keith? I have already pointed out that Waterstones sell it. How about Bookmarks? Or if that is a bit left wing for your tastes, how about The book depistory?

All beside the point anyway. He is still a real historian. he is still alive and he still disagrees with you.

Two lines from you last missive -

Apart from ridicule and insults, you have nothing to say.

and

Faulkner is a joke. We could all put up wacky extremists, but that is all you can put up.

You are happy to ridicule and insult someone who has dedicated his life to the study of history yet when someone ridicules you you take offense? You really are taking the piss now.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:33 AM

Remind me what the point of this thread is, please?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:42 AM

Oh - And if you still feel that Neil Faulkner is a joke and a wacky extremist it may interest you to know that History Today magazine disagree with you. I quote "Matthew Shaw, a curator at the British Library, came in on the conversation and suggested that we carry on the debate at the BL and a date was fixed for January 17th. History Today and the curators at the British Library tweeted the details of the event – there wasn't enough time to print any publicity material – and last night 300 people ( sell-out audience) turned up to listen to Gary Sheffield, along with other historians of the Great War – Annika Mombauer, Dan Todman and Neil Faulkner – discuss its origins, its course and its legacy." If all living historians agree, what is there to debate? Interesting eh?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 04:54 AM

Richard, i would guess that is a rhetorical question but, just in case, and for the benefit of anyone else interested, this post from Keith A is what started it -

I am not a scientist but I am sure that all the discoveries since 1970 are all wrong and the previous generation of Scientists were right all along.

Laughable, but a group of Mudcatters, are saying exactly that about historians on the WWI threads.
Some of them ridicule others for believing without evidence on spiritual matters but do it themselves on history.

Is it just me or are they being irrational?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 05:35 AM

In other words, Bridge, Keith started a thread to have a pop at anybody who disagrees with his rather place and white views, and then gets angry when it gets the reaction it deserves.

I love it especially when people come on and say "stop picking on him, he is genuine."

Oh, he's the real deal alright....

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:13 AM

The debate about WW1 started earlier.
I was ridiculed and insulted for expressing views which are in fact mainstream historical opinion.

If you ridicule the views of mainsteam historians, you make yourself ridiculous.
You people have.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:21 AM

All these historians have supported oone or more of my points.
None have contradicted any of my points.

Saul David, Nigel Jones, Richard Holmes, Peter Hart, David Stephenson,
Fritz Fischer, Dan Todman, Gary Sheffield, Max Hastings, Malcolm Brown,
Stuart Halifax, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan, William Philpott,
Tristram Hunter, Dan Snow, Ian McMillan, David Renolds, heather Jones,
Jane Winter, Pierre Purseigle, Brian Bond, Daniel De Groote, Jeremy Paxman/OU History Dept.

You might not agree, but there is no cause for ridicule or insult.
It makes you ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:22 AM

History Today Magazine: ...along with other historians of the Great War – Annika Mombauer, Dan Todman and Neil Faulkner
Keith A: Faulkner is a joke. We could all put up wacky extremists...
Keith A: If you ridicule the views of mainsteam historians, you make yourself ridiculous.

Just saying.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:27 AM

Keith A: Faulkner is a joke. We could all put up wacky extremists...
Keith A: You might not agree, but there is no cause for ridicule or insult. It makes you ridiculous.

Again, just saying.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 07:59 AM

My co Musket is a historian. He proved it on this thread. Or was it another Keith V The Earth thread?

I forget.

I do recall he passes every test, including being alive
😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Dec 14 - 08:32 AM

Ah, right. Well there is a difference. Much of history is extrapolation and supposition. No-one can go to such and such a date and say that X happened then. All there is to go on are the writings of others. The "fact" there is only that the writings exist. Compare, for example, the bible.

In science, however, one can, again for example, boil water and measure the temperature. One can carbon-date a bone within a certain range of statistical probability. One can see heritable differences between species. From there one may hypothesise a cause, and one may then devise an experiment - which could disprove the hypothesis.

It follows, then, that Keith has (should I say "as usual"?) presented an analogy that he ought to have known was a false analogy. If the explanation in the last few posts is accurate.