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