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

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: 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 - 10:32 AM

Maybe these?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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 - 08:29 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 - 08:18 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,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: 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: 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,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: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 06:57 AM

Jesus H. Christ...

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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,Jim I
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 07:33 PM

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
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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 14 - 01:28 PM

Dominic Alexander
Douglas Newton
Greg Jenner

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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:21 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: GUEST,#
Date: 06 Dec 14 - 01:00 PM

Just say it and mean it.

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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.