 sj |
||
|
||
BS: I am not an historian but........
|
|
|
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1 On the unreliability of World War One poets (not in dispute) One of the unreliability of Blackadder and O' What as historical documents (not in dispute) 1 single line from the feller involved with the arms industry saying that Haig was a good general 1 linking us to a choir That, as far as I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. |