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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:45 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:54 PM

I keep getting a feeling of deja vu.

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:32 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:02 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:19 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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