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

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 11:22 AM

Ok Steve.
The Guardian printed a piece, by a Guardian correspondent, that described Taylor and Clark's work as "vulgar" and "fraudulent."

Al,

i think the problem with your analysis is that it implies we must accept the inevitability of war. could Germany have been brought to heel by no other means. its something we don't know.

I have never expressed any opinion about the turmoil in Europe before August 1914.
The historians argue endlessly about the rights and wrongs of it.

I just say that when the German armies were unleashed across Europe, there was no choice but to resist them.
That is the view of the overwhelming majority of the historians. (all but Nial Ferguson)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:56 AM

Keith telling porkies? Why, slap my thighs!!!

Terribulus, by the way changed a sentence of a few words by me into a whole paragraph just back there, saying I said this , that and the other.

Fuck me, anybody can read what I put and you misrepresented it, so what price believing any of the other shite you put, quoting sources...

Al, nobody can get their heads around "the historians" on account of it being a moving target for starters. Keith seems to put them on the same level as his other faith. Although I don't think the little baby Jesus ever sent men over the top in any of the novels he appears in as part of the New Testament.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 10:19 AM

Hmm. Interesting that you link to an article by Geoffrey Wheatcroft (who basically seems to disagree with everybody about everything). Couple of points, Keith. You fibbed when you say he called AJP Taylor fraudulent. He doesn't like his stuff, for sure, but that was not a word he used against him. Still, it's asking a lot to get you to be accurate, I suppose. Incidentally, you implied that it was "the Guardian" that said he was fraudulent. It wasn't. It was a Guardian columnist. The Guardian, more than most papers, invites opinion from a wide spectrum. Slightly iffier even than that is you choice of Wheatcroft in your support in the first place. I mean, have you read what he has to say about Israel, Keith? If you haven't, gird up your loins, old chap, you won't like it. Another case of Keith's cherrypicking here?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM

Steve, here it is again.
"That series had been preceded in 1963 by AJP Taylor's rather vulgar book, The First World War: An Illustrated History, and Oh, What a Lovely War!, Joan Littlewood's musical pasquinade. The latter, which used the songs the Tommies had sung in the trenches, drew on Alan Clark's 1961 book The Donkeys – a largely fraudulent book, whose title derives from an invented quotation about "lions led by donkeys", that nevertheless made a mark."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war

Al,THINK! THINK FOR YOURSELF! NEVER MIND WHAT 'HISTORIANS' SAY.

The historians do not just say things, they research them and provide evidence of their sources.
Research uncovers history.
Sitting and thinking just amplifies all your preconceptions and prejudices because it produces no new facts.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 08:16 AM

Al do keep up, there's a good chap!

The Muppets wished to claim that between being appointed as Secretary of Stae for War the day after war was declared until the end of 1915 (Why they selected that date I have no idea - possibly something to do with the 1915 "Shell Scandal") Lord Kitchener had done nothing apart from bungling things. Then on 5th June 1916 when he was killed it took them one month to appoint a successor so on the 6th July David Lloyd George became Secretary of State for War and as Kitchener had done nothing but mess things up until then it must have been David Lloyd George who between the 6th July 1916 and the 1st August 1916 single-handedly recruited 1.8 million men, equipped them, trained them and transported them over to France to partake in the Somme Offensive of that year. As well as manufacture the British Army's new Heavy Artillery and manufacture all the shells required - My, my he must have been a busy boy eh?

"how much equipment and training does it take to get mowed down by a machine gun?"

Not very much at all. Now how much training does it take to successfully get past it? How much training does it take to successfully destroy it? Because that is what that Army that Kitchener raised did between August 1916 and November 1918 and they did it in steps against what was considered to be the largest, most powerful and best trained army in the world.

"for god's sake THINK! THINK FOR YOURSELF! NEVER MIND WHAT 'HISTORIANS' SAY."

Don't know about you Al but if I am going to think about something and form an opinion, then the first thing I need is information. If what I am thinking about is something that occurred in the past (In this case 100 years ago) then where do I get this information from and how should I qualify the sources giving me the information I need? Are you seriously suggesting that the considered work of qualified scholars should be ignored?? If so then you Sir are mad, barking mad.

Politicians took the country to war Al not Careerist Generals

South Africa in the 100 years after the Boer War?

1902 to 1910 - The British until the passing of the 1909 South Africa Act.

1910 to 1948 - The Dominion of South Africa was ruled by elected South African Governments. In 1931 the country was fully sovereign from the United Kingdom. In 1934 the South Africa Party and the National Party merged to form the Union Party. This unification came to sticky end in 1939 when the Union Party voted to enter the Second World War on the side of the United Kingdom and the predominantly Boer National Party set up shop again. They won the election in 1948 and the system of apartheid was introduced.

1948 to 1994 - The National Party. In 1961 South Africa became a Republic.

1994 to Present - The ANC.

"Which is the richest industrialised nation in |Europe?"

Now I think that that would be Germany, partly through their own efforts but also due to them having been brought to ruin by two world wars (that they started) and then given massive assistance. The destruction in 1945 was almost total and after their defeat they were granted a "clean sheet" on condition that their entire social and industrial sectors were "constructed" for them under extremely tight guidelines and that the country be occupied and divided into US, British, French and Russian Sectors. The Germans sensibly spent their "Marshall Plan" money on rebuilding their industry where they were only allowed five trades Unions and there could not be any "wildcat strikes" (Japan by the way was only allowed three trades unions in their rigidly supervised reconstruction). The United Kingdom, under a Labour Administration, on the other hand stupidly spent it's "Marshall plan" money on funding and building our Welfare System. Germany ended up with a labour force and means to create wealth by which it created a sustainable welfare system, we ended up creating a culture of benefits dependency.

The Hague Convention of 1948 helped Germany as did the 1952 creation of the European Coal and Steel Community linking Belgium, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and West Germany - a cosy little club dominated by France and Germany that guaranteed their financial and industrial well being. This grew with the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957 to become what was formerly known as the European Economic Community. This cosy little club still exists today although it is a great deal larger. It is still dominated by France and Germany who do whatever suits them best. Germany may well be the richest industrialised country in Europe but she was given a great deal of help to secure that position.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 05:56 AM

just attempted clause analysis on that last sentence to find out what you are talking about. no luck. you are in a confusing abusive mindset Teribus. Calm down.

pyrric victory,,,,a few more like the Boer War and the first world war and we would have the economic importance of madagascar.

how much equipment and training does it take to get mowed down by a machine gun?

if Cuba proved anything - it was there is always a way back from the precipice.   

and lastly. for god's sake THINK! THINK FOR YOURSELF! NEVER MIND WHAT 'HISTORIANS' SAY.

Who picked up the tab for the mistaken idea that they could influence events by this military nonsense. Careerist generals......or all the widows and bereaved parents and the poor sods buried under those white crosses.

who ended up running South Africa for the next hundred years the English or the Boers?

Which is the richest industrialised nation in |Europe?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 04:42 AM

Psssst "our attitude, both government and family, towards The Kaiser had" S.F.A. influence or impact on what Kaiser Wilhelm II was all for pushing Emperor Franz Joseph into in the spat between Austria and Serbia - on that subject the opinions, attitudes and policies of the Government of Great Britain didn't feature at all.

With regard to ""poor little Belgium." We were busy negotiating an imperial pact with Belgium to help them out of their empire hole."

Really?? What imperial pact was that then Muppet?

And pray tell which incompetent military leaders in Great Britain or in France were assuring their greedy governments "that "going for gold" will sustain the empire and give German imperialism a bloody nose." - or is all this tripe just more Musket made-up-shit.

As for Boer War/ Great War similarities I just can't wait for the astounding degree of incomprehension that the three of you will demonstrate over this.

You know it really is funny that for all our incompetence, all our uselessness, we do tend to learn from our mistakes and learn rather quickly at that. Or have I got things wrong and that in reality the Boers won the Boer War and that it was the Germans who were victorious in 1918.

Another funny thing is that under the direction of Lord Kitchener amazingly enough between August 1914 and the end of 1915 absolutely no work had been done to raise Britain's first citizen army and that not a single rifle, machine-gun, artillery piece or any ammunition had been produced and that how as if seemingly by magic after his death David Lloyd George in the space of a few weeks had managed to create a fully equipped and trained army of some 1.8 million - amazing eh?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 03:39 AM

Yeah I remember seeing some such stuff Terribulus, on The History Channel.

Although of course it was a programme debunking myths.

All opinions of course, but you and your mate with toy soldiers insist on opinions you like being the truth.

First was that if our attitude, both government and family, towards The Kaiser had been a bit less of humiliating him, the doves in his government may have prevailed.

Second was "poor little Belgium." We were busy negotiating an imperial pact with Belgium to help them out of their empire hole. Our experiences in South Africa and growing discontent in India meant the damned scrap of empire was crumbling. Ulterior motive in our relationship with Belgium, and Germany, not to mention Austro Hungary etc were needing stable trading in far shores.

Any thoughts of western powers showing concern for the citizens of neighbours are rather far fetched to say the least. It was greedy government being assured by incompetent military that "going for gold" will sustain the empire and give German imperialism a bloody nose.

So much for your side show eh?

Al is spot on. I visited some of the Boer War sites the other year and the visitors' centre at Spion Kop, run by us by the way, not South Africa, has a section showing how mistakes in South Africa were merely repeated in Europe and how Kitchener was allowed to carry on bungling till the end of 1915 when the government had had enough of his poor leadership and bad planning.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 14 - 02:04 AM

"could Germany have been brought to heel by no other means. its something we don't know."

No and yes we do know - all you have to do is read up on it.

The plain fact of the case was that as soon as Germany mobilised its forces in the west, i.e. the forces assigned under Von Moltke's modified Schlieffen Plan, they had to move as they could not be held in waiting on German soil.

Now the Serbs could mobilise then stand their troops down.
The Austro-Hungarians could mobilise their troops then stand them down.
The Russians could mobilise their troops then stand them down.
The French could mobilise their troops then stand them down.
The British could mobilise their troops then stand them down.
For their war plan to work the Germans could NOT.

The ONLY window of opportunity to prevent the war from happening occurred between the 28th July and the 31st July, 1914. By the 25th July Serbia had virtually capitulated to all but one of the ten Austrian demands - the Kaiser opted for war:

1st August Germany orders full mobilisation and declares war on Russia
2 August 1914, Germany invades Luxembourg and demands that German armies be given free passage through Belgian territory.
3rd August Belgium refuses free passage to German troops, Germany declares war on France.
4 August, German troops invaded Belgium. Great Britain declares war on Germany.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 11:11 PM

the point is Keith that the Boer war and to some extent the American civil war showed what was likely to happen. my grandfather always reckoned the fighting conditions in the Boer war were actually worse than in the trenches. i don't really buy this idea that it was all a complete surprise that approaching a machine gun nest was a tricky business.

my family lost four members that i know of in the trenches. i'm sure some families came off much worse. they didn't go off willingly in every case. some like my grandad were in a military reserve, and they had to leave their homes and businesses. others got nagged and conned by the posters and propaganda and white feather giver outers.

i think the problem with your analysis is that it implies we must accept the inevitability of war. could Germany have been brought to heel by no other means. its something we don't know. We defeated the Soviet empire without embracing open nose to nose mayhem. i believe there has to be alternatives.

when the dogs of war are loose, its no use whining about the use of torture. or any kind of bestial behaviour. and as for military genius - read War and Peace - for Tolstoy's brilliant expose on so called military genius. once the fighting starts the genie is out of the bottle - anything can and does happen. and no one has any real control.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 08:10 PM

The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

I wish to pursue this statement. Give me the Guardian link please.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 12:59 PM

Jim, I have been linking you to quotes from historians for over a year.
Denying that shows either stupidity or desperation.
I could sit down for half an hour copying them on to one of these threads, but no doubt you would deny it all over again.

There are several already on these threads anyway.
And, still none from your side.

Al, it is so sad that you never had a chance to know those family members.
An older cousin to my fathere died in France too.

They went out, willingly in the vast majority of cases, to save Europe and Britain from a cruel invader.
Their leaders were not incompetent fools, but no-one knew how to fight such a war.

There were as many views afterwards as there were surivors, but from 1918 to about 1930 they overwhelmingly believed the war to have been right and Haig and the leadership worthy.

After that Lloyd George got his knife into the now dead Haig, and class war advocates denigrated the officer class with powerful propaganda.
The Guardian last week described the work of Clark and Taylor as "fraudulent."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 11:42 AM

"We have, and they all support us."
Then link us to them - simple as that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 09:40 AM

i think its obvious that Keith believes what he does quite sincerely

That don't make it any less total bullehit.

Madison Grant was sincere as well, and look what HE spawned ca. 1939.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 07:25 AM

It's the insistence that those who aren't blinkered by establishment attempts to sanitise the reputation of those responsible for deaths are somehow liars.

So you believe that the historians are lying to save the "establishment" whose members are so long dead.

Funny how from 1930 to 1970 "the establishment" was fair game for them!
What has changed?

You seem to finally accept that I am just saying what the historians are saying.
Your case is that they are all lying.

Lets us all agree to differ on that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 06:31 AM

Stop trying to add it then.

My tuppence.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:21 AM

Again nothing to add

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:19 AM

It isn't the conviction of the two disgraceful clowns that gets my goat, after all my mate genuinely thinks the moon landings were a con and they landed in Arizona. Other than that, he's house trained and doesn't bugger off to the bog when its his round. Can't ask for more in a mate.

No. It's the insistence that those who aren't blinkered by establishment attempts to sanitise the reputation of those responsible for deaths are somehow liars.

Rather pathetic really. Just read Terribulus's attempt at a joke above. Or Keith's backfire attempt at mockery when he started this thread.

Notice how pointing out political aspects of historians, then fantasising over the physical attributes of other contributors....

No. It isn't conviction. It's personality disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 05:16 AM

"describing the bugger who killed off half my family as competent is actually offensive."

Killed off half your family did he?? What personally? or were any of the enemy involved? I take it that they, like my grandfathers, had enlisted and that they were aware that there was a war on and had some understanding of what that might involve?

Just as well that they fought under Haig in the BEF and that they were of the family that gave us "Big Al Whittle", because if they had been French as opposed to British and given us "le Grand Al Whittle" it would have been two-thirds of your family killed off and of course had they been German as opposed to British then there wouldn't have been a "Gross Al Whittle" at all so competent was their leadership.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:55 AM

look Jim, i don't agree with Keith. someone so positive about their point of view is almost guaranteed to be wrong.

describing the bugger who killed off half my family as competent is actually offensive.

but i think Keith really believes this stuff, and if historians are writing it this way - what can we do? not much. Keith and Terribus are probably the first in line for a whole load of deluded people.

Its like when Sir Thomas More wrote the history of Richard III as a skunk. the rich people won the war. they always do. they write the histories.

can't blame the bloke. he knows what he's read. I know what I was told by people who were there. he can't blame me.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 04:11 AM

It is so easy to find all the historians publishing on WW1.
We have, and they all support us.
You are not going to find one now.
When are you going to give it up?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 03:59 AM

"requoting bollocks doesn't make it other than bollocks."

I know Muppet that is why I am amazed that you persist in doing precisely that.

Now which one are you again the fat bloke, the gay Musket (Hmmm not a bad name for a rather dodgy club that) or the typical "Bully's mate", giggling hyena Musket?

At least looking through the threads on this topic of WWI It can be seen that anything stated by the side generally supporting the three contentions voiced by Keith come in the form of reasoned argument, supported by fact and substantive links. What we get from the likes of you eedjits are snide remarks, personal insults, deflection and "Made-Up-Shit". C'mon tell us again about those RED TOPS (No military policeman has ever been called a RED TOP the only time I ever heard of something being called a RED TOP during my time in the forces the person was referring to an Air-to-Air Missile which quite appropriately did have a RED TOP)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Dec 14 - 02:40 AM

"we disagree with you Jim. it doesn't make us clowns."
Didn't know you did Al - what you say has made far more sense that Keith has offered so far
Keith's clownism doesn't come from his disagreements - it is the crass way he has gone about things.
He bases his arguments on historians he hasn't read and he goes on to claim that the only opinion worth taking notice of are those same historians (which he hasn't read) - worth saying this twice.
He claims to have proved his point by providing definitive evidence from historians (which he hasn't read), yet he refuses to link us to that evidence.
In fact, all he has done is provided us with a list of names of historians (which he hasn't read), because they appear to agree with his arguments on one point or another - not one of them have confirmed, or even mentioned all of the three points he has now reduced his arguments to - not one single one (he could, of course, prove that this is not the case by linking us to them - he claims there are twelve - in fact there are around six out of around 100 historians studying World War One - he was given the list, but he says it is too big for him to read).
On the basis of this tiny number of historians (which he has not read) he claims that there is an overwhelming (if not monolithic) view of World War one which has overturned everything we have been brought up to believe over the last half century - even though these historians have admitted that they are in the minority and have set out to "change the popular view of history"
He has claimed that the only opinion of importance is that of those with a University education and letters after their name (qualified historians) while at the same time, claiming the support of a tabloid journalist (Max Hastings), with no letters after his name (unless you count a knighthood) and no formal historical qualifications.
He dismisses the word of the men who fought in the trenches (presumably because they have no letters after their name) and suggests that they are liars and attention seekers when their opinions differ with his own - a pretty disgusting way to describe those who riked their lives for Britain.
In his desperate attempt to provide evidence for his argument, he puts up a site in support of General Haig - when he finds that th writer doesn't support his case, he hastily attempts to unsay what he has just said because the writer doesn't have letters behind his name (there is a name for a society run entirely by academics - som 'ocracy' or 'archy' - I'm sure someone can remind me.
All he has managed to prove is that he doesn't even read his own postings, let alone history books.
That, for me, is a sign of true clownism - high farce, in fact.
That we all should aspire to such heights of scholarship.
Wsan't referring to anybody else Al - just Keith, so don't try to deprive him of his truely earned notoriety.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:27 PM

i think its obvious that Keith believes what he does quite sincerely. just as i have my rather oddball views about the nature of folk music.

we disagree with you Jim. it doesn't make us clowns.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:16 PM

"Have you found one that contradicts me yet?"
You refuse to link us to one single statement we can challenge - even funnier that.
This non-historian clown has just put up a quote from a historian to prove he has a consensus then has attempted to withdraw it because he hadn't read it properly and it turned out to be saying the opposite.
It's getting more like a Kafka novel by the minute.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:30 PM

Of course Al.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:34 PM

well lets just agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:44 PM

Jim, you are telling lies about me.
Anyone who looks at any of these threads will see me quoting the actual words of named historians.

Have you found one that contradicts me yet?
Funny that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:32 PM

yes but requoting bollocks doesn't make it other than bollocks.

It just reminds everyone how cherry picking and context bending is live and well in Hertford.

In the words of Keith, "thanks Teribus."

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 12:23 PM

"And this has been going on since November last year? Crikey."
Much longer than that.
Keith has developed a technique that, whenever he rns into a snag, he invents mythical historians who, he says, prove his case.
He refuses to tell us exactly what they say, s here, and more often as not, they have a habit of blowing up in his face, also as here (see Irish Famine thread).
He has no intention of linking us to what he claims, as is pretty obvious.
He will no go on tho claim that his linking to two massive threads have proved his point - hope the bookies isn't closed!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 11:25 AM

That's a link to two huge threads, not to quotes by historian - are you out of your mind?
Piss off Keith
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:46 AM

Thanks Teribus - They were off my page when I did the search and I only spotted the results linked to 'above the line' threads.I will get used to the search facility eventually. In the meanwhile, thanks for the help. So, in summary, those three points and whether 'all historians agree' are what is being argued about? And this has been going on since November last year? Crikey.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:43 AM

Many thanks Teribus.

Truce thread,
thread.cfm?threadid=133984&messages=807

Armistice thread,thread.cfm?threadid=152785&messages=777

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:30 AM

Armistice Day Thread November 2013:

1: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:39 PM

Musket.
I doubt Taylor supports your view as your view isn't easy to fathom.

My view is easy to fathom.
1. Britain had to fight. (Taylor and all the other historians agree)

2. Our people understood and accepted the need to fight. (Taylor and all the other historians agree)

3. The British Army was well and effectively led. (Taylor disagreed, but all the military historians do agree, and Taylor was politically motivated.)

2: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 09:22 AM

Musket.
Can you please state the items that have consensus. You haven't yet.

Certainly.

1. Britain had little choice but to stand against the invading German armies.
2. The people understood and responded by volunteering.
3. Despite some disasters as the new warfare was mastered, the British Army was well led.

3: Teribus - PM
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 09:06 AM

"Great Britain shall be celebrating going to ear next year." - GUEST, 29th Nov 13 - 11:03 AM

Where's "ear"? And where ever it is, isn't it relative? Or did you actually mean to make the ludicrous and totally incorrect statement that - Great Britain shall be celebrating going to war next year - which is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Several European Nations will be commemorating the 100th anniversaries of the events that marked the passage and course of the "Great War" - to those who actually had to fight through it and live through it, they would tell you that there was nothing at all "great" about it - apart from the horrendous degree of suffering caused.

But in general having followed the discourse Keith A of Hertford is basically right on the money:

1. That overall the army was well led.

The British Army in general was well led it was the only allied army left capable of mounting any serious offensive effort by the early summer of 1918. After Verdun the French were finished and the American contribution in 1918 was only symbolic, their main contribution was psychological.

2. That Britain had to try and stop the invading German armies.

Again, correct. The corner stone of British foreign policy since 1700 until our entry into the EEC has been that no single country in Europe should be allowed to become undisputed masters of Europe. The 75,000 strong BEF in 1914 stopped the Schlieffen Plan in its tracks, although contemptibly small in numbers they were still the most effective infantrymen on the planet (Look up what the firing exercise known as the "mad minute" was to give you an idea). All through the course of the war the British mounted offensive after offensive and beat off the subsequent German attacks including their last gasp attack in the spring of 1918 against the British Fifth Army under General Hubert Gough when the German Armies from the Eastern Front were moved West, the British gave ground but did not break and run, costing the Germans some 230,000 casualties.

3. People mostly volunteered because they understood that.

As part of that view on the "Mastery of Europe" that no European conqueror should control the waterways and coastline of Europe opposite the Thames Estuary - hence the creation of the small state of Belgium and the Treaties signed to guarantee its Sovereignty. I had two grandfathers who fought in the First World War and both were fully aware of why they fought, to suggest that the vast majority were conned into fighting a war that had nothing to with them is idiotic. Newspapers actually contained news in those days and people of all classes did read and understand them.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:00 AM

What's up Keith? A bit concerned that someone is asking you to justify?

Haig's funeral and all the outpouring of grief. Reminds me of Jimmy Saville laying in state in Queens Hotel in Leeds whilst people queued to pay their respects.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:58 AM

No particular reason, Keith.

The only threads I can find with the word "Armistice" are -
Armistice 2014         
9
        12 Nov 14 - 09:34 PM
Armistice Pals         
8
        09 Nov 14 - 04:21 PM
Armistice poem         
3
        12 Nov 10 - 09:21 AM
Song for Secular Armistice Day         
15
        24 Aug 07 - 09:04 PM

None of them seem to have November 2013 posts in them. The onlt thread I can find with the words "Christmas truce" is
The Christmas Truce         
14
        13 Dec 14 - 03:30 AM

Again, no posts from November 2013.

Can you be a bit more specific? Thanks again.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:51 AM

Guest, just refresh the Armistice discussion thread and Christmas truce thread.
I first made my 3 claims in November 2013 in those threads.

While others complain about our discussion, you want to join it?
Why now?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:47 AM

"Why do you feel driven to close your eyes, ears and minds to all this?"
Your own historian has pointed out that, as far as they are concerned, Haig's leadership is in doubt - o conclusion.
Are you choosing to close your eyes to this, despite your hiding behind historians for your argument?
Your historian is still living b.t.w. - so he must be right!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:29 AM

Or in fact, even easier, you keep mentioning 'over a year' and '14 months', can you link me to what started this whole thing off please? Ta.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:27 AM

Having entered this relatively late in the day can I ask you a favour, Keith. Can you post a link to where you first posted the three points you mention and where you said that all historians now agree with them. That way we may avoid the continuous pantomime repetition of "Yes he did, no he didn't!" Thanks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 07:18 AM

No new film has come to light that discredits their film, so its OK Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 06:37 AM

But Keith, the guys who gave us Pathe News are all dead...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 06:25 AM

Earl Haig is buried in the ruins of Dryburgh Abbey just North of Melrose in the Scottish Borders.

Haig's Grave - Dryburgh Abbey

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:43 AM

Hundreds of thousands queued in the driving sleet for hours to pass his body in Edinburgh.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:42 AM

On a bitter February day, a million people lined the route in London.
Hundreds of thousands qued in the driving sleet for hours to pass his body.
"At DH's state funeral more than 30,000 military veterans followed the cortege to his final resting place at Dryberg Abbey near Alnwick, Northumberland, England. It was said to be the largest assemblage of British subjects at such a public event up to that date. That so many of his former soldiers made the effort to travel to this isolated place is quite extraordinary. One can only wonder how many would have turned out if the ceremony had taken place in one of the more densely populated area of the country."

This is all hard evidence that the man was overwhelmingly loved not hated.
You can see it all on Pathe News.
Why do you feel driven to close your eyes, ears and minds to all this?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:06 AM

"No-one is making you believe the findings of the historians."
One of your historians has just pointed out that nobody has a clue how good a general haig was - care to comment on that?
Any chance of your substantiating your lies about historians backing up your argument - a few simple links should do it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 03:33 AM

Wonders never cease. Akenaton was actually correct when he spoke of the consensus.

Unfortunately, he mean't Keith, Terribulus, Michael Gove, out of context quotes from a select few historians and that bloke in Doncaster market who shouts at lampposts.

The consensus is as it always was. Poor leadership leading to unnecessary deaths of men caught up in the jingoism and propaganda of the day.

You know, just like "the historians" actually conclude.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 08:37 PM

sorry.....in what way didn't they come close. i sat in church the week of his funeral - the sermon was on how we needed another Churchill.....it was national phenomenon.

don't you remember?

Princess Di.....did they mass at every train station carrying the body, like they did for Di at every motorway bridge.

I think you are ......deluded.

There aren't really a lot of statues to the bloke.....doesn't that say something to you?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:33 PM

I am astounded by your wit ake. How do you do it?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 06:29 PM

I certainly judge you by the company you keep.