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

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:53 AM

"Takes two to tango."
Several, in fact
THE SLEEPWALKERS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:48 AM

Al, that is what the history books now all say.

So now you've read ALL the history books in existence, Keith?

Moron.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:47 AM

It does take two to tango, but only one to plunge the world into chaos.

I don't believe that the nations invaded by Austria and Germany in 1914 had any alternative but to defend themselves. I believe too that Britain's fifty-year legal, diplomatic, and moral obligation (shared with Germany) to defend Belgium from invasion, as well as its own self-interest in halting German aggression against Belgium and France, sufficiently justified its entry into the war.

Surely British interests were as obviously and immediately threatened by the German attack on France in 1914 as by Germany's later attack on Poland in 1939.

Passive resistance would have been of no use in either case.

But maybe it's just me....

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:39 AM

Mr T and Keith have a hell of a long way to fall before they reach the depths of you and the fraudulent "Muskets" Steve.

Not one of you admitted at any time that Keith and Teribus had a point, even when they supplied information and sources to back up their views.

Don't know how you can carry on with your one sided media view of life, do you not realise you are being manipulated and in turn attempting to manipulate others.

Interesting to watch media darling Russell B***d on "Question Time" last night being quietly demolished by intelligence, knowledge and a desire to solve obvious problems. His hysterical out bursts reminded me of you and your gang.

It was also interesting to see a baying audience start to realise what was happening; in the end B***d was a figure to be pitied rather than laughed at.

I hope the light also shone on the viewers at home and they also come to realise how media manipulation works......how the emperors really have no clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:02 AM

Sorry, Teribus, but you are being way, way too kind to Keith. He does indeed begin with an extremely fixed point of view which he then fleshes out on the fly. He states that the work of all dead historians is not valid and that all modern historians are of a mind (which he can't possibly know: his only evidence for that is our stubborn refusal to play his silly games), and he agrees with them. I never hear you saying to any "adversary" here, " hmm, you may have a point..", but at least you have some claim to scholarship, which Keith patently does not. Also he does have a track record of shutting his mind to any alternative point of view: we've seen plenty of that behaviour on any thread to do with Israel/Palestine. By defending him, you're not only giving succour to a sucker but you're diminishing yourself into the bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:00 AM

Thank you for that GUEST - 12 Dec 14 - 08:38 AM - Seasons Greetings and a Happy and prosperous New Year.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:38 AM

No, I think I will pass on that pleasure Teribus. Some phrase with 'red hot needles' and 'eyes' springs to mind. I will take your word for it and assume that I, along with some others, misunderstood. Keith has been quantifying his statements more of late of so I think he may understand that some of his earlier posts could have been ambiguous. As McG put above - it takes two to tango and I am happy to accept that I am as likely to have misunderstood as Keith was to have been unclear. Prolific at the moment due to the calm before the Christmas storm. Likely to be less so over the next couple of weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:26 AM

I don't think anyone has suggested that the German government does not carry an enormous burden of blame for the disaster. There is no shortage of guilt to go around. Takes two to tango.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:24 AM

"Keith has been saying all along that because the current popular view of WW1 is what he is saying, it must be true."

Unfortunately prolific GUEST that is NOT what Keith has been saying, he has never said anything close to that.

What he has said if I understand it correctly is:

That he has read about the First World War throughout most of his adult life, he has read the recently published works of various commentators and historians that updates previous histories and he finds himself in agreement with them. He did not first have a view point and then cherry-picked historians old and new to bolster his point of view. Go back and check the narrative if you want to.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:18 AM

Don't say reputable. Keith hasnt added that clause to his long list of caveats yet.

😂

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:43 AM

> he bought a dimension of suffering into the world that is almost unimaginable.

You mean Kaiser Wilhelm and his Austrian buddies, of course.

No one was threatening Germany, Austria, or the Ottoman Empire with attack in 1914. No one.

There is *no* reputable historian, now or then, German or otherwise, who disagrees.

Even the Germans claimed they'd been forced to wage a quasi-pre-emptive war on four sovereign nations (five if you throw in Luxembourg) because they'd given Austria a blank check to invade and overthrow Serbia, whose threat to the Dual Monarchy was minimal by any standard. When Berlin saw what was happening to Europe before the end of 1914 with a million dead in five months, it was incumbent upon them to call for a cease-fire and negotiations, which they had not the least desire to do. Because they were winning.

Without Germany's pledge of support, Serbia would undoubtedly have been deterred; if not, the war would almost certainly have been confined to the east, and probably could not have been sustained for four long years.

Hence the victors' insistence on "German war-guilt." It added insult to injury from the German perspective, but it was morally justified if politically myopic.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:57 AM

Here's a clip to illustrate Omar Khayyam's point:

http://youtu.be/c4V516KCRQg

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:53 AM

Sorry, one last point. The irony of your statement "Because something is popularly believed does not make it true." has only just struck me. Keith has been saying all along that because the current popular view of WW1 is what he is saying, it must be true. Does it not strike you as odd that you have just proposed the opposite viewpoint with regards to another scenario?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:49 AM

It doesn't, Teribus, but you were being hypothetical in your life depended on it question so I thought it reasonable to continue on the same hypothesis. Anyhow - Done to death I think. Why don't we follow McGs advice and declare an armistice? On ALL the WW1 thread? They are never going to get anyone anywhere!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:43 AM

Because something is popularly believed does not make it true.

History and the teaching of history should represent events of the past as objectively and as accurately as possible - it should not perpetuate myths that were popularly believed at one time and which have long since been disproven. It should not misrepresent what occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:14 AM

...and well said McG.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:11 AM

Sorry, Teribus, cross posted with your other point. It was a flippant answer to a leading question but if you insist on a serious one, here goes. If, as is often the case in law, my defence depended on people from the general public to believe me, I would chose whichever appealed to the 12 good men and true. Rightly or wrongly most people in this country currently believe the old guard. If it is wrong of me to rely on popular support then sorry, I am morally bankrupt. But my life does depend on it...

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:05 AM

Omar Khayyam ( or rather Edward Fitzgerald) got it spot on:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

Maybe stopping the Great War once it was clear it was a futile conflict was too difficult to achieve, but drawing this futile squabble on the Mudcat to an end shouldn't be impossible.

Armistice time please!!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:02 AM

I already know it, thanks Teribus, and believe I have used the term in the way I intended. Not sure what your point is. Sorry.

academic
adjective

1. relating to education and scholarship.
    synonyms:        educational, scholastic, instructional, pedagogical;   2. not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest.
    "the debate has been largely academic"
    synonyms:        theoretical, conceptual, notional, philosophical, unpragmatic, hypothetical, speculative, conjectural, conjectured, suppositional, putative;

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 06:01 AM

"if my life depended on it, I would not be asking a historian for advice!"

Not the question that was asked was it?

If your life depended upon it which would you base your defence on?

A A defence based upon well documented fact and extensive research

B A defence based upon established myth, lies and fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:43 AM

GUEST look up the meaning of the word "academic"

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

Sorry Teribus but I would dispute some of your contentions.

Firstly, opinions are just opinions and the opinions given here on both sides of the fence will not make an iota of difference to me, you or the world at large. I asked at the end 'what is the point'. I ask it again but it is rhetorical as I believe the answer to be 'purely for our amusement'. If that is the case, why get so heated?

Secondly, I still hold that study of history is purely academic. Yes, there SHOULD be lessons to be learned but the only ones we seem to learn about war is how to kill more people. Until the application of history actually prevents more conflict, in this case, it is academic.

Finally, if my life depended on it, I would not be asking a historian for advice!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:27 AM

its forty years since i did history units with the open university.

i wouldn't know where to look for current historians. studying history is hard work. idid it to get my degree, but i found it tough going - not at all congenial.

one thing i did learn was to value primary sources, like my grandparents, and parents born 1916 and 1919.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:26 AM

Guest,
Your views are supported by the historians you have read while others are supported by the historians they have read? Your historians are better than their historians?

My views are supported by the historians I have read.
Those arguing against us can only cite long dead historians.

None of them have yet found an actual living one who still hold those old views that they have to cling to for ideological reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:02 AM

Ehmmmmm No GUEST - 12 Dec 14 - 04:28 AM - Not that at all.

1: "you have a particular opinion and other people disagree with it?"

Obviously, basic start point for any debate or discussion.

2: "Your views are supported by the historians you have read while others are supported by the historians they have read?"

Ah if that indeed were the case, unfortunately it is not. While one side of this argument have read and studied the material (Including, most recent, recent, past and long past), the other side rely on selective and much narrower sources from the entertainment industry, unsubstantiated hearsay and past historical sources that lack the information available to and contained in more recent works covering the topic. If you agree with the premise that the more information you have on any particular topic the better your study of it will be then your:

"Your historians are better than their historians?"

Is correct, and your:

"Sorry but that is a pretty futile argument about something that is wholly academic anyway."

Is way off the mark (The study and application of History is about as far from being "wholly academic" as you can get if you think about "lessons to be learned").

On one side you have a point of view supported by well documented fact and extensive research while on the other you have reliance on myth, lies and fiction. If your life depended upon it which would you base your defence on?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:28 AM

So, what this whole argument and that on related threads boils down to is that you have a particular opinion and other people disagree with it? Your views are supported by the historians you have read while others are supported by the historians they have read? Your historians are better than their historians? My dad is bigger than your dad? Sorry but that is a pretty futile argument about something that is wholly academic anyway. What's the point?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:18 AM

Wrong impression Guest.
What I am saying is that my views are supported by the historians, because reading them gave me those views.

Of course the historians could all be deluded or lying, but do you think that likely?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:12 AM

GUEST - 12 Dec 14 - 04:05 AM

So you don't read Musket's posts either then.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 04:05 AM

Were those the two he'd coloured in, Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 03:26 AM

I have never once invoked historical proof, but if there is a consensus/fashion among the historians, it must at least be a reasonable view to hold.

Keith, the impression you give is that you are supplying us with undeniable facts. Phrases like 'you lose' and 'all historians agree' imply that what you say must be true. I read it that way and, judging by the response, many others do. You are now saying "it must at least be a reasonable view to hold" which I agree with. It is a view, an opinion, not a fact. Just like the views and opinions of various historians. Please don't come back with your usual 'find where I have said it is a fact' ripost as I am not going to wade back through all that mire. It is just not worth it and I will happily accept that it was a wrong impression. I, for one, have not attacked you nor your three points. I have attacked the idea that because the historians you have read hold the same opinion, your opinion must be right. That is just nonsense. You now seem to be saying "I believe (opinion 1, 2 and 3) and most historians currently writing about WW1 seem to be of the same opinion, therefore it seems a reasonable view to hold." Is that right? If so, I am sure that no-one can disagree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 03:11 AM

See that first line of Keith's post above?

That's why taking the piss is the only option. Serious debate has never been possible with Keith. And when his inadequacy is exposed he just turns nasty. I accept he turns nasty against me because I go out of my way to invoke it but serious people wishing to have serious debate get in his cross hairs too.

Then Terribulus weighs in with waffle that makes Jim's posts look short and succinct. (Has anyone bothered reading them end to end?)

Anyway, I hear Keith's library got flooded and both his books were ruined.






And that's a shame because one of them wasn't crayoned in yet.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:49 AM

Al, that is what the history books now all say.
That they are all wrong is a valid view, but is it reasonable?

Where should people go to discover history if not the history books?

You are not alone in knowing how many died.
I too have spent time in the cemeteries of Flanders and France.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:47 AM

Big Al who "b(r)ought? a dimension of suffering into the world that is almost unimaginable."?

Haig? So the Germans who started the war and invaded Belgium and France share no portion of the blame? They were the aggressors, they had to be defeated so to blame Haig is something like blaming the bully's victim for the fight.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:36 AM

Keith, by you fruits you shall be known......

look at the war cemetries. somewhere, somehow.....he should have stopped the insanity. you don't have to be a historian, just a human being.

he bought a dimension of suffering into the world that is almost unimaginable.

reasonable view...my arse!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 01:00 AM

I agree with all that Kevin.
On those specific issues there is a consensus.
Call it a fashion if you will.

I have never once invoked historical proof, but if there is a consensus/fashion among the historians, it must at least be a reasonable view to hold.

As you know, I was attacked and ridiculed for just expressing those views.
It would have meant much to me if you had spoken against that, but you chose not to.
Will you now?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: LadyJean
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 12:24 AM

Historiography is a real word. It means the history of history. Seriously! One of the things we learn from historiography is that people's views of the past change as the times change. Because our perspectives change. Because we discover new information. Historians have been arguing back and forth about Richard III's back for generations. Then his skeleton was discovered and we learned he had scoliosis.
New information about the "war to end wars" means new views on the history of WWI That's how history is made.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:49 PM

> the terrible and unwished for things that can come from what seem like sensible choices.

Which is precisely the problem of history's "lessons."

Seemingly sensible actions can often lead to disaster. But seemingly senseless ones are even more likely to do so. And we must always choose on or the other.

Only hindsight is 20/20.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 08:07 PM

Precisely. "Hypothetics tell us nothing".

All we can know is that the history we had, with the catastrophe of the Great War leading inexorably to the even greater catastrophe of World War II, and the agony that followed, which is still unfolding, was an awful history. And that, at the time the choices made that led to it seemed sensible enough.

And the lesson should be to look at what we do today, and be aware of the terrible and unwished for things that can come from what seem like sensible choices.

But there can never be any guarantee that the choices we make will be the best ones.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:18 PM

Not mine, however.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 07:12 PM

so basically the role of a historian is to justify the incompetence of the upper classes.

Haig was a genius.

Thatcher was a genius.

well its a point of view.......

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:57 PM

> Ferguson saying that we should have let Germany take Europe.

Many of us fail to see what good that would have done, other than to shorten this particular war while leaving leave a fully militarized, emboldened Germany and Austria astride northwest, central, eastern, and southeastern Europe.

And perhaps "Hitler" would have been French, with a grudge against the UK and with German, Austrian, and Turkish allies. Or British, with a grudge against the politicians who stabbed the Empire in the back by letting Germany win without a fight.

Who knows? History would have been very different, but not necessarily any better or more peaceful. Hypotheticals tell us nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 05:42 PM

One of the points I have been trying to make over and over again, McG. History is not an exact science. In addition to that, the assertion that 'all historians agree' makes the whole argument flawed. I am not even saying if Keith is wrong about the three points - he may well be right for all I know - but to be so dogmatic and try to back up the 'facts (read 'historians opinions') with an invalid assertion is nonsense. Sadly Keith cannot see this and insists that if no-one can find evidence to the contrary, it must be true. Flying in the face of reason. Teribus seems to have a better handle on it and at least provides reason and logic to an otherwise poor delivery. Sadly we are now embroiled in the Jim and allies vs Keith and allies bun fight that will never end well. I would leave but, sadly, I am now hooked!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:42 PM

In Keith's first post he said, "Is it just me or are they being irrational?"

This will be my last post to this thread.

Keith, I wanted to start a thread about the importance to world history of the Peloponnesian Wars but I won't if you know anything at all about the matter. RSVP, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 04:09 PM

...there is now a consensus among the historians.

Here we go again with the monolithic block "The Historians".

You mean the 6 bloggers you found that agree with you, don't you, Keith?

By the way, how far have you got with that list of all the living historians, Keith??

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:44 PM

"Consensus" can be another way of saying "fashion".

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 03:16 PM

I accept that fully Kevin, but on the specific three issues that I have discussed there is now a consensus among the historians.

I have been attacked for saying that, but no-one has found an exception apart from Ferguson saying we should have let Germany take Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

I use two words myself.

Keith. What is a historian?

You know, putting aside living, having never voted Labour and all the other silly nonsense.

As you call me a liar, at least have the decency to indicate how and why.

(You can't, you lose, I confidently predict you can't etc ad nauseum. Not nice is it?)

🐴🐴🐴🐴

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 02:13 PM

I really don't think you understand what history is about, Keith. You keep on talking as if it was a matter of proof, and it's not. It's about weighing evidence, and interpreting it and offering opinions. Evidence comes into it, and so does fashion and academic ambition. There'so no room for being dogmatic.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:56 AM

Musket, you did claim that the piece was by "a living historian."
It was not.
You lied hoping to gain a cheap point.

You do it so readily that nothing you say should ever be taken at face value.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 11 Dec 14 - 11:45 AM

speaking as a part time Musket, can I say that Keith has yet again called a respectable honest person a liar.

This would never happen if this site was moderated.

A person who writes about and comments on history is called a historian. Yet again, Keith struggles to keep his absurd definitions in one piece.

Prat.