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

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 01:26 PM

"Real historians differ on intangibles like degrees of influence, subtle contributing causes, implications, motive, and areas where contemporaneous evidence is poor."

so I guess my question should... " Who the heck is writing the history textbooks in Japan."... because the article is pointing out the current state of historical information available to the average Japanese citizen who did not go on to get their advanced degree in history.

You can not teach objective history or science if the textbooks are written by revisionists or others with a non-objective agenda. To paraphrase my computer science teacher - garbage in, garbage out.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 01:45 PM

History is not pure science though, sciencegeek. It is neither testable nor repeatable in the way scientific experimentation is. Take any event witnessed by 4 people and you will get 4 different versions. When those 4 different versions are recorded and subsequently reviewed by others others the number of different versions increases. None of them are revisionists in the sense you mean and none of the stories are 'garbage'. It's just the way the human brain works.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:19 PM

I fear I have to disagree with you, guest....

both science and history require research and objectivity... neither is made up from imagination or wishful, when done properly... and that is my point.   

as for history... you go to original sources that are much easier to find for recent past, which is what I am referring to. There are very few survivors of Pearl Harbor or the Holocaust still alive today. but there is archival material of many kinds still extant. So what is keeping the average Japanese of today ignorant of their recent history? We have enough apologists and revisionists (and just plain lazy researchers) around already, we need critical thinkers in their stead. Just because it's not easy does not mean impossible, just difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:41 PM

a few years ago I watched a documentary and they had footage of youth training programs similar that those of the Hitler youths, except they were in Japan and showed how they were conditioning their children to accept a military society. It helped answer a question I had heard over and over about why young college educated men would fight to the death or become Kamikazi pilots. That question assumed a more normal childhood without an indoctrination program geared to turning a nation's youth into combatants. I have not doubts that those films were ignored in current textbooks, as well.   

How do you explain a "cultural revolution" that destroys the past instead of preserving it? Well, that little red book might have a few answers in it.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:44 PM

Go to the original sources? I refer you back to my statement about 4 different people giving 4 different and often contradictory stories. Sorry, but it is impossible when it comes to subjective matter. Let's take an event again. Let's say the recent shooting in Ferguson. The facts are that a black youth was shot by a white policeman. Why was he shot, who was to blame and was anyone else culpable are the questions that will be asked over and over again. The next fact is that the courts found in favaour of the police department. By why? Was it fair? The further you get from the event the more clouded the picture will become. How wars were fought is the same with added complications. Not all events are testable or objective. It is why history comes under humanities rather than pure science or art.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 02:59 PM

> So what is keeping the average Japanese of today ignorant of their recent history?

Presumably some of the same things that keep the average American ignorant.

Top of the list: reliance on schoolbooks dumbed down and smoothed out for fourteen-year-olds, and lack of interest in pursuing the subject further.

One difference between the US and Japan is that Japanese schoolbooks have to be approved by the central government. Do Japanese college courses endorse the schoolbook version of history?

In fact, the U.S. oil embargo really did lead Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Japanese oil reserves were quickly drying up owing to the unprovoked war against China that the U.S. was trying to stop.
(Number of Chinese civilians slaughtered in Nanking: well over 100,000 - comparable to the death toll at Hiroshima.)

Many Japanese officials knew it would be almost impossible to beat the United States, but they decided to risk it rather than be humiliated give up the dream of ruling East Asia and the Pacific. It was all or nothing. If they lost, at least they could go down fighting rather than be dictated to by an inferior race.

Lesson from Munich: never try to appease an aggressor.

Lesson from Pearl Harbor: never tighten the screws on an aggressor.

The average citizen of any nation doesn't want objective history anyway. It's too confusing and not very inspiring; but feel-good history always makes you feel good.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:11 PM

Different strokes for different folks.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:24 PM

Sorry, but it is impossible when it comes to subjective matter.

guest, that's a cop out and you should know it. You can not compare apples to organges to "prove" your point. First hand accounts by individuals will give one perspective... but it's official documents that provide most source material and then correspondance and diaries from those officials that help back up conclusions. Last time I checked, Joe Blow on the street did not have the authority to declare war.

Will we ever know everything? Of course not, but we can and do have the ability to figure out more than you seem to give credit to.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 03:43 PM

A monolithic block of historians Greg?
On the points I have raised, none of you have been able to find any who disagree, but I have found lots who agree, so it looks as though it is all of them.

If you manage to find some, or even one, I will have to re-think.

Have you Greg?
Have any of you?
You have been looking for well over a year now.
How much longer do you all need?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:25 PM

Once again, Keith, wyou're having problems with basic English comprehension. Perhaps some remediasl courses are in order- perhaps the Open University has some that would suit.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:35 PM

History ≡ Propaganda ?

Oh please, G.S.Schweik. Fatuous as well as untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 14 - 04:48 PM

I am neither trying to prove a point nor compare apples and oranges, sciencegeek. The situation in Ferguson is not at all dissimilar to an escalation of hostilities. We have eye witness accounts. We have official documents. Everything is there but we will never know the whole truth. You say yourself Will we ever know everything? Of course not Well, that is the whole point it is those unknowns that are being argued and discussed. As to but we can and do have the ability to figure out more than you seem to give credit to. Well, that sums it up. You can figure out what happened. I can figure out what happened. The 'officials' can figure out what happened. But the figuring out bit is what the opinion is and why they differ so much. I am however intrigued by how you seem to be able to figure out how much credit I can give when you do not even know me. Is that based on scientific fact and research as well?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:02 AM

"I put forward a formula in my thesis that was accepted for a PhD. I was delighted seven years later to be on the viva panel of a lad who qualified it, showing practical situations where it does not apply."

So you accept that as time moves on knowledge can be improved upon - good. I take it, as you were delighted, you now accept the exceptions found by said lad prove that your formula is not universally correct after all.

Translate that to any historical event, the one under discussion at present across a number of threads is the First World War. In writing his memoirs Lloyd George wished to portray himself as an effective war leader (When in actual fact he proved himself to be an incompetent meddling fool, who if he had had his way, the war would have lasted at least two more years and millions of Americans would have died as well as the millions of French and British troops), no doubt Tony Blair's memoirs are written in the same light and with the same objective (Note: Neither men are Conservatives) Lloyd George had access to every single Government document and Cabinet paper yet if you examine his memoirs today the myths he wished to create and woeful inaccuracies are evident. Why? How? Because in writing his memoirs Lloyd George did not have access to French and German accounts that historians today have - Lloyd George did not have access to them because they were the classified information of a foreign Government and because they had not been translated. Same goes for the works of Winston Churchill and those of the military theorists Liddell Hart and Fuller.

Most Governments have 50 year rules with regard to sensitive and classified material which would put 1968 as the earliest time for material related to the First World War coming to light. So Musket any history written before 1968 can be viewed like that formula in your thesis any written since is better informed due to the fact that it has been improved by better knowledge, better understanding of a more complete picture.

Works of fiction written with its own agenda and based upon faulty work in the first place can be dismissed as having no historical value whatsoever and should be left out of any historical discussion and viewed solely as entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:30 AM

What are you wittering on about?

This isn't science. This isn't archeology. This is living memory. The soldiers are all dead now but the families are still here.

Evidence =

First hand accounts.
Hansard.
Lists of dead people.
Lists of how many dead over a few square yards in one day
Photos of executions
The role of red tops
I could go on

But educating anonymous pork isn't top of my priority list today.

You should give your name. Keith can start quoting you then. It must be terrible for us err you to remain anonymous.

💤

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 04:42 AM

"So, in 2069, a bunch of scientists, who weren't yet born in 1969, can discard the experiences of Armstrong and Aldrin, of Collins in the orbiter and of the whole team of scientists in Houston, and reinterpret these events in the way that is politically expedient at the time."

So 100 years after the first Moon landing what more scientific information would have been released related to that event? The answer I would probably assume is none, so scientifically, there would be no change and the records of the work done and the records of the mission remain fixed in time.

OK now take a look at it not scientifically, but historically - ask the same question.

What more historical information would have been released related to the American space program by 2069. It was a promise made in 1960 that before the decade was out an American would travel to the moon and back, and that promise was kept. So with 50, 70 and 100 year rules we can expect more historical material relating to the politics and running of the space program to emerge in 2010, 2030 and 2060 - All of that will add to the knowledge we already have on the subject, some of it may destroy some dearly held truths as to why things happened the way they did. But historically once that information comes out into the public domain no-one can rationally cling to past views or versions that are corrected by the latest information.

The example of "Cats Eyes" Cunningham comes to mind - It is down to him that lots of people believe that eating carrots is key to having good eyesight - load of baloney of course - the story was put out during the Second World War to hide and protect the fact that the Royal Air Force had managed to mount Air Interception Radar sets in their Night-Fighters and now could electronically "see" German Aircraft. Cunningham's success in accumulating his 20 confirmed victories, 3 probables and 6 damaged was published in the newspapers at the time and he was supposed to have attributed his amazing cat-like night vision to him eating carrots - the result was that little boys in Great Britain ate their carrots and vegetables and the Germans were none the wiser until of course they shot down a Night-Fighter on an intruder mission over German held territory and examined the wreckage.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 05:57 AM

Keith.....

I'm not a historian either, but as a sane normal human being - does it seem remotely possible that EVERY historian thinks that the British forces were led in responsible and competent manner?

Can you imagine a guy like Arthur Marwick of the OU going along with it.

get a grip on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:38 AM

I went to Doncaster railway station once. Oddly enough to pick someone up for a Mudcat 'do'. Eeeeeh, what exciting lives we lead.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:59 AM

Musket - 05 Dec 14 - 11:31 AM

1: "Some of us wonder about sending men over the top in such numbers and executing them for cowardice for not doing so."

You have a line of trenches facing one another stretching over 400 miles from the Belgian coast to the Swiss Alps - The enemy are on high ground and can shell your troops at will to devastating effect along sections of that line - This theatre of operations is where your enemy is - The reality of the situation is that you cannot just sit back and take it, you have to attack this enemy and drive him out of the territory he has taken by force. OK then Musket how do you do it without sending men over the top?

As to your second point there - some 5.3 million men volunteered and were conscripted (~50-50) into the British Army during the course of the First World War out of that vast and never to be exceeded number 17 - yes SEVENTEEN were executed for cowardice.

2: "Some of us have read of the butcher of The Somme.

Really?? Where did you read of the Butcher of the Somme? He was never referred to as that by any Author between 1916 and 1928 and they "All had been there" and lived through it. So these works of yours where you read about "The Butcher of the Somme" post-date 1930 and span up to about the late 1960s - very easy to kick a man when he is down, easier still once he is dead and any defence is impossible for him to mount. The Jackals that mounted these attacks? David Lloyd George and Winston Spencer Churchill both keen to polish their own egos and reputations for political purposes and sweep their own shortcomings and failings under the carpet by exaggerating the supposed errors of a man who could not defend himself - Definitely NOT Churchill's Finest Hour. Had the British Government followed the advice and line suggested by either of these men then Great Britain would have lost the First World War. Post 1970 the bulk of historians writing on the subject of the First World War with the advantages of having at their disposal information not available to their predecessors form a consensus that Haig and Kitchener's detractors were wrong.

3: "We see the fields of graves."

Very glad that you have been to visit the First World War cemeteries Musket. Just the British ones or did you also visit the French and German ones? Now tell me why there are fewer of our dead in those First World War graves than say French or Germans - yet it was our troops who were badly led??

4: "Then we read your very black and White "well led and knew what they were letting themselves on for. It just isn't true. It doesn't fit the facts."

Generally speaking that claim in the first sentence is perfectly correct, it was something like 2.6 million men volunteered for active service in the great War and 2.7 million who were conscripted. Of the 2.6 million who volunteered about half of them did so between August 4th 1914 and December 1914. In that 5 months the British public knew of the holding/delaying action fought at Mons and at Le Cateau and they knew with total certainty about the reality of war and the sacrifice required from the First Battle of the Marne and Ypres. If you volunteer for active service in time of war Musket you are voluntarily putting your life at the disposal of your country - you do that in the full understanding that you will be put into harms way and that you may well be killed or badly injured. To suggest anything else is absolute lunacy. To claim that 2.6 million men from that generation of British subjects only went to defend their country because they were so dim and so misinformed that they were had to be duped and lied to is an insult to those men and their memory. Do you honestly think they were such fools?

5: "Your "disagreeing with me is a leftist plot" rubbish explains your stance more than any of your distortions of your so called sources."

Your sources are? Joan Littlewood's "Oh What A Lovely War"? typical 1960s CND, anti-war, anti-establishment satire? Described by it's "historical adviser" Raymond Fletcher (Labour MP and Editor of the Tribune) as being - "One part me, one part Liddell Hart, the rest Lenin" - "In the transformation from radio to stage, the play became more ardent in its expression of radical left wing views". It was Joan Littlewood who described the men as dupes and she did that and portrayed that to put across the political message that she wanted to put across. When it came to reviewing it - "very few reviewers perceived the play as an objective representation of historical truth." Unfortunately some in this forum actually believe that it did represent true history - Got news for you the original reviewers were right.

Blackadder goes Forth? Academics have noted that the television series has become a pervasive view of the war in the public's perception of World War I, with Max Hastings calling the common British view of the war "the Blackadder take on history." Military historian Richard Holmes commented in his book The Western Front: "Blackadder's aphorisms have become fact...A well turned line of script can sometimes carry more weight than all the scholarly footnotes in the world." Stephen Badsey, analysing trends in television programmes about the war remarked that Blackadder Goes Forth as a popular comedy series was subject to particular criticism from historians, remarking that the series "consciously traded on every cliche and misremembered piece of history about the Western Front, and was influential enough to draw a surprising degree of angry criticism from professional historians as a result."

Esther MacCallum-Stewart of Sussex University noted in her essay "Television Docu-Drama and The First World War" that "Blackadder Goes Forth is used as a teaching aid in schools; not as a secondary text that should be analysed and discussed for its own reliability, but as a truthful parody of the conditions of the First World War."

It is entertainment NOT History, NOT factual, NOT the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:02 AM

Al, if there is an historian anywhere who disparages the armies achievements, no-one has yet found one and this has been raging for over a year now.

The Open University worked in collaboration with the BBC on the Paxman documentaries.

Prog 3
29 minutes in. Paxman to camera,
"Britain now had a tactically smarter, better organised army, capable of deploying men and machines to devastating effect"

He and the team clearly saying that the army was well led.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:03 AM

army's

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:44 AM

History is propoganda, an explanation of this is evident in French history books and English history books, In that on occasions they both claim to have won the same wars.
even history that is from the mouth of someone who was present will not be entirely objective, but it generally is the most accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 08:44 AM

Yes, Teribus, we all know that Blackadder is not scholarly history. You keep telling us. Now do you think you could tell your mate Keith that Ian Hislop and Jezza Paxman are not historians? Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 10:38 AM

History is propoganda, an explanation of this is evident in French history books and English history books

WHICH history books, written when and by whom? I think you've contracted a bad case of Fulminating Keith-alitis.

There's a good bit of crap out there masquerading as history, but the works of serious and qualified historians is the antithesis of "propaganda".

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 11:56 AM

Steve, on another thread, Musket called Hislop an historian, and Scottish bloke described him a someone who had read a bit about WW1.

He has been responsible for a number of documentaries on WW1 doing most of the research himself.
Did you not see The Wipers Times?
That was all his.
Even so, I would not have brought him into this debate.
That was your mates.

Paxman was mainly just the presenter on his programmes. The History Dept. of the Open University did all the History.
The message was that the war was necessary for Britain, the people supported it and the army achieved great things.
Just what Hislop and I have been saying.
Hardly surprising.
That is the history.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 11:58 AM

"It is entertainment NOT History, NOT factual, NOT the truth."
Like all good satire, it contains enough of the elements of truth to make it significant.
Probably among the most memorable scenes whas of the dress banquets where different generals and politicians stuffed their faces sniped and sneered at each other behind each others backs while the casualty figures rolled over the top of the stage.
Then, of course, in the screen version, the magnificent Maggie Smith as the beautiful cabaret artiste singing to persuade the onlookers, little more than children, to join up
As the camera pans in she is gradually transformed from a beautiful woman to a raddled whore - brilliant symbolism, which shows the reality of the actual situation, far more reliable than this apologist shit
Jim Carroll

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

"That is the history." Keith has spoken!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:04 PM

"There's a good bit of crap out there masquerading as history, but the works of serious and qualified historians is the antithesis of "propaganda"."
Greg,please give examples of Historians you wish me to take seriously, and then please explain from your knowledgeable pedestal why certain historians need to be taken more seriously than others, your position is no different from The OP, you are just looking at it from a different political perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:06 PM

You were praising Paxman to the skies and claiming he backed all your statements - now he was only the presenter.
You don't know history, as you have admitted in your choice of title, but you are attempting to manipulate it to validate a political agenda
Are you seriously presenting Hislop as reliable?
You are a bigger comedian than he is
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:19 PM

"That is the history." Keith has spoken!

No.
That is the history according to all the historians.
(or have you found something?)

I did not bring Hislop's name into all this Jim.
Musket and his clones did.
But he is someone who is hated by the establishment, and someone who knows a lot more about WW1 than you people do.

Paxman did many interviews and articles on WW1 before the series, showing much more knowledge than any of you people and expressing the same views as me.

All this is just a diversion however.
My point is still that my views are those of the historians, and if you ridicule them you make yourselves ridiculous.
Also that none can be found who still believe those hoary old discredited myths that you do.

Or have you finally found one?(chuckle)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:20 PM

and then please explain from your knowledgeable pedestal

Fuck off, Schweik.

Then, go educate yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:24 PM

I wonder if Keith has read this - How historians differ on the causes of WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:26 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 12:20 PM

and then please explain from your knowledgeable pedestal

Fuck off, Schweik.

Then, go educate yourself."
This reply shows that you are intellectually bankrupt.
Which Historians do you wish me to take seriously?
at least Keith has mentioned who he believes has the right take, you however resort to bad langauge, absolutely pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:51 PM

if you can't be arsed to look for opinions that don't chime with your own predjudices, you won't find them. you'll be stuck with bollock brained mental froth of the Farages. there does seem to be some sort of campaign on to excuse the aristo scum - the internet is full of 'historians' with the stuff Keith is coming out with. However there are people telling the truth as our grandparents remembered it.

'Sir Douglas Haig was strongly influenced through his time serving as a cavalry officer in the Queens Hussars and it is evident that he employed these cavalry tactics in his strategies. This influence affected his leader ship in a highly detrimental way and resulted in the loss of numerous lives thus making his leadership through out WW1 to be poor and ineffective. This can be seen through the battle of the Somme in which Haig, ordered from his chateau, that men are to be sent in waves over the trenches and charge in an attempt to capture and over run German trenches, this was unsuccessful and resulted in the deaths over 60,000 men.

The industrial revolution brought about the production of gun and ammunition in large quantity's this turn changed the nature of warfare and very much saw the end of sword and cavalry battle. Haig's leader ship and approach towards warfare was highly out dated as he was not aware of the demands of the advancement with in warfare. Haig quoted in 1915 " The machine gun is a much over rated weapon" through this quote we can see Haig's inability to see the significance of the advanced weaponry with in the war and in turn making his leadership in WW1 detrimental.

Haig's leadership was also in part affective due to his inability to be present with in the front-line, and his lack of experience with in trench war far. Haig gave commands from a chateau located behind the front line, this is turn meant that he could not make effective and justified decisions in the best of interest of the war and his troops. Historians will argue that if in fact Haig was present on the front line then his decision's and his leader ship may have be significantly better.'

Alex Jenkins

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:54 PM

Keith is an asshole, Schweik, and apparently you are an asshole-in-training. You obviously know jackshit about history OR historians and wear this ignorance proudly and I have no intention of getting into a puerile Keith-like "duelling historians" gambit with you.

As I said- go educate yourself. Or not. Before of after you fuck off. Makes no difference to me.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:54 PM

Yes Modette, I have referred to that many times.

You will notice that some of those historians blame all countries including Britain, but none single Britain out and most exonerate Britain completely.

In the complex politics of pre 1914 Europe, there are many could have beens and might have beens for the historians to argue about, but when the German armies were unleashed across Europe towards the English Channel, there was no alternative for Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

You will notice that some of those historians blame all countries including Britain, but none single Britain out and most exonerate Britain completely.

So, like you said, a complete consensus of opinion.

You just don't make sense Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:06 PM

The site where Al found his schoolboy quote!
The teacher was quite unkind about it.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:08 PM

https://brettfosterspc1.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/evaluate-haigs-leadership-throughout-wwi-and-the-claim-he-was-a-chateau-general/

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:10 PM

Guest there are many interpretations on pre 1914 events and I express no opinion on it.
Britains response to the German invasions is much more clear cut.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:15 PM

One of my posts was lost.
Al your quote was from a composition by a Year 11 schoolboy.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Modette
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:33 PM

Keith wrote 'but when the German armies were unleashed across Europe towards the English Channel, there was no alternative for Britain.'

Good grief! Now I really know that you haven't a clue if that's the result of your extensive reading.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:38 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 01:54 PM

Keith is an asshole, Schweik, and apparently you are an asshole-in-training. You obviously know jackshit about history OR historians and wear this ignorance proudly and I have no intention of getting into a puerile Keith-like "duelling historians" gambit with you.

As I said- go educate yourself. Or not. Before of after you fuck off. Makes no difference to me."
I know a lot about history, I do not agree with you, neither do I agree with Keith.
I question everything, I ask you a question and you reply with insults.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 02:55 PM

I ask you a question and you reply with insults.

No Schweik - I replied to an INSULT with insults.

I know a lot about history

No evidence for that in anything you've posted.

I question everything

With the exception of yourself.

Now I'm done with you.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 03:05 PM

Allow me to be the first to state that I am lost. I have no idea what the thread is about, why it's here or what it's for. In twenty-five words or so, would someone be kind enough to explain without calling Keith or anyone else an idiot? Many thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 05:28 PM

Keith says all historians agree with him but actually means all historians that fit his rules. Everyone else agrees that he is a wanker.

(24 words - OK?)

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 05:46 PM

I am not an historian... nor 'a' historian... not a masochist, either, so 45 seconds of scanning this thread is quite sufficient to send me elsewhere...

Mercy!

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw, thoroughly entertained
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 06:11 PM

But Bill, here we have a man who has finally painted himself into a corner out of which there is no escape. Keith did it all by himself - he didn't need any help from us. All the guff down the years from him about history, the famine and about Israel/Palestine and Gawd knows what else. All rubbish, all of it. Credibility totally shot. A laughing stock. I will say two things in his favour, though. First, you may well be clenching your buttocks but I think it's quite funny. Second, fair dues to the man - he's thoroughly incorrigible. He never gives up, and he won't now. Up shit creek sans paddle, but, to him, the scenery up shit creek is still beautiful. Who's to gainsay?

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: GUEST,#
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:18 PM

Thank you, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 07:29 PM

Modette, do you not know that invading German armies swept through Belgium and N.France towards the Channel?
They did, and they committed massacres of civilians including children and imposed a brutal occupation.
The people fully supported the decision to resist and fight.

You can ridicule me for what I say, but it is exactly what the historians say.
On those issues they are all in agreement.
I would have to be a complete arsehole like you people to believe I knew better.

Al,
the internet is full of 'historians' with the stuff Keith is coming out with.
Yes it is.
So are the libraries, book shops, the printed media and the broadcast media because that is what all the historians say.
There are none singing a different tune.
In reply you put up some kid's history homework.

Subject: RE: BS: I am not an historian but........
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Dec 14 - 09:08 PM

well the kid seems to have a clearer insight than your experts. common sense tells us that Haig had fucked it up so badly that the only answer was the the sheer number of American troops that pulled his chestnuts out of the fire.

history is prey to fashion, and reflects the age.

in the sixties and 70's we had the age of revolution we had Taylor and Marwick.

in the age of neo conservatism Blair/ Cameron / Thatcher - we have this bunch of clowns flooding the net.

that the only divergent thought available is a 16 year old kid. says more about academic standards than the correctness of their analyses.

i notice you can't refute any of what the kid says.