Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: Jingoism or Commemoration

GUEST,Raggytash 10 Nov 15 - 08:00 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Nov 15 - 08:18 AM
Megan L 10 Nov 15 - 08:29 AM
Steve Shaw 10 Nov 15 - 09:16 AM
GUEST 10 Nov 15 - 09:31 AM
GUEST 10 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Nov 15 - 11:37 AM
GUEST 10 Nov 15 - 11:37 AM
GUEST 10 Nov 15 - 11:53 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Nov 15 - 12:40 PM
GUEST,Dave 10 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Nov 15 - 02:32 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM
GUEST 10 Nov 15 - 03:54 PM
Thompson 11 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM
GUEST,Dave 11 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Nov 15 - 09:13 AM
GUEST 11 Nov 15 - 11:37 AM
GUEST,Allan Conn 11 Nov 15 - 12:23 PM
GUEST 11 Nov 15 - 12:39 PM
GUEST 11 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Nov 15 - 03:01 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 11 Nov 15 - 03:12 PM
GUEST 12 Nov 15 - 03:19 AM
GUEST,Dave 12 Nov 15 - 03:55 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM
GUEST 12 Nov 15 - 06:23 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Nov 15 - 06:38 AM
GUEST 12 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Nov 15 - 02:37 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Nov 15 - 06:30 PM
GUEST 13 Nov 15 - 03:29 AM
GUEST 13 Nov 15 - 03:30 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Nov 15 - 04:02 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 13 Nov 15 - 04:55 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Nov 15 - 05:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Nov 15 - 05:42 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Nov 15 - 05:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Nov 15 - 05:51 AM
GUEST 13 Nov 15 - 05:53 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Nov 15 - 06:29 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 13 Nov 15 - 06:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Nov 15 - 06:57 AM
Teribus 13 Nov 15 - 07:04 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 13 Nov 15 - 07:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Nov 15 - 07:05 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Nov 15 - 07:23 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 13 Nov 15 - 07:24 AM
Teribus 13 Nov 15 - 07:26 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Nov 15 - 07:31 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 13 Nov 15 - 07:38 AM
Teribus 13 Nov 15 - 07:42 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Nov 15 - 08:02 AM
Teribus 13 Nov 15 - 11:13 AM
GUEST 13 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM
Dave the Gnome 13 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM
GUEST,achmelvich 13 Nov 15 - 12:21 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 13 Nov 15 - 03:28 PM
GUEST 13 Nov 15 - 06:12 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Nov 15 - 07:04 PM
Teribus 14 Nov 15 - 02:43 AM
GUEST 14 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM
Teribus 14 Nov 15 - 04:01 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Nov 15 - 04:23 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Nov 15 - 04:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Nov 15 - 04:43 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM
Teribus 14 Nov 15 - 05:03 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Nov 15 - 05:05 AM
GUEST 14 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM
GUEST,achmelvich 14 Nov 15 - 06:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Nov 15 - 09:09 AM
GUEST,achmelvich 14 Nov 15 - 10:16 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM
Greg F. 14 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Nov 15 - 10:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Nov 15 - 10:51 AM
GUEST,achmelvich 14 Nov 15 - 11:03 AM
Teribus 14 Nov 15 - 05:03 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Nov 15 - 05:17 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Nov 15 - 03:52 AM
GUEST 15 Nov 15 - 04:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Nov 15 - 04:23 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Nov 15 - 04:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Nov 15 - 06:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 08:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Nov 15 - 09:22 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 09:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Nov 15 - 09:41 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM
Teribus 15 Nov 15 - 10:38 AM
Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 10:41 AM
GUEST 15 Nov 15 - 11:15 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Nov 15 - 12:17 PM
Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 12:33 PM
Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 12:34 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Nov 15 - 01:06 PM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Nov 15 - 02:59 PM
Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Nov 15 - 03:10 PM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Nov 15 - 03:13 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Nov 15 - 03:14 PM
Raggytash 15 Nov 15 - 03:21 PM
GUEST,achmelvich 15 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM
GUEST,Raffles 15 Nov 15 - 06:31 PM
Teribus 15 Nov 15 - 06:54 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Nov 15 - 07:31 PM
GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 02:58 AM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 03:31 AM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 03:44 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 04:14 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Nov 15 - 04:24 AM
GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 04:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Nov 15 - 05:07 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 05:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Nov 15 - 05:14 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 05:16 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Nov 15 - 05:23 AM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 05:30 AM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 05:49 AM
GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Nov 15 - 05:56 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 06:02 AM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 08:15 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 08:47 AM
Greg F. 16 Nov 15 - 08:51 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 08:54 AM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 08:56 AM
GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 09:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM
Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 10:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Nov 15 - 10:17 AM
Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM
GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 01:19 PM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM
Greg F. 16 Nov 15 - 02:42 PM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 02:54 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 03:07 PM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 03:15 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 03:22 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 03:32 PM
Teribus 16 Nov 15 - 04:27 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 08:21 PM
GUEST 17 Nov 15 - 03:15 AM
Teribus 17 Nov 15 - 03:37 AM
GUEST 17 Nov 15 - 03:49 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 17 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM
Teribus 17 Nov 15 - 04:21 AM
Teribus 17 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM
Mr Red 17 Nov 15 - 04:39 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 17 Nov 15 - 04:51 AM
GUEST 17 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM
Mr Red 17 Nov 15 - 04:58 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM
Teribus 17 Nov 15 - 06:04 AM
Teribus 17 Nov 15 - 06:10 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Nov 15 - 06:31 AM
Teribus 17 Nov 15 - 07:22 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Nov 15 - 08:08 AM
Teribus 17 Nov 15 - 10:07 AM
Teribus 17 Nov 15 - 10:20 AM
GUEST 17 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM
Greg F. 17 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM
Jim Carroll 17 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 17 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Nov 15 - 04:35 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 18 Nov 15 - 05:01 AM
Teribus 18 Nov 15 - 05:21 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Nov 15 - 06:05 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Nov 15 - 06:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Nov 15 - 06:09 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Nov 15 - 06:37 AM
Teribus 18 Nov 15 - 06:46 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Nov 15 - 07:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Nov 15 - 07:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Nov 15 - 07:54 AM
Raggytash 18 Nov 15 - 08:12 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Nov 15 - 08:18 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Nov 15 - 08:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Nov 15 - 09:30 AM
Teribus 18 Nov 15 - 10:14 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Nov 15 - 11:05 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 18 Nov 15 - 01:32 PM
Greg F. 18 Nov 15 - 05:17 PM
GUEST 19 Nov 15 - 02:12 AM
GUEST,Dave 19 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Nov 15 - 08:55 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM
Raggytash 19 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM
Raggytash 19 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM
GUEST 19 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Nov 15 - 10:10 AM
GUEST 19 Nov 15 - 11:39 AM
Dave the Gnome 19 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM
GUEST,achmelvich 19 Nov 15 - 01:17 PM
Dave the Gnome 19 Nov 15 - 01:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Nov 15 - 02:12 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Nov 15 - 02:25 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM
Jim Carroll 19 Nov 15 - 03:01 PM
Dave the Gnome 19 Nov 15 - 03:37 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 19 Nov 15 - 03:38 PM
GUEST 20 Nov 15 - 02:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Nov 15 - 04:02 AM
GUEST,Dave 20 Nov 15 - 04:05 AM
GUEST,Dave 20 Nov 15 - 04:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Nov 15 - 04:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Nov 15 - 04:18 AM
Teribus 20 Nov 15 - 04:38 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM
GUEST 20 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Nov 15 - 06:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Nov 15 - 07:44 AM
GUEST 20 Nov 15 - 08:06 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Nov 15 - 08:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Nov 15 - 08:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Nov 15 - 08:34 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 20 Nov 15 - 08:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Nov 15 - 08:45 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 20 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM
Teribus 20 Nov 15 - 09:08 AM
Teribus 20 Nov 15 - 10:55 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Nov 15 - 10:57 AM
Raggytash 20 Nov 15 - 11:00 AM
Jim Carroll 20 Nov 15 - 11:08 AM
GUEST 20 Nov 15 - 12:31 PM
Dave the Gnome 20 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Nov 15 - 01:37 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM
Jim Carroll 20 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM
Raggytash 20 Nov 15 - 03:26 PM
Dave the Gnome 20 Nov 15 - 04:14 PM
Teribus 20 Nov 15 - 07:41 PM
Teribus 20 Nov 15 - 07:46 PM
Teribus 20 Nov 15 - 07:55 PM
Steve Shaw 20 Nov 15 - 08:37 PM
GUEST 21 Nov 15 - 02:11 AM
Teribus 21 Nov 15 - 02:36 AM
Teribus 21 Nov 15 - 02:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Nov 15 - 03:28 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Nov 15 - 04:58 AM
Dave the Gnome 21 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Nov 15 - 05:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Nov 15 - 06:13 AM
Dave the Gnome 21 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Nov 15 - 06:20 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM
Dave the Gnome 21 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM
Greg F. 21 Nov 15 - 08:32 AM
Raggytash 21 Nov 15 - 08:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Nov 15 - 09:11 AM
Raggytash 21 Nov 15 - 09:38 AM
Raggytash 21 Nov 15 - 09:40 AM
Raggytash 21 Nov 15 - 09:42 AM
Raggytash 21 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM
GUEST 21 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM
GUEST,achmelvich 21 Nov 15 - 03:02 PM
Dave the Gnome 22 Nov 15 - 03:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM
Dave the Gnome 22 Nov 15 - 05:29 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Nov 15 - 05:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Nov 15 - 07:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Nov 15 - 07:22 AM
Dave the Gnome 22 Nov 15 - 07:35 AM
Dave the Gnome 22 Nov 15 - 07:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Nov 15 - 07:47 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 22 Nov 15 - 07:57 AM
Dave the Gnome 22 Nov 15 - 08:30 AM
Dave the Gnome 22 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM
Greg F. 22 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Nov 15 - 12:49 PM
Jim Carroll 22 Nov 15 - 01:09 PM
GUEST 22 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM
Dave the Gnome 22 Nov 15 - 01:33 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Nov 15 - 01:55 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 22 Nov 15 - 01:56 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Nov 15 - 02:24 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 22 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM
Greg F. 22 Nov 15 - 03:00 PM
Jim Carroll 22 Nov 15 - 03:10 PM
Dave the Gnome 22 Nov 15 - 03:15 PM
Teribus 22 Nov 15 - 03:47 PM
Teribus 22 Nov 15 - 04:00 PM
Raggytash 22 Nov 15 - 04:19 PM
Jim Carroll 22 Nov 15 - 04:21 PM
GUEST 23 Nov 15 - 03:05 AM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 03:20 AM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 03:55 AM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 04:09 AM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 04:22 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Nov 15 - 04:25 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 04:28 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 23 Nov 15 - 04:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Nov 15 - 05:00 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 05:03 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 23 Nov 15 - 05:10 AM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 05:21 AM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 05:24 AM
GUEST 23 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 05:37 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 05:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Nov 15 - 05:56 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 06:04 AM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 15 - 06:16 AM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 15 - 06:20 AM
GUEST,Observer 23 Nov 15 - 06:22 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 06:27 AM
GUEST 23 Nov 15 - 07:08 AM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 15 - 07:33 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 23 Nov 15 - 08:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 23 Nov 15 - 08:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Nov 15 - 09:18 AM
Greg F. 23 Nov 15 - 09:19 AM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 15 - 09:34 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 09:37 AM
Raggytash 23 Nov 15 - 09:42 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 10:19 AM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 10:34 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 10:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Nov 15 - 10:46 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Nov 15 - 10:58 AM
Dave the Gnome 23 Nov 15 - 11:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Nov 15 - 11:31 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Nov 15 - 12:25 PM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Nov 15 - 12:42 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 23 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Nov 15 - 01:50 PM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM
GUEST 23 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 23 Nov 15 - 02:41 PM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 15 - 02:50 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Nov 15 - 03:02 PM
Greg F. 23 Nov 15 - 04:35 PM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 15 - 05:22 PM
MGM·Lion 23 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM
Teribus 23 Nov 15 - 07:10 PM
GUEST,Recidivist 23 Nov 15 - 11:08 PM
GUEST,Recidivist 24 Nov 15 - 12:29 AM
MGM·Lion 24 Nov 15 - 01:07 AM
GUEST 24 Nov 15 - 03:04 AM
GUEST,Musket 24 Nov 15 - 03:49 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Nov 15 - 03:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 24 Nov 15 - 04:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Nov 15 - 04:49 AM
MGM·Lion 24 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM
MGM·Lion 24 Nov 15 - 05:08 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 24 Nov 15 - 05:12 AM
GUEST 24 Nov 15 - 05:30 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Nov 15 - 05:54 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Nov 15 - 06:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Nov 15 - 07:55 AM
GUEST 24 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM
GUEST 24 Nov 15 - 08:23 AM
Teribus 24 Nov 15 - 08:32 AM
GUEST 24 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM
Teribus 24 Nov 15 - 08:47 AM
Teribus 24 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM
Raggytash 24 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM
Teribus 24 Nov 15 - 09:47 AM
Raggytash 24 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM
Greg F. 24 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 24 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM
Jim Carroll 24 Nov 15 - 12:27 PM
GUEST 24 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM
Dave the Gnome 24 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM
Teribus 24 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM
Dave the Gnome 24 Nov 15 - 02:05 PM
GUEST,Harry Forest - if you must know 24 Nov 15 - 02:18 PM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Nov 15 - 02:38 PM
Steve Shaw 24 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM
Teribus 24 Nov 15 - 05:20 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 24 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM
Teribus 24 Nov 15 - 07:35 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 24 Nov 15 - 07:43 PM
Teribus 24 Nov 15 - 07:58 PM
Raggytash 24 Nov 15 - 08:16 PM
GUEST,Harry Forest if you must know 25 Nov 15 - 03:07 AM
Jim Carroll 25 Nov 15 - 04:00 AM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Nov 15 - 04:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Nov 15 - 04:18 AM
Jim Carroll 25 Nov 15 - 04:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Nov 15 - 04:57 AM
Jim Carroll 25 Nov 15 - 05:53 AM
Teribus 25 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM
Teribus 25 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 25 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM
Jim Carroll 25 Nov 15 - 08:33 AM
Teribus 25 Nov 15 - 08:42 AM
GUEST 25 Nov 15 - 08:50 AM
Teribus 25 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM
Raggytash 25 Nov 15 - 09:30 AM
Teribus 25 Nov 15 - 09:53 AM
Jim Carroll 25 Nov 15 - 09:58 AM
Teribus 25 Nov 15 - 10:05 AM
Raggytash 25 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM
Teribus 25 Nov 15 - 10:12 AM
Teribus 25 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM
GUEST 25 Nov 15 - 10:31 AM
Raggytash 25 Nov 15 - 10:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Nov 15 - 10:45 AM
Jim Carroll 25 Nov 15 - 11:20 AM
Jim Carroll 25 Nov 15 - 12:10 PM
Dave the Gnome 25 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM
GUEST 25 Nov 15 - 01:27 PM
Keith A of Hertford 25 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 25 Nov 15 - 04:08 PM
Dave the Gnome 25 Nov 15 - 05:13 PM
Teribus 25 Nov 15 - 09:04 PM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 26 Nov 15 - 04:03 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 04:21 AM
Jim Carroll 26 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM
GUEST,Harry Forest 26 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM
GUEST,Dave 26 Nov 15 - 04:50 AM
Teribus 26 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 06:52 AM
GUEST 26 Nov 15 - 06:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 06:58 AM
GUEST 26 Nov 15 - 07:14 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 07:30 AM
GUEST 26 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM
Teribus 26 Nov 15 - 08:11 AM
GUEST 26 Nov 15 - 08:21 AM
Jim Carroll 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 09:49 AM
Jim Carroll 26 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 11:53 AM
Teribus 26 Nov 15 - 11:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM
GUEST,Musket 26 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM
Jim Carroll 26 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM
Dave the Gnome 26 Nov 15 - 01:36 PM
Teribus 26 Nov 15 - 02:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 02:28 PM
GUEST 26 Nov 15 - 02:33 PM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 02:48 PM
GUEST 26 Nov 15 - 02:57 PM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Nov 15 - 03:18 PM
GUEST 26 Nov 15 - 03:23 PM
Jim Carroll 26 Nov 15 - 04:39 PM
GUEST 26 Nov 15 - 04:51 PM
Teribus 27 Nov 15 - 01:03 AM
GUEST 27 Nov 15 - 02:14 AM
Teribus 27 Nov 15 - 02:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Nov 15 - 03:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Nov 15 - 03:39 AM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 15 - 05:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Nov 15 - 06:31 AM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 15 - 06:41 AM
Teribus 27 Nov 15 - 07:28 AM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 15 - 08:27 AM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 15 - 08:29 AM
Teribus 27 Nov 15 - 09:35 AM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 15 - 09:57 AM
GUEST 27 Nov 15 - 11:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM
Teribus 27 Nov 15 - 11:45 AM
Teribus 27 Nov 15 - 11:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 15 - 12:14 PM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 15 - 01:03 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Nov 15 - 01:38 PM
Dave the Gnome 27 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Nov 15 - 02:23 PM
Greg F. 27 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM
Jim Carroll 27 Nov 15 - 02:38 PM
Teribus 27 Nov 15 - 02:55 PM
Dave the Gnome 27 Nov 15 - 03:54 PM
Dave the Gnome 27 Nov 15 - 03:58 PM
MGM·Lion 27 Nov 15 - 05:22 PM
MGM·Lion 27 Nov 15 - 06:05 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Nov 15 - 01:44 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Nov 15 - 04:34 AM
MGM·Lion 28 Nov 15 - 05:38 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Nov 15 - 05:57 AM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM
GUEST 28 Nov 15 - 07:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Nov 15 - 07:55 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Nov 15 - 09:23 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM
GUEST 28 Nov 15 - 09:54 AM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 10:26 AM
Dave the Gnome 28 Nov 15 - 10:36 AM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 10:38 AM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 10:43 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Nov 15 - 10:58 AM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 11:10 AM
Dave the Gnome 28 Nov 15 - 11:11 AM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 11:31 AM
GUEST,Pendant 28 Nov 15 - 11:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 28 Nov 15 - 11:47 AM
GUEST,Harry Forest 28 Nov 15 - 11:58 AM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 12:21 PM
GUEST,Pedant 28 Nov 15 - 12:26 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Nov 15 - 12:41 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Nov 15 - 12:58 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Nov 15 - 01:01 PM
GUEST, Pendant 28 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM
GUEST,Pedant 28 Nov 15 - 01:19 PM
Greg F. 28 Nov 15 - 01:41 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Nov 15 - 01:42 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Nov 15 - 01:52 PM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM
GUEST,Pendant 28 Nov 15 - 02:45 PM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 03:32 PM
GUEST,Pedant 28 Nov 15 - 03:42 PM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 03:47 PM
GUEST,Dave 28 Nov 15 - 04:01 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Nov 15 - 06:01 PM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 06:21 PM
Teribus 28 Nov 15 - 06:32 PM
Steve Shaw 28 Nov 15 - 06:44 PM
Teribus 29 Nov 15 - 12:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Nov 15 - 04:02 AM
Dave the Gnome 29 Nov 15 - 04:57 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Nov 15 - 05:38 AM
Teribus 29 Nov 15 - 09:02 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Nov 15 - 09:14 AM
GUEST 29 Nov 15 - 09:27 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Nov 15 - 09:41 AM
Teribus 29 Nov 15 - 09:53 AM
GUEST 29 Nov 15 - 10:23 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Nov 15 - 11:25 AM
GUEST 29 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM
Teribus 29 Nov 15 - 12:43 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Nov 15 - 01:02 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM
Dave the Gnome 29 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Nov 15 - 02:01 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Nov 15 - 02:04 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 29 Nov 15 - 02:15 PM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM
Dave the Gnome 29 Nov 15 - 03:08 PM
Dave the Gnome 29 Nov 15 - 03:14 PM
GUEST 29 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM
Dave the Gnome 29 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 29 Nov 15 - 03:26 PM
Dave the Gnome 29 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM
Teribus 30 Nov 15 - 03:17 AM
Teribus 30 Nov 15 - 03:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Nov 15 - 03:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Nov 15 - 03:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Nov 15 - 03:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Nov 15 - 05:27 AM
GUEST 30 Nov 15 - 05:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Nov 15 - 05:44 AM
GUEST 30 Nov 15 - 05:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Nov 15 - 05:54 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 30 Nov 15 - 06:22 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Nov 15 - 06:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Nov 15 - 07:53 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM
Teribus 30 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Nov 15 - 09:35 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 09:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Nov 15 - 09:43 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 09:55 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM
Teribus 30 Nov 15 - 11:00 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 11:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Nov 15 - 11:51 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 11:56 AM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM
Jim Carroll 30 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM
GUEST 30 Nov 15 - 12:33 PM
Teribus 30 Nov 15 - 01:05 PM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM
GUEST,HiLo 30 Nov 15 - 01:54 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 30 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 02:15 PM
Teribus 30 Nov 15 - 02:49 PM
GUEST 30 Nov 15 - 03:12 PM
Dave the Gnome 30 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 30 Nov 15 - 04:52 PM
Teribus 30 Nov 15 - 05:02 PM
GUEST 30 Nov 15 - 05:41 PM
Jim Carroll 30 Nov 15 - 08:39 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Dec 15 - 03:09 AM
GUEST,Musket 01 Dec 15 - 03:20 AM
GUEST,Dave 01 Dec 15 - 03:34 AM
GUEST,Dave 01 Dec 15 - 03:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Dec 15 - 04:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM
Teribus 01 Dec 15 - 05:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Dec 15 - 06:08 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Dec 15 - 06:18 AM
GUEST,Musket 01 Dec 15 - 06:48 AM
GUEST 01 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM
Teribus 01 Dec 15 - 07:01 AM
Teribus 01 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM
GUEST 01 Dec 15 - 07:09 AM
GUEST,Musket 01 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM
GUEST 01 Dec 15 - 07:34 AM
Teribus 01 Dec 15 - 07:37 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 01 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM
GUEST,HiLo 01 Dec 15 - 08:25 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Dec 15 - 09:32 AM
Dave the Gnome 01 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM
Teribus 01 Dec 15 - 10:23 AM
GUEST,HiLo 01 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Dec 15 - 10:41 AM
Greg F. 01 Dec 15 - 10:46 AM
GUEST,HiLo 01 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Dec 15 - 12:45 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Dec 15 - 12:50 PM
Jim Carroll 01 Dec 15 - 01:21 PM
GUEST 01 Dec 15 - 01:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Dec 15 - 01:41 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Dec 15 - 02:01 PM
GUEST 01 Dec 15 - 02:11 PM
Dave the Gnome 01 Dec 15 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,Musket 01 Dec 15 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 01 Dec 15 - 05:38 PM
Teribus 01 Dec 15 - 06:09 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 01 Dec 15 - 06:19 PM
Teribus 01 Dec 15 - 06:38 PM
GUEST,HiLo 01 Dec 15 - 06:42 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Dec 15 - 03:24 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Dec 15 - 03:56 AM
GUEST,Dave 02 Dec 15 - 04:04 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 02 Dec 15 - 04:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Dec 15 - 06:03 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM
GUEST 02 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM
Dave the Gnome 02 Dec 15 - 07:55 AM
Dave the Gnome 02 Dec 15 - 04:34 PM
GUEST,HiLo 02 Dec 15 - 06:58 PM
Teribus 02 Dec 15 - 07:25 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Dec 15 - 02:35 AM
GUEST 03 Dec 15 - 02:45 AM
Teribus 03 Dec 15 - 03:06 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 03 Dec 15 - 03:14 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Dec 15 - 07:08 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Dec 15 - 07:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Dec 15 - 09:03 AM
GUEST 03 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM
GUEST,achmelvich 04 Dec 15 - 06:32 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Dec 15 - 09:00 AM
Dave the Gnome 04 Dec 15 - 09:19 AM
GUEST 04 Dec 15 - 10:04 AM
Greg F. 04 Dec 15 - 10:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Dec 15 - 11:46 AM
GUEST 04 Dec 15 - 11:51 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Dec 15 - 11:56 AM
GUEST 04 Dec 15 - 06:01 PM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Dec 15 - 03:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Dec 15 - 03:43 AM
GUEST 05 Dec 15 - 03:47 AM
GUEST 05 Dec 15 - 04:09 AM
Teribus 05 Dec 15 - 05:29 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Dec 15 - 08:31 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Dec 15 - 09:55 AM
GUEST 05 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Dec 15 - 11:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Dec 15 - 01:17 PM
GUEST 05 Dec 15 - 02:06 PM
GUEST,Dave 05 Dec 15 - 02:44 PM
Jim Carroll 05 Dec 15 - 03:10 PM
GUEST 05 Dec 15 - 05:54 PM
Greg F. 05 Dec 15 - 06:23 PM
Steve Shaw 05 Dec 15 - 09:44 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 15 - 01:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 15 - 01:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 15 - 01:58 AM
Dave the Gnome 06 Dec 15 - 05:51 AM
GUEST 06 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 15 - 11:24 AM
GUEST 06 Dec 15 - 12:16 PM
GUEST 06 Dec 15 - 01:01 PM
Keith A of Hertford 06 Dec 15 - 01:50 PM
Dave the Gnome 06 Dec 15 - 03:10 PM
GUEST 06 Dec 15 - 03:36 PM
GUEST 07 Dec 15 - 03:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 15 - 05:42 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 06:36 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM
Teribus 07 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM
Teribus 07 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 15 - 07:43 AM
GUEST 07 Dec 15 - 07:54 AM
GUEST 07 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 15 - 08:42 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 07 Dec 15 - 09:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 15 - 09:14 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 09:45 AM
Teribus 07 Dec 15 - 10:11 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 10:17 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 10:24 AM
GUEST,Fred 07 Dec 15 - 10:25 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 15 - 10:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 15 - 11:01 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 11:02 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 15 - 11:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 15 - 11:09 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 11:14 AM
Teribus 07 Dec 15 - 12:15 PM
Teribus 07 Dec 15 - 12:15 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Dec 15 - 12:39 PM
Teribus 07 Dec 15 - 12:48 PM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 12:59 PM
GUEST 07 Dec 15 - 01:11 PM
GUEST,Dave 07 Dec 15 - 01:48 PM
GUEST 07 Dec 15 - 02:35 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 15 - 02:39 PM
Keith A of Hertford 07 Dec 15 - 02:44 PM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 02:54 PM
GUEST,Dave 07 Dec 15 - 03:58 PM
Greg F. 07 Dec 15 - 04:18 PM
Dave the Gnome 07 Dec 15 - 04:29 PM
GUEST 07 Dec 15 - 05:42 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Dec 15 - 04:50 AM
GUEST,HiLo 08 Dec 15 - 12:38 PM
Donuel 08 Dec 15 - 12:49 PM
Donuel 08 Dec 15 - 12:53 PM
GUEST,HiLo 08 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM
GUEST,HiLo 08 Dec 15 - 01:39 PM
Keith A of Hertford 08 Dec 15 - 02:34 PM
Teribus 08 Dec 15 - 02:46 PM
GUEST,Dave 08 Dec 15 - 03:27 PM
GUEST 08 Dec 15 - 03:32 PM
GUEST,HiLo 08 Dec 15 - 03:58 PM
GUEST,Musket 08 Dec 15 - 05:15 PM
Greg F. 08 Dec 15 - 05:34 PM
GUEST,HiLo 08 Dec 15 - 07:19 PM
Greg F. 08 Dec 15 - 08:12 PM
GUEST,HiLo 08 Dec 15 - 08:39 PM
Greg F. 08 Dec 15 - 09:11 PM
GUEST,HiLo 08 Dec 15 - 09:58 PM
GUEST,HiLo 09 Dec 15 - 12:37 AM
Teribus 09 Dec 15 - 02:22 AM
GUEST 09 Dec 15 - 02:42 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 02:49 AM
GUEST,Dave 09 Dec 15 - 03:03 AM
GUEST,HiLo 09 Dec 15 - 03:16 AM
Teribus 09 Dec 15 - 03:53 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 03:58 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 04:12 AM
GUEST,Dave 09 Dec 15 - 04:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 15 - 04:44 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 04:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 15 - 05:56 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 06:30 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 15 - 08:26 AM
GUEST 09 Dec 15 - 08:35 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 09:11 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 09:18 AM
Greg F. 09 Dec 15 - 09:31 AM
Teribus 09 Dec 15 - 09:52 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 10:22 AM
Teribus 09 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM
GUEST,Dave 09 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM
Teribus 09 Dec 15 - 10:59 AM
GUEST,HiLo 09 Dec 15 - 11:16 AM
GUEST,Dave 09 Dec 15 - 11:27 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 12:36 PM
Teribus 09 Dec 15 - 12:38 PM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 12:49 PM
Teribus 09 Dec 15 - 01:20 PM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 02:13 PM
GUEST 09 Dec 15 - 02:28 PM
Keith A of Hertford 09 Dec 15 - 03:20 PM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 04:01 PM
Teribus 09 Dec 15 - 04:07 PM
Greg F. 09 Dec 15 - 04:26 PM
Dave the Gnome 09 Dec 15 - 05:23 PM
Teribus 09 Dec 15 - 06:47 PM
GUEST,Dave 10 Dec 15 - 02:54 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 03:02 AM
GUEST,Dave 10 Dec 15 - 03:03 AM
GUEST,Dave 10 Dec 15 - 03:30 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 03:30 AM
GUEST 10 Dec 15 - 03:38 AM
GUEST,Dave 10 Dec 15 - 03:48 AM
GUEST 10 Dec 15 - 03:57 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 04:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 04:26 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 04:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 05:00 AM
GUEST 10 Dec 15 - 05:06 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 05:18 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM
GUEST 10 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 05:32 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 05:44 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 05:51 AM
GUEST,Fred 10 Dec 15 - 06:00 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 06:10 AM
GUEST 10 Dec 15 - 06:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 06:15 AM
GUEST,Fred 10 Dec 15 - 06:23 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 06:37 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 06:42 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 06:53 AM
GUEST,Fred 10 Dec 15 - 07:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 07:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 07:19 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 08:00 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM
GUEST 10 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 08:19 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 08:20 AM
GUEST 10 Dec 15 - 08:27 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 08:28 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 08:41 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 08:48 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 08:54 AM
GUEST 10 Dec 15 - 09:02 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 09:04 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 09:10 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 09:12 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 09:16 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 09:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 09:20 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 09:28 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 09:47 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 09:57 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 10:10 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 10:17 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 10:21 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 10:26 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 10:31 AM
GUEST,HiLo 10 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 10:51 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 11:01 AM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 11:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 11:12 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 01:26 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 01:27 PM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 02:28 PM
GUEST 10 Dec 15 - 02:42 PM
Keith A of Hertford 10 Dec 15 - 03:21 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 03:22 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 03:37 PM
GUEST,Dave 10 Dec 15 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 10 Dec 15 - 04:06 PM
GUEST,Dave 10 Dec 15 - 04:09 PM
Dave the Gnome 10 Dec 15 - 05:11 PM
Teribus 10 Dec 15 - 05:52 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 15 - 02:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 15 - 04:48 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 15 - 05:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM
GUEST,Colin 11 Dec 15 - 05:34 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 15 - 05:35 AM
GUEST,Dave 11 Dec 15 - 05:36 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 15 - 05:38 AM
GUEST 11 Dec 15 - 06:36 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 15 - 06:42 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 15 - 09:04 AM
GUEST,Dave 11 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 15 - 09:29 AM
Greg F. 11 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM
GUEST 11 Dec 15 - 11:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 15 - 01:11 PM
Teribus 11 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,Dave 11 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 15 - 02:49 PM
GUEST 11 Dec 15 - 03:15 PM
GUEST,Dave 11 Dec 15 - 04:07 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 15 - 04:25 PM
Keith A of Hertford 11 Dec 15 - 04:32 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 15 - 04:52 PM
Greg F. 11 Dec 15 - 05:21 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 15 - 05:34 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM
Teribus 11 Dec 15 - 09:30 PM
Teribus 11 Dec 15 - 09:38 PM
Teribus 11 Dec 15 - 09:48 PM
GUEST,HiLo 11 Dec 15 - 11:38 PM
GUEST,Musket 12 Dec 15 - 03:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 15 - 04:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 15 - 04:38 AM
GUEST,HiLo 12 Dec 15 - 04:49 AM
GUEST 12 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 15 - 05:34 AM
GUEST 12 Dec 15 - 05:43 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 15 - 05:44 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Dec 15 - 05:47 AM
GUEST,HiLo 12 Dec 15 - 05:54 AM
GUEST 12 Dec 15 - 06:09 AM
GUEST,HiLo 12 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM
GUEST,Dave 12 Dec 15 - 06:21 AM
GUEST,HiLo 12 Dec 15 - 06:33 AM
GUEST 12 Dec 15 - 06:45 AM
GUEST,Dave 12 Dec 15 - 07:04 AM
Teribus 12 Dec 15 - 07:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM
GUEST,Musket 12 Dec 15 - 07:23 AM
Teribus 12 Dec 15 - 07:33 AM
Teribus 12 Dec 15 - 07:48 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Dec 15 - 08:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Dec 15 - 08:36 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 15 - 10:22 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Dec 15 - 10:35 AM
GUEST,Musket 12 Dec 15 - 10:39 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Dec 15 - 10:43 AM
Teribus 12 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM
Teribus 12 Dec 15 - 10:57 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Dec 15 - 11:04 AM
GUEST 12 Dec 15 - 11:09 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 15 - 11:23 AM
GUEST,Dave 12 Dec 15 - 12:53 PM
Teribus 12 Dec 15 - 01:55 PM
Teribus 12 Dec 15 - 01:59 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Dec 15 - 02:10 PM
GUEST,Dave 12 Dec 15 - 02:19 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Dec 15 - 02:21 PM
Teribus 12 Dec 15 - 07:48 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 15 - 04:33 AM
GUEST,Musket 13 Dec 15 - 04:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 15 - 06:10 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Dec 15 - 11:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 15 - 12:51 PM
GUEST,Musket 13 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 15 - 01:05 PM
GUEST,Musket 13 Dec 15 - 01:16 PM
GUEST,HiLo 13 Dec 15 - 01:19 PM
GUEST 13 Dec 15 - 03:03 PM
Teribus 13 Dec 15 - 03:54 PM
GUEST 13 Dec 15 - 04:16 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Dec 15 - 04:29 PM
Teribus 13 Dec 15 - 04:32 PM
GUEST,HiLo 13 Dec 15 - 04:35 PM
Dave the Gnome 13 Dec 15 - 04:45 PM
Dave the Gnome 13 Dec 15 - 04:52 PM
Teribus 13 Dec 15 - 05:16 PM
GUEST 13 Dec 15 - 06:08 PM
GUEST,Hiloo 13 Dec 15 - 06:51 PM
GUEST 14 Dec 15 - 03:05 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 03:08 AM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 03:47 AM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 03:51 AM
GUEST,Musket 14 Dec 15 - 03:53 AM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 04:05 AM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 04:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 15 - 04:10 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 04:20 AM
GUEST,HILo 14 Dec 15 - 04:37 AM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 04:38 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 05:09 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 05:13 AM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Dec 15 - 06:24 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 06:37 AM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM
GUEST,HiLo 14 Dec 15 - 06:58 AM
GUEST 14 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Dec 15 - 07:11 AM
GUEST,HiLo 14 Dec 15 - 07:18 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 15 - 07:45 AM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 08:20 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Dec 15 - 08:47 AM
Greg F. 14 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 15 - 09:37 AM
Greg F. 14 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 09:45 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 15 - 09:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 15 - 09:54 AM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 10:07 AM
GUEST 14 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 10:11 AM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 10:13 AM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 10:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 15 - 10:48 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM
Greg F. 14 Dec 15 - 11:04 AM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 12:00 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 12:08 PM
GUEST,dave 14 Dec 15 - 12:14 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 12:28 PM
GUEST 14 Dec 15 - 12:28 PM
GUEST 14 Dec 15 - 12:35 PM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 12:41 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 12:50 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Dec 15 - 03:01 PM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 03:03 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 03:06 PM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 03:14 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 03:16 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Dec 15 - 03:17 PM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 03:35 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 03:37 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 03:39 PM
GUEST 14 Dec 15 - 03:42 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 03:45 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 03:52 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Dec 15 - 03:59 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Dec 15 - 04:26 PM
Dave the Gnome 14 Dec 15 - 04:31 PM
GUEST 14 Dec 15 - 04:33 PM
GUEST,Dave 14 Dec 15 - 04:35 PM
Teribus 14 Dec 15 - 07:31 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 02:52 AM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 03:12 AM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 03:47 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 03:55 AM
GUEST,Musket 15 Dec 15 - 04:06 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Dec 15 - 04:44 AM
GUEST,Dave 15 Dec 15 - 05:28 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 15 - 06:26 AM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 07:37 AM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 07:45 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Dec 15 - 07:45 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 07:54 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 15 - 08:07 AM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 08:37 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Dec 15 - 08:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 08:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 08:45 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 09:14 AM
GUEST,Dave 15 Dec 15 - 09:28 AM
GUEST,Dave 15 Dec 15 - 09:34 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 15 - 09:38 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 10:19 AM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 10:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 10:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 10:37 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 10:47 AM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 11:02 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 15 - 11:17 AM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 11:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 11:36 AM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 11:38 AM
Greg F. 15 Dec 15 - 11:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 11:44 AM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 11:45 AM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 15 - 12:27 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 01:21 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 01:36 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 01:41 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 01:49 PM
GUEST,Modette 15 Dec 15 - 01:54 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 03:07 PM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 03:14 PM
GUEST 15 Dec 15 - 03:20 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Dec 15 - 03:28 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Dec 15 - 03:30 PM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Dec 15 - 03:32 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 03:34 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Dec 15 - 03:42 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 03:59 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 04:03 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 04:08 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Dec 15 - 04:44 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 04:51 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 04:54 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Dec 15 - 05:09 PM
Dave the Gnome 15 Dec 15 - 05:12 PM
Jim Carroll 15 Dec 15 - 05:13 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 07:34 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 07:40 PM
Teribus 15 Dec 15 - 07:46 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 15 - 02:38 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 02:46 AM
GUEST 16 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 05:05 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 05:08 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 05:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 05:10 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 05:17 AM
GUEST 16 Dec 15 - 05:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 05:20 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 05:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 05:30 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 05:30 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 05:37 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 05:41 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 06:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM
GUEST,Dave 16 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 06:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM
GUEST 16 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 06:29 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 15 - 07:07 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 07:15 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 07:25 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 07:27 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 07:38 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 07:41 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 07:54 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 08:06 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 08:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 08:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 08:17 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 15 - 08:31 AM
GUEST 16 Dec 15 - 08:37 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 15 - 08:38 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 09:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 09:21 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 09:21 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 15 - 09:54 AM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 09:54 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 10:03 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 10:09 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 15 - 11:05 AM
akenaton 16 Dec 15 - 11:39 AM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 15 - 11:49 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 12:48 PM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 01:08 PM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 01:14 PM
GUEST,Modette 16 Dec 15 - 01:28 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 15 - 01:31 PM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 01:34 PM
Jim Carroll 16 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 01:49 PM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 01:52 PM
GUEST,Dave 16 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 02:22 PM
Dave the Gnome 16 Dec 15 - 02:30 PM
GUEST 16 Dec 15 - 02:32 PM
GUEST,Dave 16 Dec 15 - 02:36 PM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 03:20 PM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Dec 15 - 03:23 PM
GUEST 16 Dec 15 - 03:36 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 04:04 PM
GUEST,Dave 16 Dec 15 - 04:39 PM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 06:39 PM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 06:41 PM
Teribus 16 Dec 15 - 07:03 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 16 Dec 15 - 07:37 PM
GUEST,Musket pointing and laughing 17 Dec 15 - 02:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 17 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 15 - 05:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 15 - 05:11 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM
GUEST 17 Dec 15 - 05:25 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 17 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 15 - 05:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 15 - 05:34 AM
GUEST 17 Dec 15 - 05:45 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Dec 15 - 05:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 15 - 06:12 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 15 - 06:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 15 - 06:18 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 17 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 15 - 06:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 15 - 06:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Dec 15 - 06:31 AM
Teribus 17 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Dec 15 - 07:22 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:00 AM

Some people seem far from happy regarding the commemoration of our fallen over the weekend.

I didn't see any of it as I was involved in a music weekend so am not in a position to judge on this particular event although I wouldn't have watched it as I have not appreciated previous events.

Over to you guys.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:18 AM

I thought the Albert Hall do was more jingoistic but the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing. Many of the fallen were not CofE or even Christian. Why let a specific religion take it over? But that may be just me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Megan L
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 08:29 AM

Unfortunately I caught a bit of the Albert Hall and really wish I had not, what a fiasco some Italian warbling away then some blonde giggling and laughing not at all like the man who sang at last years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 09:16 AM

Yes, yet another example of imperialistic religion imposed on both the deluded and the non-deluded equally. Insufferable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 09:31 AM

The nine wreath laying ceremonies our pipe band played at last Sunday were all ceremonies of "Commemoration" and I did not hear anybody say "By Jingo" once - and apart from Policemen restricting and redirecting traffic I did not see a single person in uniform - medals yes, a few berets yes but anyone in full military uniform No.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

Hijacked by the same establishment that wants us to believe willing men understood what they were letting themselves in for or that the butcher of The Somme and his cohort of generals were competent and had a thought for those in their command.

What really gets me is putting recent government folly and vanity on the same level as destroying the nazi regime in WW2.

If it were about the fallen themselves, they'd all wear white fucking poppies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 11:37 AM

Just had this removed (censored) from the sanitised thread so I'll put it up here
Today's Times carries a article declaring that tourists can now go on sightseeing trips in London on an Abbott 17 tonne tank - it includes a photograph showing a group of them doing so on Westminster Bridge, withing five minutes walking distance of The Whitehall Cenotaph where a wreaths were laid honouring the dead a couple of days ago.
It seems that not only do we have the jingoists glorifying wars and hypocrites laying wreaths with one hand while signing export licences    for weapons to be sold to feudalistic tyrants, death-dealing military equipment being used to make a few bob for some entrepreneur
What next - pubs decked out like air-raid shelters with drinks served by staff dressed as ARP wardens, stretcher bearers and nurses!!
This killin' lark really is good for a larf - innit
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 11:37 AM

Perhaps GUEST 09:59 AM could let us in on who should lead the nation in a "National" Act of Remembrance?

The Red Poppies sold by the Royal British Legion raise awareness of those who gave their lives in the defence of freedom in the face of naked aggression. The proceeds of the sale of those poppies goes to charities that carry-out many good works - purchase of these poppies is a matter of individual choice - not a single political thing about it.

The White Poppy on the other hand has got nothing whatsoever to do with those who sacrificed themselves, nothing whatsoever to do with the fallen, it is entirely political - as detailed on their own website.

One last question for GUEST 09:59 - Do poppies "fuck"? If so does that mean we would have to buy two of them?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 11:53 AM

Sorry Jim Carroll but what is the connection between any of the things that you mentioned?

Are the Capital Tank Tours organised and promoted by the Government? Or are they a "private" venture? I can remember seeing in various cities around the world sightseeing trips in WWII amphibious vehicles, they've been on the go for ages - Did the Government run those as well?

Perhaps it is all part of a sinister plot so that the "Guvvermint" can map out where and where not they can drive a tank in the city of London when the time comes to murder the revolting masses. One point of correction courtesy of my son-in-law who knows about such things, he has just pointed out to me that the Abbot is not a tank it is a self-propelled gun.

Of course if all those despicable people could not buy arms from us they would just pack up and go home to mum, perhaps they'd sell ice-cream instead, or do you think they'd just go and buy arms from someone else - the Russians and Chinese seem to sell or give away the most it would appear.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 12:40 PM

" Or are they a "private" venture?"
Does it matter - it is the trivialization of death at a time when we are being asked to give tribute to the dead - just down down the road from where the millions of dead are honoured.
Just you7 have just treivialised the selling of weapons to mass murderers and despots.
Of course they'd buy them off those you mentioned - that makes selling them OK doesn't it - of course the profits would go into the British economy if they bought them from us - finefor some, I suppose!!
Different strokes for different blokes (or blokessses) I suppose
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM

The argument that if we did not sell arms to despots then somebody else would is quite frankly sickening, we have no business dealing in death and destruction. We should be better than this. You could make the same argument for being a heroin dealer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM

The Royal British Legion is by far the biggest organisation for and of service veterans.
They organise the Festival of Remembrance and the Poppy Appeal.
You may not like it, but service and ex service people do.
That is who it is for.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 02:32 PM

Also Dave, it is not and never was a "CofE thing."
You will have seen no cross or crucifix.
You will have seen a pile of drums. That is a soldier's altar for a Drum Head Service.

The Prayers were led by Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch. Since 2002 he has been the National Chaplain to the Royal British Legion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

it is not and never was a "CofE thing."

If they have a minister and mutter some prayers it is a religious thing. Cannot be anything else.

The Prayers were led by Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch.

Would that be the Nigel Simeon McCulloch, KCVO (born 17 January 1942) who is an Anglican bishop by any chance? If it is not a CofE thing what was he doing on the programme?

If people want a vicar they can go to church. If the want a rabbi they can go to a synagogue. If they want an imam they can go to the mosque. Where can those who want to avoid any religious nonsense go if they want to remember their lost ones?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 15 - 03:54 PM

RBL encourage white poppies if you read their literature and press releases and fully understand the sentiment. After all, many of their people have experienced the reality rather than the glory of fucking war.

The opportunistic Church of England meanwhile love to hijack remembrance on the basis of links with the royalty we inadvertently link to our warring past. Perhaps their scholars never got as far as thou shalt not kill and turn the other cheek.

The many Muslims, Sikhs and Jews who fought must wonder, those still left from WW2, why religious fascism didn't die with social fascism.

That's before you get to considering rational people who don't relate sky fairies of any description with the futile glorification of state sponsored butchery. Who lights a candle for the real brave ones, the conscientious objectors incarcerated and shunned by bloodthirsty idiots?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Thompson
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM

1.2 million Arabs fought in the British Army; 500,000 were killed. Were they mentioned?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM

Thompson, where does that number come from? Lawrence's force in WWI was only a couple of thousand, and if you add up the Arab half of the Palestine Regiment, the Arab Legion, and those Egyptians who may have fought with the British army, you get nowhere near that number. 1.2 million Muslims I can believe, but not 1.2 million Arabs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 09:13 AM

Dave, he is a retired Bishop, but he was there because he was invited by RBL. He is their Chaplain.
You may not like the religious element of the event, but the RBL chooses to have it. Their members, service people and ex service people like it.
It is their event.

So do most people like it.
5.39 million people watched it and it sold out for both the evening and afternoon run at the RAH, as it always does.

If they have a minister and mutter some prayers it is a religious thing.
Obviously, but you said CofE.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 11:37 AM

ALL those who served in the armed forces of Great Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire are remembered Thompson - you would have known that had you listened to, or watched the service.
        
Interesting figures though Thompson which if true would mean that during the First and Second World Wars 14% of the British Army consisted of Arab troops and 41% of the fatal casualties were Arabs - pray tell where did these rather fanciful figures come from?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 12:23 PM

The 500,000 Arabs killed is surely an impossible figure. I'm sure the dead for all the British Empire casualties is over the million mark. Scotland itself lost approximately 100,000 war dead the UK in total was supposedly over 800,000. The other big figures from the Empire come from Australia, NZ, Canada, South Africa and India. I'm sure some Arabs were killed too but 500,000 deaths????


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 12:39 PM

They are all fucking dead, regardless of which flavour of superstition.

We roped many commonwealth countries in to help and, as some found out, decided protecting them in return wasn't strategically advantageous in WW2

RBL isn't a religious body and judging by his turban has at least one Sikh on its board of trustees. The Church of England is, regrettably, the state superstition and has links to government and royalty, hence their involvement, regardless of the wishes of RBL or anyone else for that matter in state events such as remembrance hand wringing.

The idea of "most people" wanting religion mixed into it is a groundless comment with no basis. The mental leap that people want religion at the event on the basis of attendance by old men in frocks is like saying I go to football matches because I like the smell of the urinal blocks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

ALL those who served in the armed forces of Great Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire are remembered Thompson - you would have known that had you listened to, or watched the service.
        
Interesting figures though Thompson which if true would mean that during the First and Second World Wars 14% of the British Army consisted of Arab troops and 41% of the fatal casualties were Arabs - pray tell where did these rather fanciful figures come from?

War dead for British, Commonwealth & Empire forces in WWI = ~880,000

War dead for British, Commonwealth & Empire forces in WWII = ~384,000

So out of a total of ~1,264,000 – Arabs serving in the British Armed Forces accounted for 500,000?

Very much doubt that Thompson.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 03:01 PM

regardless of the wishes of RBL

RBL organise the event the way they and the service people want it.
CofE plays no part.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 11 Nov 15 - 03:12 PM

A rather bold statement professor, could you provide us with some evidence to substantiate your claim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:19 AM

As the poster above correctly states the Festival of Remembrance is planned and organised by the Royal British Legion, the format has been long established and includes a Drumhead Service to close the festival. the service is NOT CofE but ecumenical with padres from all three services taking part and readings given by members of all faiths who serve in the armed forces of Great Britain. The Church of England takes no part in the planning or organisation of the service, they are instructed as to what is required by the RBL.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 03:55 AM

Keith is of course right, I don't always agree with everything he says but I find the instant aggression of some posters on here towards him a bit disturbing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

Fine, the CofE play no part in organising it. So, the RBL think that having a CofE bishop (retired) talking about the christian concept of god and heaven is a good way of making the remembrance service inclusive to all do they? I must try it. Maybe organising christian prayers at the folk club will put more bums on seats. It obviously works in filling churches... Anyway, I am more than happy to change my statement from being 'turning into a CofE thing' to 'turning into a christian thing'. I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:23 AM

"the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing" - your words Dave the Gnome.

It would appear that quite a few here have clearly described and detailed the format of "The Festival of Remembrance" and in no way whatsoever could it be described as "a CofE thing". It has, is and always will be an all faith service of commemoration - there again you'd have known that had you bothered to watch it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:38 AM

I did watch it! From beginning to end and it was far from an 'all faith service'. If it was, where were the rabbis? Imams? Leaders of any other non-christian faiths? Also, in the post preceding yours I said quite clearly I am more than happy to change my statement from being 'turning into a CofE thing' to 'turning into a christian thing'. Which bit of that is difficult to understand?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

If religion isn't about promoting pacifist outlooks, it makes you wonder what buns they bring to a party.

The inclusion of superstition in such events is an acronym and tradition. A bit like that we seem to have a cut off of WW1 when remembering whatever you may be remembering. Cast a thought for what those Romans did to Boudicca eh?

Lest we forget what? Sending Padres into battle to convince soldiers that killing is ok? Asking their God to let them kill other members of their cult but with a different helmet?

I'm all for tradition but for crying out loud, to call the sky fairy input relevant rather than a habit difficult to shake off is delusional.

Oh....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 01:57 PM

It is their festival, and they organise it as they, the service people and the veterans like it.

My experience of service people is that they tend not to be religious, but this festival is still popular with them.
They are more tolerant than you Dave.

Jeremy Corbyn is an atheist and is known to be anti-nationalist and anti-jingoist.
He was happy not just to attend in person, but to join in the hymns.

Even among the left wing atheist community our Mudcat ones are unusually intolerant people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 02:37 PM

THE CENOTAPH
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Nov 15 - 06:30 PM

They are more tolerant than you Dave.

How so, Keith? I watched it all on TV. I could not afford a ticket but I guess the politicos got a free ride anyway. I have said I will not watch it again but said nothing about whether it should go ahead or not. I am more than happy to live and let live as long as I am not expected to join in. What is remotely intolerant about that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:29 AM

Jesus freaks are tolerant?

I'm with the late Jake Thackray on this. "I can't tolerate intolerance." Mind you, he was a committed left footer.

The thing is, rational people don't claim to "love thy neighbour" "turn the other cheek" or in the tradition of dodgy clergy, mishear "suffer the children."

Hypocrisy is part and parcel of belonging. These days, it just sticks out like a sore thumb far more than it did. Of course older people, being less street savvy and brought up to believe tend to believe so feel a crumb of comfort by seeing old men in frocks muttering platitudes. Good luck to them, placebo guarantees a minimum of 20% success rate.

But Dave The Gnome's point still stands.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:30 AM

@Dave the Gnome:
On the Saturday before Remembrance Sunday there is a Matinee performance of the Festival of Remembrance which is open to the public this is followed by the evening performance which is televised, the latter is restricted to guests invited by the Royal British Legion, Serving Forces personnel and members of the Royal British Legion - so, as far as the evening performance is concerned, it is not a matter of being able to afford a ticket, I doubt that you would be eligible to attend.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM

Ah, OK. Thanks Guest 13 Nov 15 - 03:30 AM. Either way I could only watch the evening performance on TV and will not be doing so again. If the afternoon performance is similar I shall not make any effort to attend that either.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 04:02 AM

Dave, you have railed against it and said that you find it "objectionable" because of its religious content.

That makes you less tolerant than Corbyn, and all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event and even participate actively in it by joining in the hymn singing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 04:55 AM

" That makes you less tolerant than Corbyn, and all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event and even participate actively in it by joining in the hymn singing"

Have you any EVIDENCE that all the other atheists among the veterans welcomed the religious element? If so please share it with us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:27 AM

Yes, I find it objectionable yet still tolerate it. That is what being tolerant means. If you only tolerate the things that you like it is hardly tolerant at all is it? If I was not going to tolerate it I would have said intolerable rather than objectionable. I have even been known to attend religious ceremonies myself and will happily join in the singing if I know the tune. But it is my choice to do so when the occasion demands. It was not my choice to have it in my living room on a Saturday evening so I will not watch it next year. If that is intolerant then anyone who switches the TV off or changes channels when something they do not like comes on is in the same league.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:42 AM

Yes, I find it objectionable yet still tolerate it.

You still tolerate it Dave?
Luckily you do not have the authority to ban it, but your comments about it here suggest you would if you could.
Your comments about it here have been intolerant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:47 AM

I would not ban anything, Keith. But, if that is your opinion of what I would do I can only refer you to the 'Listen Up' thread and say that you are talking though your arse. Again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:51 AM

Rag,
Have you any EVIDENCE that all the other atheists among the veterans welcomed the religious element? If so please share it with us.

Certainly Rag.
Firstly the RBL is an organisation of and for service people and veterans.
They organise the Festival as they like it.

Secondly, service people and veterans have a voice. If they do not like something you hear about it.

Thirdly I have personally known very many people who have volunteered to participate, so I have personal knowledge.
This year my friend Sandy of 151 Rgt RLC featured in several close ups. She was at the end of a row, quite short and wearing Corporal's chevrons, but her medals including Iraq were not visible.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 05:53 AM

Religion has no part in these ceremonies - unless it is remembered that millions of men were sent to their deaths at the behest of priests who told them they were fightingg god's fight and they had god on their side (someone should write a song).
500.000 Sikhs and Muslims fought in W.W.1. and millions who died were atheists, yet they are excluded from this Christian/Politician backslapping exercise.
There is nothing whatever extreme in find this 'private club' attitude objectionable - and all the press has carried reports of objections to it over the last few years.
Yet the Christians doggedly hang onto it as theirs.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 06:29 AM

So, is Sandy an atheist then? And if so does she represent ALL other atheists in welcoming the religious element? Seeing as you are so pedantic about the words other people use can you explain how you know that "Corbyn, and all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element" really do welcome it? If Corbyn had not attended and joined in the singing what sort of outcry would we have had then? No, sorry Keith, as you are fond of saying you should be able to back up your opinions and your opinion that all the other atheists welcomed it is demonstrably nonsense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 06:43 AM

Your statement was " all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event"

Please provide evidence to support this claim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 06:57 AM

Sandy is an atheist, but never mind my personal knowledge.

Firstly the RBL is an organisation of and for service people and veterans.
They organise the Festival as they like it.

Secondly, service people and veterans have a voice. If they do not like something you hear about it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:04 AM

Good heavens we have DtG & Raggy demanding that "Evidence" must be produced by someone posting to this thread, yet when they are asked to do the same they refuse point blank to do so, declaring that their opinions must be respected and taken at face value.

Also from further up the thread I'd love to know where Thompson got his figures from - they are way off by a "Kerry Mile".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:04 AM

I'll ask again, even though I know you will avoid the question.

You stated "all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event"

Where is your evidence that the atheists among the veterans welcome a religious element, not your opinion, but your EVIDENCE.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:05 AM

If Corbyn had not attended and joined in the singing what sort of outcry would we have had then?

You believe Corbyn was hiding his true beliefs and intentions to gain popularity?

What does that say about him, and about popular opinion?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:23 AM

No I do not, Keith. I believe he was attending because it is the right thing for a top flight politician to do. Whether he "welcomed a religious element" is the point in question.

Teribumble declaring that their opinions must be respected and taken at face value Look at the 'Listen Up' thread if you want to know my view on opinions. Anyone can declare their opinion and anyone can chose to ignore or ridicule it. Have you got anything to add to this thread or are you just reduced to sniping from the sidelines?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:24 AM

He is a politician who at some point will seek to be the leader of the country. What do you expect him to do, put two fingers up.

According to yourself, you are the epitome of popular opinion and no doubt would have been mightily upset had he done so.

Any EVIDENCE yet about the atheists welcoming the religious element of the service yet.

I'll not hold my breathe shall I.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:26 AM

Ask away Raggy, but the statement of Keith's - ""all the other atheists among the veterans who welcome a religious element within the event" - from personal experience in Her Majesty's armed forces rings fairly true, the "religious" bit provided a bit of a welcome break in the ceremonial proceedings during training and afterwards the CofS Padre and his wife provided the best coffee, tea, cakes and biscuits going.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:31 AM

I well remember my late friend Adam telling us of Sunday parades during national service in the RAF starting with call 'Fall out Jews, Roman Catholic and other Denominations'. Very inclusive of them...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:38 AM

Teribus,

Thank you for that. A break from the proceedings I can see would be a welcome break. A nice cup of tea and a bun from the Vicar and his partner would no doubt be welcome.

However I don't think on this occasion that the religious element provided a break, it was part of the proceedings.


Nice try though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:42 AM

But rather a nice way of rounding things off.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 08:02 AM

Indeed, Teribubbles, in your opinion. It is not the opinion of all though is it? I appreciate that many do enjoy it. There are also many who not enjoy it but tollerate it for the sake of others and there are those who do not welcome it at all, amongst all shades of opinion in between. We all know that not everyone will be satisfied and not linking something is not being intolerant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 11:13 AM

Well there you have it my bald, name calling, diminutive, rotund one. Could not care a toss whether or not you care for the drumhead service that closes the Festival of Remembrance or not - you have no part in it or of it. The order and format of the Festival is planned and organised by those who do and they will not lose one wink of sleep should you never watch it again. Your opinions on the subject are meaningless and worthless the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country - something you have never done.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

Do you get medals for making cups of tea these days?

Excellent entertainment as ever. Keith calling rational people intolerant, which is another subject where kettles spring to kind and Terispunkbubble showing us how he trolls by gleaming personal details about people with which to try and bully them. He wouldn't like it if others brought up his own irrelevant to the thread silliness. Hey! Tell us all about Thatcherism and economics, two other subjects where you cause me to lose a little wee wee.

Whilst ever superstition is part and parcel of group shame and regret, it can never be inclusive of rational people or even people for whom Christianity is a false heresy in their mind.

Not exactly inclusive of a huge chunk of those dead in the name of petty ex empire eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:01 PM

Your opinions on the subject are meaningless Absolutely, Teriballs. Just as your opinions on most things are complete bollocks. You are welcome to ignore or ridicule my opinion to your hearts content and I shall continue to do the same with yours.

Glad we have reached consensus on this at long last :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 12:21 PM

i don't like the suggestion that those of us who have never taken up arms have 'never served their country' many public servants and other carers, parents, publicans and priests have done many years of invaluable service for their communities. some of us do not feel the need to join gangs and are unwilling to go abroad to attack foreign people with whom we have absolutely no quarrel. before i get all sorts of criticism can i stress that i am not talking about (just) british people here - i mean all of us, in every country. people will keep signing up to follow the orders of evil or deranged leaders (or church or crown) and while they then probably do not expect to be treated as heroes for their criminal behaviour, remembrance these days does so and is increasingly an unsavoury, jingoistic 'celebration'
remember all the victims of war -these days far more likely to be women, children or aid workers than active combatants- and do what we can to stop any more fighting. and stop selling weapons -it's not rocket science!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 03:28 PM

From Teribus: (hopefully he will note I'm using his correct pseudonym)

"the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country"

What a strange sentence. I thought the remembrance service was so that we, the people, could honour our fallen.

Have I got that wrong?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 06:12 PM

Teribus serves himself. The idea of selfless service is alien to his mindset.

Mind you, he does like being associated with those he couldn't begin to understand.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 15 - 07:04 PM

"Your opinions on the subject are meaningless and worthless the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country - something you have never done."

Well, that takes the biscuit, does that. How do you know that Dave hasn't served his country? Is the only way to serve you country by lining yerself up to be shot at by foreigners because a bloody stupid politician told you to? God, you don't half come out with some stuff. What about nursesteachersdoctorsmidwivescareworkerscleanerscoppersfiremennurserynursespostmenambulancedriversparamedics? Sorry if I've left anyone out. Maybe you think the royals, only here because millions died to stop fascists from taking us over and cutting their heads off, or archbishops who pray for the dead without risking a hair on their sacred heads, or the heads of banks or big business who got where they were by fleecing the rest of us blind and "forgetting" to pay their taxes, have "served their country"? Huh??

And while we're at it, Mr Woodcock, would you care to tell us all where we can look up exactly what it was that YOU did to "serve our country"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 02:43 AM

I think that you will find that at the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance many of those you have mentioned are represented - but there again it would appear that those of you who stated quite clearly that "you watched the whole thing" must have been watching a completely different programme to the one I and millions of others watched, perhaps like most aspects of your lives you only see, read and listen to the things you want to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM

just in case some of us are a bit thick, Woodcock spells out his blinkered bigotry and misplaced patriotism.

Fascinating.

I've never shamed my family with rifle and beret but have tried to serve my country well. The military may be a good haven for grunts with nothing but brawn to offer and in recent years, the assertive social work they carry out in peacekeeping roles is sometimes commendable. But serving your country is a different kettle of fish to propping up desperate governments. Thatcher with Falklands, Major, Blair and Brown with Middle East and Cameron wearing two faces simultaneously and hoping nobody notices.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:01 AM

"I've never shamed my family with rifle and beret but have tried to serve my country well."

Really? I suppose we'll just have to take your word for it. Have you been successful in serving your country GUEST, or have you been more successful in serving yourself?

"But serving your country is a different kettle of fish to propping up desperate governments. Thatcher with Falklands, Major, Blair and Brown with Middle East and Cameron wearing two faces simultaneously and hoping nobody notices."

1: The Falklands - you would have thrown British subjects on the mercies of Galtieri's Junta without a second thought? In what way is that serving your country? How noble of you.

2: Major?? Ah you mean the response to Iraq's invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait (Good heavens faithful servant of the British nation and the British people - you do seem awfully predisposed to rewarding military aggression by others at the expense of the innocent and at no cost to yourself - again how noble of you) By the bye the decision to eject Iraqi troops from Kuwait was I believe a UN decision. Then of course there was that stramash in the former Yugoslav Republic the involvement of NATO there was to prevent genocide wasn't it?

3: Blair and Brown?? Afghanistan? Our initial involvement there had something to do with our being part of NATO and honouring articles 5 & 6 of the NATO Charter, subsequently we were involved at the behest of the UN as part of UNAMA and ISAF. Iraq in 2003 had something to do with a ceasefire agreement signed by the Government of Iraq in March 1991 at a place called Safwan. As the Iraqis did not comply with the terms and conditions they had agreed to the ceasefire was deemed to have been broken leaving any of the combatant signatories free to resume hostilities until such time as compliance had been achieved.

4: Cameron?? Libya was a UN operation at the prompting of the Arab League, the GCC, France, Britain and the USA - so noble servant of the British people NOT Cameron's sole decision or idea. Syria? rather idiotically voted down in the House of Commons, had action been taken then, we would not have the disaster that we now have in that country.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:23 AM

You are obviously a busy man Teribus, you forgot to address my earlier query.

From Teribus: (hopefully he will note I'm using his correct pseudonym)

"the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country"

What a strange sentence. I thought the remembrance service was so that we, the people, could honour our fallen.

Have I got that wrong?

Any chance of an answer yet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:39 AM

No, don't worry about Teribums aiming his nonsensical 'served your country' bollocks at me chaps. As I keep saying, opinions are allowed, no matter how stupid, and we are allowed to ridicule them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:43 AM

Yes you have got it wrong.
The Royal British legion is an organisation of and for service people and veterans.
Their Festival commemorates all those who have lost their lives in conflicts, and commemorates them in the way that those service people and veterans want it.

They are not interested in the views of every tiny extremist minority who might want it done differently, especially those who have never and would never bear arms in defence of their home.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM

In the spirit of something posted on another thread, I have made my point on here. I think that combining religion with remembrance is wrong. Others disagree. I have nothing further to add so I shall leave you to it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM

So have I got this right Professor, Teribus says:

"the Festival is for those who serve and have served their country"

So the commemoration has got sweet FA to do with the population at large, it is only for people who have been in one of the forces.

Is that what you are saying.

I've discovered it's best to ask you as you do have a habit of moving goalposts don't you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:03 AM

Well put Keith but as Raggy asked read this again Raggy (I've taken the trouble to put "The Festival" in context to help you)

"The order and format of the Festival [i.e. the televised programme] is planned and organised by those who do and they will not lose one wink of sleep should you never watch it again. Your opinions on the subject are meaningless and worthless the Festival [i.e. the televised programme] is for those who serve and have served their country"

Oh and Raggy you are perfectly correct the Remembrance SERVICE is so that the entire nation can remember those who fell giving their lives for their country - The Remembrance SERVICE however happens at the Cenotaph on the Sunday AFTER the Saturday night broadcast of the Royal British Legion's Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall.

Clear enough for you Raggy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:05 AM

The clue is in the name Rag.
It is The Royal British Legion Festival Of Remembrance.
Others are invited, but it remains their Festival.

People who do not like it are free to do their own thing, but for some reason they don't.
I suppose you have to give a shit, and they don't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM

" Oh and Raggy you are perfectly correct the Remembrance SERVICE is so that the entire nation can remember those who fell giving their lives for their country - The Remembrance SERVICE however happens at the Cenotaph on the Sunday AFTER the Saturday night broadcast of the Royal British Legion's Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall"

So the festival of remembrance is only for people who have served, nothing to do with the remainder of the population. I'm surprised the BBC broadcast it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 06:18 AM

keith, i reckon that anyone would 'bear arms in defence of their home'and it's a major reason why many people across the world are so angry about modern day imperialist adventures by the usa and their allies. of course, i would fight in defence of my home but i certainly would not fight for cheap oil, general haig, capitalism or just because 'we have to do something' about syria.
in my own occasionally engaged though always enraged way it feels like i have been fighting against thatcherism all my adult life but never felt the need to get physical about it.
it's a long time since any of us had to fight in defence of our home - we are lucky to live in the uk with our soldiers abroad. we should remember all the victims of war, everywhere.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 09:09 AM

Perhaps those here who find the existing Festival so objectionable will work to produce a more acceptable one.
The Republican Leftwing Atheists Festival Of Remembrance.

I would watch that.
I would pay to watch that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:16 AM

happens all the time - remembering those who stood up against fascism in germany, in spain, in chile and nicaragua and many other places where imperialism and capitalism impose their soulless and brutal ideology against decent people anywhere. lee rigby was a tragic figure murdered by maniacs on the street, blair peach was murdered by the state - respect to them both.
do you have a problem with leftwingers? atheists? republicans? some of us are good people too, you know. i'm sure you wouldn't want to join fascists in striving for a world where all points of view aren't tolerated and respected.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM

"do you have a problem with leftwingers? atheists? republicans?"

LOL !!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM

do you have a problem with leftwingers? atheists? republicans?

The Professor has a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with his drivel 100%.

Don't take it personally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:39 AM

do you have a problem with leftwingers? atheists? republicans?

Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem.
They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I am sure that most, like you alchemvich, are much more tolerant.
Corbyn clearly is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 10:51 AM

I have never met Akenaton, but we have become firm friends via pm.
He is a republican, left wing atheist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 11:03 AM

i think you must be writing about a different akenaton than the one who regularly posts on here


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:03 PM

GUEST Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM

I take it GUEST 05:34 that reading and comprehension of the English language is not your strong point then.

"The Festival" i.e the Royal British Legion Festival of Remembrance AS TELEVISED.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 14 Nov 15 - 05:17 PM

" Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem. They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

Hmmmm Perhaps professor you could provide a link to any post where I have even suggested that I find the festival "objectionable"

If you can't I would expect you to keep your gratuitous little words to yourself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:52 AM

Nobody objects to the Festival - here or elsewhere
They object to the act of remembrance being monopolised by the religious (who were very much a part of the butchery of W.W.1) and by politicians, who caused the slaughter in the first place - neither of whom, with their track records, have any right to exclude those of other religions or of none whatever, should they wish to.
There is enough religions trouble in the world today (see Paris) without being told by one particularly unsavoury example of the worst aspects of the Christian religion, who apparently possesses not a scrap of Christian values or humanity, that atheists are not fit to hold such a commemoration and any efforts they might make are fit only to be sneered at and "sold tickets to" - that really does inspire confidence in religion, doesn't it!!
God (whoever's) save us from such fanatics.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:15 AM

Keith defends bigotry. I point it out. My post is deleted.

Perhaps the normal well adjusted decent people on here might realise that the reason ignorance prevails is that you either try to reason with it unsuccessfully (Dave etc) or your posts are deleted because Max runs a website that reflects his own right wing bigoted agenda.

Fair play, he is a foreigner eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:23 AM

Rag,
Hmmmm Perhaps professor you could provide a link to any post where I have even suggested that I find the festival "objectionable"

Dave used the word and you always agree with him Rag.
Prove me wrong.
Say you disagree with him on it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

I know I said I would leave you to it but that last one really needs addressing. I have never said the festival was objectionable. My exact phrase, not that you cannot look it up yourself, was

but the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing.

I subsequently changed that from a CofE thing to a christian thing because you pointed out that other christian cults were involved. At no point in time have I objected to the remembrance itself and Raggy has nothing to disagree with me about. No one has objected to the festival itself. You are, as usual, misrepresenting what was said for your own gain. Now, I know you will try your best to wheedle and worm your way out of anything so, for the record and as clearly as I can put

I DO NOT OBJECT TO THE FESTIVAL OF REMEMBRANCE

I DO OBJECT TO A CHRISTIAN SERVICE BEING PART OF IT WHEN SO MANY THAT DIED WERE NOT OF THAT FAITH.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM

If Dave used a word, fine that's Dave's prerogative.

You made an unsubstantiated ACCUSATION against me.

A honourable person would offer an apology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:40 AM

Dave,
I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again.

Rag, do you agree with Dave or not?
If you do not, I do owe you an apology.
If you do, no apology is owed.
Which is it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:47 AM

Oh, and for the record, I have started to make arrangements for The Republican Leftwing Atheists Festival Of Remembrance. It will be in our village, possibly in the local pub. Tickets will be £25,000 each. Keith has already committed to it so I know costs are covered -

I would watch that.
I would pay to watch that.


I suspect he was lying but you never know :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

I do not need to answer that question. What Dave, or anyone else, writes is entirely up to them. I do not answer for them.

YOU POSTED " Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem.They find the existing festival "objectionable."


You accuse ME of doing so but can find NOTHING to substantiate your vindictive words.

The ball is firmly in your court.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

Keith - See my post of 15 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM. Tell me which bit you do not understand and I will endeavour to explain more clearly. No one is saying the festival is objectionable. You are hinging your argument around the word 'it' being the festival when you know damn well it is not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:23 AM

Wonderful comment on the increasing awfulness of some of the acts trawled up to take part in these commemoration beanfeasts by A.A Gill in The Sunday Times this morning (must have had the dreadful cabaret style rendering of Willie McBride last year).
He describes them as Captain Mainwearing's version of 'Britain's Got Talent'.
Couldn't have done it without the church!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

The "church" played no part Jim.
Dave, the Drumhead Service is a small but integral part of the event, and you said you found it objectionable.
I think you are being intolerant.

Rag, Dave said he finds the existing festival "objectionable."
Everything you have posted supports my view that you do too.
If you do not, say so and I will apologise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 08:09 AM

I have never posted anything to give you a reason to believe that I found the remembrance festival objectionable. That was YOUR creation not mine.

An apology would not go amiss.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:22 AM

If you agree with Dave it is objectionable, then I was right about you and you should apologise for making an issue..

If you agree with me that he was wrong, I will apologise.

Your call Rag.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

"The "church" played no part Jim."
But you are claiming this as a religious event as kindly suggesting that the rest of us can come along if we wish to - very kind of you of course (even if it is only for the good and the great) - helps to foster universal love and brotherhood no end!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:32 AM

I have already stated Dave can say what he wants, I have no influence on the things he writes.

I have not said that the remembrance service was objectionable and take exception that you are now trying to persuade me to deny something I didn't do in the first place.

An apology please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:41 AM

I was right about you.
You do find it objectionable as I correctly stated.
If I was wrong you would say so, but you do not.

I ask you to deny nothing, just was I right about you or not?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM

I am not playing your game.

You stated " Certainly not, but there is a little gang of them here who do have a problem. They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I asked you to find one example of me doing that. You have failed to do so because there isn't one example.

I asked for an apology. I am still waiting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 10:38 AM

Good heavens Raggy there you go demanding this and demanding that of people while you never provide any of the information or detail when requested by others - what is the party line again for the likes of yourself, the Gnome and your GUEST alter egos? - Oh yes that is it, whatever you say is merely your opinion and that you never have to explain or justify it to anybody. So tell me why does Keith have to justify his opinion that he thinks that you, tacitly agree with the gnome and find the festival in its current format "objectionable" - you have had more than ample opportunity to deny it yet you have remained silent - can't really fault Keith A for holding to his opinion, you haven't really done much (in fact nothing at all) to dissuade him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 10:41 AM

Even you know Teribus the difference between not offering an argument and libel


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 11:15 AM

When Keith says he finds something objectionable that is his view.

When says a comment is objectionable he is elevating his opinion to being the arbiter of taste, which with his track record he most certainly isn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:17 PM

Keith

Rag, Dave said he finds the existing festival "objectionable."

Nowhere on this thread or any other have I said I find the existing festival objectionable. On the second post in the thread I said "the thing I objected to most was turning it into a CofE thing". I subsequently said "Anyway, I am more than happy to change my statement from being 'turning into a CofE thing' to 'turning into a christian thing'." I stated at the outset and have repeated that it is the inclusion of a Christian service in a remembrance for people of all or no faith that I find objectionable. Never the festival itself. Why do you feel the need to manipulate the truth so much?

I would find it objectionable if someone was to fart loudly and smellily on the bus but it does not mean I object to buses. How on earth do you manage to put a different slant on everything I say?

Teribums - What Guest alter-egos? Can you substantiate the ridiculous claim that I post as anyone other than myself or is it yet another load of bollocks?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:33 PM

Dave, can you do me a favour and copy this to your facebook page.

Thanks

Raggytash


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 12:34 PM

Dave I meant to say the whole thread

Thanks


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 01:06 PM

Will do, Rag. If anyone wants to find it they can look up the Facebook page of my Spanish friend, Mudcat DelThreads. :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 02:59 PM

Dave, the service is a small but integral part of the festival, and you said it was "objectionable."

Rag, anyone reading the thread would conclude that you and Dave are in agreement.

If you agree with Dave that it is objectionable, then I was right.
If you agree with me that it is not, then I do owe you an apology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I have NOT commented on the festival being objectionable or not.

You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable, I did not.

That deserves an apology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:10 PM

But I have never said the festival is objectionable so how can anyone agree or disagree with that?

Back to you.

Rag - Just disagree with me that something I did not say is not objectionable. Or maybe it is, I think. Whatever the fuck he is on about. Just disagree. I don't mind at all and it will be worth it to see the Keithy babe either apologise or, more likely, renege on his promise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:13 PM

I have not accused you of saying anything Rag.
I said, "They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

I believe that to be true.
If I was wrong you would certainly announce it, but you won't because I was right about you.

Prove me wrong and say you do not find the existing festival, with its service, objectionable like Dave says he does.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:14 PM

Actually, Raggy, I have just twigged.

If you agree with Dave that it is objectionable, then I was right.
If you agree with me that it is not, then I do owe you an apology.


Just agree that the festival is not objectionable and Keith will owe you an apology. I also agree that the festival is not objectionable so it is a win/win situation.

I bet he doesn't apologise though ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 03:21 PM

I'll place my last comment again:

I have NOT commented on the festival being objectionable or not.

You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable, I did not.

That deserves an apology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM

for the purpose of clarifying any doubt can i just say that i find the service objectionable?
i could add that it is objectionable and depressing and pathetic that several aging/aged blokes on here think it is ok to squabble away about inconsequential nonsense.
it is objectionable, depressing, pathetic and sick that while there is so much shite going on around the world that we think it is still worthwhile to attempt to score cheap points off each other.
mo, it is not acceptable to be racist, aggressive , tory or rude about each other or anyone else. fuckin pack it in.
ever wonder why why there are no woman or younger people on this site? it could well be because we are all just objectionable .....and stupid....and blinkered.

but to return to the british legion - yes, i do object . it's all about men who died because they were fighting to do what their governments told them to. more than that, it is currently about a bunch of macho/racist aggressive blokes who think that supporting our hired army makes them more hard or patriotic or something.
to be honest, i'm an old hippy and into peace and these guys have too much body weight and not enough brain.

imagine if everyone just stopped fighting or idolising the warriors among us-it isn't hard to do .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raffles
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:31 PM

Drank like a fire-engine, but only got drunk enough to make us a speech that I wouldn't have missed for ten pounds.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 06:54 PM

"to return to the british legion - yes, i do object . it's all about men who died because they were fighting to do what their governments told them to"

Wrong GUEST,achmelvich - They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace, security and liberty, free to spout your ill-informed cliche-riddled drivel to your hearts content without fear of let or hindrance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 15 - 07:31 PM

"They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace"
No they didn't - they died for a whole number of reasons whicch we have discussed ad-nauseum
You have already described soldiers like Harry Patch as liars because they disagreed with your jingoistic claptrap - there were many who shared his view
Even those who may have fallen for your line were sold out by depression, hunger marches mass unemployment, appeasement to fascism and yet another World War where "We started all over again" as the song says.
"Land fit for heroes to live in" my arseum!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:58 AM

They died for what they were told to believe.

I suppose in a warped way, that makes them martyrs. Some weren't martyrs though. They put in a uniform because society expected it, or to get away from boring or awful jobs. Read Spike Milligan's war memoirs.

Their latter day comrades also died to make the world safer according to Bliar & Bush.

That worked......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:31 AM

"You have already described soldiers like Harry Patch as liars"

Did I Jim? Where? When? I certainly have no recollection of ever having stated that Harry Patch was a liar. Ah but you write "soldiers like" which leads me to recall your belief in a tale told to you by someone called Tommy Kenny about British Military policemen forcing British soldiers out of trenches and shooting them if they refused to go. I remember at the time I asked you what regiment Tommy Kenny served in - you couldn't tell me (I on the other hand did the research and found that in the entire First World War only six men with the name Thomas Kenny served in the British Army, the most likely candidate won the Military Medal - I also did the research and found that in the course of that war there was not one instance of anything even remotely resembling your Tommy Kenny's story ever having occurred). You on the other hand were so eager to believe this fairytale that you checked and confirmed nothing related to what he had told you (I at least know with 100% certainty that Harry Patch did serve on the Western Front as a soldier - as far as YOUR Tommy Kenny you haven't a clue one way or another) - you might swallow any line and take it at face value I do not. This will prove to be another case of Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit" similar to your accusation that "I once stated that your long dead mother had been on the game" which as I recall was an accusation that was proven to have been totally groundless i.e. another example of Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit". No wonder I have long since ceased to pay any attention to your poorly presented, ranting, multi-coloured, ramblings, your interminable cut 'n ' pastes and your idiotic insistence that newspaper articles are proof of anything when they suit your biased and bigoted view and baseless right-wing lies and propaganda when they don't. Who did you model yourself on Jim - Citizen "Wolfie" Smith??


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:44 AM

"They died for what they were told to believe."

Really GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 02:58 AM? And what was it they were told to believe? And who was it that told them to believe it? Do you believe what you are told to believe? I know that I certainly wouldn't. Your rather idiotic statement tends to indicate that you have never served in any of the armed forces and have never spoken to veterans who have actually seen and experienced combat, if you had you would have noted and found as a common denominator the fact that in combat soldiers do not fight for "King and Country", they do not fight for "the honour and glory of the regiment or the colours" - they fight for each other, they fight for their mates, they fight to get through it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:14 AM

"I certainly have no recollection of ever having stated that Harry Patch was a liar. "
Your response to my accounts of the WW1 veteran we spent three days recording was "soldiers tell lies" - dismissing what had to say in three words - so much for your respect for war heroes!
You and your fellow jingoists have done this with every statement by veterans critical of the war raised in discussion - you prefer the offiucial establishment version rather than the words of those whoo actually fought.
You now appear to be calling me or Tommy Kenny a liar (again) in support of the official version.
You have ignored and continue to do so, the lies, distortions, the pressure, the blackmail and the open threats of imprisonment and death that caused people to join up.
Tommy Kenny joined up a couple of years after leaving school - like his contemporaries, he couldn't get work in poverty-stricken Liverpool, he was offered a wage, a uniform and the romance of foreign places and told the war was a forgone conclusion that would soon be over, so he lied about his age and joined up - that was the case with many thousands of young lads who risked and gave their lives to join the bloodbath.
The fact thay you couldn't find Tommy Kenny in your "researches" is immaterial - his interviews (carried out by me, two well-known singers and the folk scene and Tommy's grandson) is archived along with the rest of our collection in three national archives.   
Jeremy Paxman's programmes devoted a great deal of time to the machinations of recruiting - one of the high-spots was the master-recruiter. Horatio Bottomley, who presented jingoistic pantomimes downplaying and distorting the horrors of what was actually happening.         
Bottomley not only became a millionaire on his sending many thousands of young men to their deaths, but he was later jailed as a crook - too late to save the lives he helped take.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:24 AM

Rag,
You HAVE ACCUSED me of saying it was objectionable,

No I have not.

Dave,
I also agree that the festival is not objectionable

You stated, "I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

About time Keith, you've convinced yourself overnight that you were right, that you've done nothing wrong. What a sad, gutless little man you are. We should feel sorry for you really. Just one thing I hope you are going to confess before you go to church on Sunday. You go on about people losing. Well you have lost. You have courage, you have lost all credibility, you have lost all honesty, you have lost integrity, you have lost trustworthiness, you have lost legitimacy. You lose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:44 AM

"Dave used the word and you always agree with him Rag"

Just to jog your poor memory.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:07 AM

I accused you of agreeing with Dave, not of saying anything Rag.
Whatever Dave says now, he said earlier that it was "objectionable."
I am not wasting another post on this nonsense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM

You stated, "I still find it objectionable either way and will not bother with it again."

I did indeed Keith, and I still find the inclusion of a christian service in remembrance of non-christian fallen objectionable. I do not and have never found the remembrance objectionable. Which is what you are implying. Why don't you just admit that you misinterpreted my comment? I have no idea if it was accidental or malicious but I shall give you the benefit of the doubt. I will even help you by saying that I could have phrased it better. I don't mind. I have already clarified what I meant but assume you did not read that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:13 AM

You couldn't apply that logic to the whole forum could you professor.


Not that it matters one way or the other. Once again you have clearly demonstrated your true colours.













A sort of shitty yellow.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:14 AM

What was the "it" you will not bother with again?
The Festival.
The service is an integral part of the Festival and always has been.
I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable." "
The existing Festival includes the service.

Now I have wasted another post on your nonsense!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:16 AM

But I, Raggytash, did not type that did I?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:23 AM

I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable."

You did indeed, Keith. No one else said it but you. I do not know how I can make it any more clear. I do not find the festival objectionable. I do find the inclusion of christian prayers for non-christians objectionable. I do not find you objectionable. I do find your abuse of the English language objectionable. I do not find buses objectionable. I do find people farting on them is. What is there to not understand?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:30 AM

"The fact thay you couldn't find Tommy Kenny in your "researches" is immaterial"

WTF!!!! - Can you actually READ Mr Carroll??? What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???

"(I on the other hand did the research and found that in the entire First World War only six men with the name Thomas Kenny served in the British Army, the most likely candidate won the Military Medal - I also did the research and found that in the course of that war there was not one instance of anything even remotely resembling your Tommy Kenny's story ever having occurred)

Just in case you still don't understand that Mr Carroll - couldn't find Tommy Kenny - I FOUND ALL SIX OF THEM AND READ THEIR RECORDED WAR RECORDS - YOU PRAT

You on the other hand talked to a man in interview for three days and you checked and corroborated absolutely nothing. Of course you could prove me wrong by going back to your notes and interview tapes and tell us all:

1: What year your man joined the army
2: What regiment he served in
3: What theatre of war he served in
4: What action in fought in where members of the MFP or MMP lined up behind British soldiers to force them "over the top"
5: What action he fought in where he saw MFP or MMP shooting British soldiers for refusing to advance or for returning to their trenches

I can say with absolute certainty that you will provide none of those details because so eager were you to get all this "working class hero" bullshit down you forgot the one most important thing about researching and recording history - you forgot to check up and get corroboration and supporting background and information to validate what you had been told.

"You and your fellow jingoists have done this with every statement by veterans critical of the war raised in discussion - you prefer the offiucial establishment version rather than the words of those whoo actually fought."

Care to offer me any explanation as to how and why it was that the Tommy Kenny that you and your little group interviewed over a period of three days was the only person to have witnessed these things? Care to even examine how such acts could be carried out using reason and logic? You have never studied military history or battlefield archaeology, you simply have no grasp about what you are prattling on about.

A: How many Military Policemen would you need to force a regiment of infantry men over the top at gunpoint- let alone an entire Division? Reasonably and logically you as the military policemen would have to be better armed than the soldiers of that infantry regiment and you would have to have parity in numbers or superiority in numbers otherwise once you started shooting soldiers the soldiers would turn their guns on you. Tell me Jim, how many men served in the war as military policemen (IIRC they started in 1914 with a few hundred and finished in 1918 with around 25,000 covering an army that was 440,000 strong in 1914 and around 5,300,000 strong in 1918). You are completely hopeless when it comes to detail, perspective, logic or reason - you start out with your view and your preconceptions then go hell for leather to prove them irrespective of what substantive evidence tells you, if it doesn't fit your theory you ignore it.

B: The battlefield archaeology bit comes in here Jim - any idea how a system of trenches is laid out? How many different sorts of trenches there were and what their functions were - or do you think that Captain Blackadder's cosy little dug-out was what frontline trench warfare was all about? THE frontline trench if you look at all the pictures form the first world war just simply would not be big enough to allow space for those about to mount the attack and a line of men behind them ready to shoot them if they didn't go - that is just simple physical fact.

Your old man's tale never happened I say that because I have examined the allegation that it did, I have looked at it logically, I have applied reason to it, I have looked for anything at all that could even be remotely considered by way of corroboration and have found absolutely nothing to support this "Urban Myth" that you seem so sold on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:49 AM

"What was the "it" you will not bother with again?
The Festival.
The service is an integral part of the Festival and always has been.
I said "They find the existing Festival "objectionable." "
The existing Festival includes the service." - Keith A


Game, Set & Match Gnome stop wriggling and trying to move the goalposts.

As far as the likes of you and Raggy go the "I never said that" line is a bit irritating and unnecessary really - neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

Part Two of the triple alliance boldly puts his foot forward. Is there no start to the bravery of these three illustrious gentlemen.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:52 AM

"WTF!!!! - Can you actually READ Mr Carroll??? What part of this do you NOT UNDERSTAND???"
Will you stop talking down to people, you bullying moron - you really aren't bright enough to do that to anybody.
It doesn't matter who Tommy Kenny was unless you are calling him a liar or claiming he is a figment of my imagination - his story exists as recorded as archived and was witness by John Faulkner and Sandra Kerr - so which is it to be - was Tommy lying or am I?
As for Tommy's story not existing elsewhere - probably the stupidest thing you have said to date
Tommy's story is identical to many accounts of World War One - young ben not able to find work, dissatisfied with their lives tricked into joining up by the promise of a regular job and the romance of travel and a unifirm to attract the girls - as old as warfare itself - utterly crass.
The army didn't need military policemen to force men to fight against their will - what king of stupid argument is that.
They had laws and the threat of imprisonment and the firing squad if, once enlisted or recruited, they refused to fight.
Please don't try to throw dust in my eyes with your supposed military knowledge (gained no doubt in the galley of your cross-channel ferry while you were washing the pots)
THe lads who fought and died were, by and largely r#tricked into doing so with false promises of a better world and other enticements - there are enough examples of ex-soldiers saying so - Harry Patch being one of them.
Their sacrifice deserved far more than your jingoistic establishment bollocks.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 05:56 AM

WTF are you on about Teribums? I said I do not find the festival objectionable but I do find the inclusion of christian prayers for non-christians objectionable. I have never said anything else. Just who is moving what goalposts?

neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway.

If you believe that we are not worth talking to, who are the idiots that keep responding to us?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 06:02 AM

The only person moving goalposts is the professor as well you know.

Trying the defend the undefendable really doesn't suit you Teribus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:03 AM

Talking down to people??

You said I had failed to find any record of a soldier named Tommy Kenny in answer to a post of mine where I had quite clearly stated that I had found not only one soldier named Tommy Kenny but six - clear example of Jim Carroll's inability to read and understand the English language and complete and utter lack of any powers of reasoning or logic.

"The army didn't need military policemen to force men to fight against their will - what king of stupid argument is that.
They had laws and the threat of imprisonment and the firing squad if, once enlisted or recruited, they refused to fight."


OK then Jim, when you first introduced us all to Tommy Kenny you did tell us all about Tommy telling you about MPs forcing British soldiers over the top at gunpoint? Did Tommy Kenny regale you with stories of MPs shooting British soldiers who refused to go over the top and for returning to their trenches? If he did he was lying because no such incidents EVER HAPPENED during the entire course of the First World War - if you think what I have said there is incorrect then please provide us with evidence that refutes what I have said - Please note: The word of one single man who YOU have not even been able to establish whether or not he even ever served as a soldier does not count. At the time of all the WWI threads none of your fellow travelers were able to come up with any other examples of this practice so how come YOUR Tommy was the only one to witness it? That sort of thing would have been impossible to keep quiet. Oh and here is another piece of information for you to consider, during the course of WWI the Military Foot Police and the Military Mounted Police never once shot a British soldier - not even those condemned to die by firing squad - soldiers from the condemned man's regiment had to form the firing squad. Standard and uniform issue of arms for the Military Police? A side arm, a service revolver.

"Tommy's story is identical to many accounts of World War One

Yet none of you who believe the myth about men being forced over the top at gunpoint can verify Tommy's story

" - young men not able to find work, dissatisfied with their lives tricked into joining up by the promise of a regular job and the romance of travel and a uniform to attract the girls - as old as warfare itself - utterly crass."

What on earth are you wittering on about? Is that seriously your argument? A bunch of tired old stereotypical cliches? Rather runs against the facts doesn't it with regard to the first two years of the First World War. Such as over 1,200,000 men rushing to join the British Army between August 1914 and December 1914 in overwhelming droves of VOLUNTEERS so great that the British Army of the day couldn't cope with the rush. By the time the War was over 2.6 million British men who had volunteered to join the armed forces and a further 2.7 million had been conscripted. EVERY other soldier who participated from Ireland, from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland, India, South Africa, etc, etc - where conscription did not exist were ALL VOLUNTEERS.

"Please don't try to throw dust in my eyes with your supposed military knowledge"

For the purposes of this exchange Carroll it can clearly be seen who knows what they are talking about and who does not - you old son are absolutely clueless when it comes to this subject.

"THe lads who fought and died were, by and largely tricked into doing so with false promises of a better world and other enticements - there are enough examples of ex-soldiers saying so - Harry Patch being one of them."

Really?? Any documented examples of this? I don't think I will get any from you or your fellow travelers.

Your "Home before Christmas" was shown and clearly demonstrated as being a myth as far as the British Government and the British people were concerned.

The "country fit for heroes to live in"?? Never stated at any time during the war - so hardly a false promise - the line came from a speech delivered by David Lloyd George at Wolverhampton, Nov. 23, 1918 and subsequently quoted in The Times, Nov. 25, 1918. (Source: The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations" by Tony Augarde.)

Oh and Jim, and apologies to Eric Bogle, but not one single man who joined the British Armed Forces during the First World War, not one single General and not one single politician ever seriously believed for one single second that they were "fighting the war to end all war". Again here is David Lloyd George using the phrase:

"This war, like the next war, is a war to end war."

Harry Patch was one of the ones who said all that was he Carroll??

Well here is what Harry Patch did say about all that Jim:

Background - Harry Patch grew up in Coombe Down, near Bath. He left school at 15 and trained as a plumber. He was 16 when war broke out and reached 18 just as conscription was being introduced. Unlike many of the young men who smilingly signed up for death and dismemberment, he had no illusions.

What Harry DID say - "I knew what to expect. My mother had three sons. My oldest brother suffered from asthma. He didn't pass. My middle brother was a regular soldier. Royal Engineers. Serving in Africa. He was called home and wounded at Mons. I knew what it was going to be like: dirty, filthy, insanitary."

Those the words a man being told lies and coaxed with false promises and inducements?? Don't think so Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:15 AM

Harry Patch

Teribus please read paragraph 5 and then come back and tell me that Harry Patch was lying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:47 AM

"Did Tommy Kenny regale you with stories of MPs shooting British soldiers who refused to go over the top and for returning to their trenches"
Nope - that was somebody else altogether in recollections of his grandfather - look the ***** thing up - you were given a link that was taken from the net.
The fact that it is inconvenient to your case does not make it a lie - it was told to the writer by his grandfather - another veteran who you choose to call a liar - you are adding to your score here by leaps and bounds - were there any World War One soldiers who told the truth, other the the ones who back your jingoism.
"A war to end all wars" was one of the ploys to get lads to joint up - it doesn't matter a toss which General believed it - certainly some of that lads did - you said so yourself, though not in so many words
"They died in order that you could be born and brought up and live in peace, security and liberty"
Another ploy was "a land fit for heroes to live in"
"The election was fought not so much on the peace issue and what to do with Germany, although those themes played a role. More important was the voters' evaluation of Lloyd George in terms of what he had accomplished so far and what he promised for the future. His supporters emphasised that he had won the Great War. Against his strong record in social legislation, he himself called for making "a country fit for heroes to live in""
SOME OF THE OTHER LIES
"Your "Home before Christmas" was shown and clearly demonstrated as being a myth"
No it wasn't - it was what many of the men went to the trenches believing - covered adequately in Paxman's programmes.
Doesn't matter a toss that those who spread it didn't believe it - that was the message circulated.
" The word of one single man who YOU have not even been able to establish whether or not he even ever served as a soldier does not count."
Again - not true - I attended his funeral and met some of those who knew him - he was the grandfather of a close friend - are you claiming that his family and friends invented his war-record?
Your jingoism gets more and more squalid
Harry Patch went on to say he had been conned and the war was not worth the sacrifice - you conveniently missed out the important bit.
Jim Carroll


.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:51 AM

Now boys, I think Colonel Blimp established his rather- err- idiosyncratic? and specious view of the First World War and war in general a long time ago, ably aided by The Professor.

What's the point of beating your heads against a brick wall?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:54 AM

"Another ploy was "a land fit for heroes to live in"
That should have been "a war to end all wars" of course
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:56 AM

Ah Raggy another poor soul who cannot read:

Fifth Paragraph you say - is this:
"You got tots of rum.There were many a man who didn't like rum, didn't drink it. It used to warm you up. Life in the trenches, well…can you imagine now, going out from this room along the corridor and there is a trench dug across the lawn. Six feet deep and three feet wide. There is water and mud in the bottom. You sit on a trench at the side to sleep, don't matter whether it is wet, fine, hot or cold. Four days you are there and you got to stick it. That was the conditions."

Fifth Sub-section which is what I think you were referring so smugly to is this:

"Shell shock
You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it – but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you.

An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war – they didn't. If you were there you were shot. And that was it. And there's a good many men who were shot for cowardice and they are asking now … that verdict be taken away. They were not cowards.


So Harry Patch, who, by his own admission never saw anyone with shellshock how on earth could he have possibly seen anyone shot because they suffered from it? A simple question I know Raggy but one I just thought I had to ask as what Harry seems to be doing is contradicting himself.

Now Jim Carroll's Tommy Kenny and the Musktwats when they were posting were very specific they alleged that British soldiers were shot by the Military Police or "REDTOPS" as Musktwat called them – here Harry Patch states British Officers shot shellshock victims that he himself never saw. Amounts somewhat to a great deal less than overwhelming proof doesn't it.

Nice try – carry on digging.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 09:20 AM

So is Harry Patch lying when he said "An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward"

A simple yes or no will suffice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

He was certainly wrong about it, but he never claimed to have witnessed such a thing.
There were no summary executions in the British Army.
There were in the Italian and French armies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:11 AM

So he was lying. funny a lot of people do that in your book don't they.


Still waiting for an apology by the way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:17 AM

There were no summary executions in the British Army of WW1.
That is why you will find no account of one.
Why did Harry believe in them when he never saw one? Who knows?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM

So old Harry was lying. We'll have to rewrite that bit of his story. Sad really that the last survivor of WW1 was such a liar.

Still not had an apology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM

"There were no summary executions in the British Army of WW1."
There were no recorded accounts of summary executions - don't you mean.
There are numerous eye witness accounts of them taking place and the link I provided last time tells of a special group of military policemen there to carry them out when soldiers were reckoned not to have responded quickly enough to orders to go over the top - the writer describes it having been witnessed by to his grandfather (more "lies" I suppose - you fellers seem to get your kicks calling soldiers "liars" when they don't come up with the right answer.
The account that Tommy Kenny gave us was of soldiers being sentenced to death, locked away awaiting execution, then, if there was a push on, being taken out and put in the front line.
If they survived they were then placed back in prison and eventually executed.
Tommy burst into tears (all on tape) when he described how he got to know people in the trenches, fought beside them, then later read the notice that they had been executed - sheer ****** barbarism which sums up that obscene war perfectly.
Lets face it - we have virtually no information of how the ordinary Tommy felt about the war and his experiences.
The officers were the only ones allowed to keep diaries, and the men who defied orders and wrote things down would have been insane to the point of being suicidal had they wrote about how they felt.
It took nearly a century to make available some of those forbidden writingsand those few that are, obviously, censored.
We only have the word of people like tabloid journalist Max Hastings, who cut out his career in Hitler supporter's Daily Mail to tell us that the soldiers knew why they were fighting and that they supported the cause - hardly a reliable source!
Hurrah for the Blackshirts

Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

No summary executions?

Pedantic to say the least. A British court martial is still to this day of concern due to the inbuilt presumption of guilt and often biased military mindset in the judgement phase.

(Source - Amnesty International.)

Considering executions in WW1 were set up as a deterrent, the word summary is rather appropriate. Not that officers make good judgement over the lies of soldiers. If they did, they wouldn't try to win by sending waves of men over the top once they found it didn't fucking work...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:51 PM

So we have:

1: GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 09:20 AM
2: Raggytash 16 Nov 15 - 10:11 AM
3: Raggytash, pointlessly repetitive at 16 Nov 15 - 10:27 AM
4: That master of complete and utter bollocks Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM
5: And finally GUEST 16 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

All proving to anyone who has the vaguest inkling of the history of the period, and any knowledge of the British Army of the period that those named above haven't got the foggiest notion about the subject they are wittering on about.

All those banging on about Harry Patch - please explain how on earth Harry Patch could have possibly seen shell-shocked soldiers being summarily executed by their officers in the trenches when by his own admission he never in the three months he spent in France never saw a soldier suffering from shell shock? Or is that little anomaly I await your answers, they should be rather interesting, and all will be pure 100% bollocks because logic and commonsense would tell even a complete and utter idiot that if you have never seen or encountered a soldier suffering from shell shock then it is impossible that you could have EVER seen one being shot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

"All those banging on about Harry Patch - please explain how on earth Harry Patch could have possibly seen shell-shocked soldiers being summarily executed by their officers in the trenches when by his own admission he never in the three months he spent in France never saw a soldier suffering from shell shock? Or is that little anomaly I await your answers, they should be rather interesting, and all will be pure 100% bollocks because logic and commonsense would tell even a complete and utter idiot that if you have never seen or encountered a soldier suffering from shell shock then it is impossible that you could have EVER seen one being shot."

Should read:

All those banging on about Harry Patch - please explain how on earth Harry Patch could have possibly seen shell-shocked soldiers being summarily executed by their officers in the trenches when by his own admission he never in the three months he spent in France never saw a soldier suffering from shell shock? Or is that little anomaly just to quietly and conveniently ignored. I await your answers, they should be rather interesting, and all will be pure 100% bollocks because logic and commonsense would tell even a complete and utter idiot that if you have never seen or encountered a soldier suffering from shell shock then it is impossible that you could have EVER seen one being shot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 01:19 PM

Let me get this right then Teribus AND Keith.


Harry Patch was lying and shell shock didn't exist.


Hmmmmmm








Still waiting for an apology Keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM

"There were no summary executions in the British Army of WW1."

In stating that Keith A is 100% correct.

Just over 3,000 men were sentenced to death by British Courts Martial during the First World War, the court records can all be read online. Roughly one in ten were actually carried out the sentences in nine out of ten cases was commuted to life sentences.

"There are numerous eye witness accounts of them taking place and the link I provided last time tells of a special group of military policemen there to carry them out when soldiers were reckoned not to have responded quickly enough to orders to go over the top - the writer describes it having been witnessed by to his grandfather#

What numerous eye witness accounts? You haven't been able to come up with any that have been substantiated -a load of hearsay and complete and utter twaddle.

Ah so the goal posts have been moved and it was a "Special group of military policemen" now is it Carroll?? Tell me Jim just out of interest how did the powers of the day know where to position this Special group of military policemen", how did they know the section of line or even in what trench those "reluctant" squaddies would be lurking? Applying logic, commonsense and a healthy dash of reasoning it all presents itself as being a bit fanciful and haphazard doesn't it.

"(more "lies" I suppose)" - Most certainly.

Knowing what I do know about soldiers if any "special group of military policemen" started shooting soldiers the members of that "special group" would all be dead in seconds - killed by the rest of the soldiers in that regiment.

The account that Tommy Kenny gave us was of soldiers being sentenced to death, locked away awaiting execution, then, if there was a push on, being taken out and put in the front line.
If they survived they were then placed back in prison and eventually executed.

Tommy burst into tears (all on tape) when he described how he got to know people in the trenches, fought beside them, then later read the notice that they had been executed"


Now all of that is complete and utter twaddle Jim - As previously stated only 1-in-10 sentenced to death were ever executed. Under Service Regulations a man under a charge or under punishment is forbidden to bear arms (Oddly enough it was that little rule that saved my paternal grandfather's life), the only exception to this regulation was shown in the film "Breaker Morant" when the Boers attacked the garrison he was being held in. The rational is that in such a situation prisoners are released and armed in order to defend themselves, under no circumstances would prisoners be left in confinement and left to the mercies of the enemy should the enemy attack succeed.

Lets face it - we have virtually no information of how the ordinary Tommy felt about the war and his experiences.
The officers were the only ones allowed to keep diaries, and the men who defied orders and wrote things down would have been insane to the point of being suicidal had they wrote about how they felt.
It took nearly a century to make available some of those forbidden writings and those few that are, obviously, censored."


More twaddle, while YOU and members of the general public have no access to the diaries and letters of common soldiers the Imperial War Museum has held absolute mountains of such records for decades and that material has been read and studied by historians studying the period. Where on earth did you get the line about officers being the only ones allowed to keep diaries? Anybody could keep a diary - NOBODY was allowed to keep or take a diary into front line positions - for what should be f**king glaringly obvious reasons. Ah but there again you haven't the foggiest notion how the "front line" worked in your BBC comedy/drama little world soldiers were sent into the front line and stayed there for years - they didn't.

"We only have the word of people like tabloid journalist Max Hastings, who cut out his career in Hitler supporter's Daily Mail to tell us that the soldiers knew why they were fighting and that they supported the cause - hardly a reliable source!"

Well damn me Carroll you could not have got this bit more wrong had you tried.

1: I believe that the first paper Max Hastings ever worked for was the Evening Standard - he became an occasional columnist for the Daily Mail much, much later on.

2: It was the very first Viscount Rothermere who was the appeaser and Hitler supporter, he was also one of the strongest advocates for British rearmament in the 1930s, he died in 1940, Max Hastings wasn't born until 1945 and he did not work for the Daily Mail until after 2007 - so I fail to see the connection or the inference you are trying to make.

3: Now as you are such a believer in what the soldiers of the time said and the stories they told how about this:

- My Paternal Grandfather certainly knew why he volunteered and fought in the British Army in the First World War

- My Maternal Grandfather certainly knew why he volunteered and fought in the British Army in the First World War

- My next door neighbour certainly knew why he volunteered and fought in the British Army in the First World War

- All of the "old comrade" friends of the above who I talked to as a child all knew why they had joined up and fought in the British Forces during the First World War

- Watch the 1964 documentary "The Great War" and all those interviewed knew why they had joined up and fought in the British Forces during the First World War

Now then Jim were they all lying?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

"hat master of complete and utter bollocks Jim Carroll 16 Nov 15 - 11:17 AM"
Must be bollocks if you can dismiss it without even responding to anything said.
You really are an arrogant berk to think anybody takes ay notice of your unqualified dismissals
Are you aware that you always respond in this way when you have no answer.
You really are a creature of habit.
"Harry Patch"
he said he never saw or experienced it, but he almost certainly fought with and spoke to people who did as his statment on it makes crystal clear.
Are you really going to continue trying to make out that last veteran of World War One a liar to peddle your establishment line?
Patche's statement is perfectly in line with the link you have been given describing on-the-spot executions for not going over the top qickly enough - makes mors sense that swallowing the ffici8alk version -as you pair have
Jim Carroll
This is what he said.
"Shell shock
You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it – but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you.
An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war – they didn't. If you were there you were shot. And that was it. And there's a good many men who were shot for cowardice and they are asking now … that verdict be taken away. They were not cowards."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM

One major difference Teribus.

We only have your long remembered second hand information. Always a bit suspect as I'm sure you realise, albeit no doubt with the best of intentions.

However you and Keith have completely dismissed the testimony of a man who was there. A much revered man. Who, without him being able to answer your accusations, you have both named as a liar.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:42 PM

Col. Blimp & Profesor: Vass you dere, Charlie?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 02:54 PM

Oh Raggy shell shock did most certainly exist - but tell me was Harry Patch lying when he very clearly stated on the subject of Shell Shock:

"You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it.

Now that was the quote taken directly from the very link that you yourself supplied. Now if Harry Patch was telling the truth, i.e. NOT LYING - how on earth could he have ever seen an officer summarily execute someone suffering from Shell Shock - simple enough and a reasonable enough question - please provide an explanation as you obviously believe that Harry Patch saw what he by his own admission could not possibly have witnessed.

Please don't deflect Raggy the original version had Military Policemen lined up behind our lads in the trenches forcing them over the top at gunpoint - NEVER HAPPENED. Added to this fairytale was the tale of Military Policemen shooting those who didn't move fast enough (I wonder who decided what was quick enough?) and shot anybody returning to our lines - NEVER HAPPENED. But fear not Jim Carroll shifted the goalposts on this and Military Police changed to SPECIAL GROUPS OF MILITARY POLICEMEN waiting to find out how they knew where to go to to be effective in the exercise of this "special duty" - that explanation should prove amusing.

How I do enjoy watching you lot floundering about in all this mud and confusion of your own making and only succeeding in tying yourselves in knots.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM

I am not suggesting for one second that Harry Patch was lying. You, along with Keith, seem to be saying he was.

I know who I am more inclined to trust even though I never met the man.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:07 PM

You pair have now denied the fact of summary executions several times - without proof
You have had an account from the grandson of an eyewitness you say it didn't happen
You have had the account of a veteran of world war one who says it happened, even if he didn't witness it - you say it didn't happen.
It was well known enough to have been part of the oral history of the trenches to have been used in a BBC television play entitled The Village - had it been untrue, the Beeb would have inundated with protests, especiall around the time of the Centenary - it wasn't
Do you have any examples of these executions being denied anywhere, or are your denials just on your own initiative - if so, when did you become spokesmen for the establishment?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:15 PM

GUEST,Raggytash - 16 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM

One major difference Teribus.

We only have your long remembered second hand information.


So tell me Raggy what makes Jim Carroll's second hand information that much more believable?

Oh and Raggy you don't just have to take my word for it listen to the "The Great War", a 26-episode documentary series from 1964 on the First World War. The documentary was a co-production involving the resources of the Imperial War Museum, the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation."

There is a special DVD called "Voices From The Western Front" you and your fellow travelers should watch and listen to it - you might just learn something from those who were there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:22 PM

There is another huge difference Teribus.

You and Keith have already set out your stalls on many occasions.

I, for one, would be astonished if either of you took on board anything that didn't fit into your predetermined remit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 03:32 PM

Just as an aside Teribus. I will not comment on anything Jim says, he's a big boy he doesn't need me to back him up...........













............unlike the triple alliance


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 04:27 PM

Jim Carroll - 16 Nov 15 - 03:07 PM

You pair have now denied the fact of summary executions several times - without proof"

Not exactly true is it Jim - such summary executions would have been impossible to keep quiet - you have no proof whatsoever that any such executions ever took place - instead what you have is rumour and hearsay.

Very pleased to see that you that you agree that Harry Patch could not have possibly seen what Raggy thinks he saw.

"It was well known enough to have been part of the oral history of the trenches to have been used in a BBC television play entitled The Village - had it been untrue, the Beeb would have inundated with protests, especiall around the time of the Centenary - it wasn't"

Ah historical fact established by the BBC's Drama Unit. How f**kin' idiotic can you get!! Once more you are running on rumour, stories and hearsay - my giddy Aunt I sincerely hope that no-one ever finds themselves on trial with you sitting as part of the jury. You appear to accept any unsubstantiated fairytale story as long as it fits in with your own biased and bigoted preconceptions and stereotypes. Write to the Imperial War Museum, write to the Royal Military Police Museum in Chichester they will tell you that:

1: NO-ONE who deserted in the UK was ever shot for desertion
2: Military Policemen form no part in the actual execution of any prisoner - men from the condemned man's regiment form the firing squad, they are commanded by a Junior Officer from their regiment
3: The court martial documents of every single man who was sentenced to death are available online - I advise you to read them
4: There are no accounts anywhere of any Summary executions carried out by the British Army anywhere during the First World War and believe me I have looked long and hard for them. As Keith A has stated summary executions were carried out by the French Army on the Western Front and by the Italian Army - but none by the British.

"Do you have any examples of these executions being denied anywhere"

Ehmmm Jim if something never happened just how the f**k do you go about denying that it happened. By the way, just who on earth would be around and be arsed enough to complain to the BBC about some artistic licence being used in a costume drama on television? It would appear only you made the mistake of thinking it was a factual representation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Nov 15 - 08:21 PM

"Not exactly true is it Jim - such summary executions would have been impossible to keep quiet"
Ermm - they weren't - they were common knowledge among the soldiery and talked about on a regular basis
That they weren't reported publicly was totally due to fact that the government took total control of the press.
"Once more you are running on rumour,"
Nope - i have pointed out that TALK OF the executions was so well known that they could be used in a BBC drama, WITHOUT ONE WORD OF PROTEST - NOT ONE
When Philip Donellan made his filed documentary, 'Gone For a Soldier' for television, the Beeb was inundated with protests which lasted for weeks - questions were asked in Parliament.
Yet here, a summary execution was carried out without a single word of protest - that's how F**in stupid you can get.
I asked you to provide a denial that they happened - they have been mentioned often enough
You provide none so we can only assume that you and your pet monkey are mounting a defence of them off your own bat.
I have provided two statements - one form a veteran, another from the grandson of a veteran - that they took place - you are totally unable to provide examples of them being denied - in fact YOU ARE MAKING IT UP ON BEHALF OF THE ESTABLISHMENT - WHO THE **** DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF?
"NO-ONE who deserted in the UK was ever shot for desertion"
306 British soldiers were shot for desertion "In many cases, soldiers were clearly suffering from shellshock but officers showed no compassion for fear that their comrades would have disobeyed orders and refused to go "over the top" (Guardian 16 August 2006)
The fact that it may be true that none may have been actually executed in Britain is totally immaterial - the play was a work of fiction and never pretended to be anything else - but the fact that SUMMARY EXECUTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE PLAY WITHOUT A SINGLE LETTER OF PROTEST - NOT EVEN FROM COLONEL BLIMPS LIKE YOU PAIR indicates that it was fairly widely accepted.
I ask again - where are your official denials that they took place - reports of them have been made publicly - even by that "liar" Harry Patch - Britain's last WW1 veteran.
You really have made this up off your own bat - haven't you?
Pair of clowns, or what??
Jiom Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:15 AM

Bloody hell Teribus. You are getting so confused that even Keith A of Hertford has gone quiet in case what he assumes is his credibility gets woven into your confusion.

That's the problem with cutting and pasting from anything you find on the Internet. You can always find some bollocks that backs your point, however absurd and silly.

Reminds me of the account of an officer in WW2 whose men were afraid his ineptness and callous attitude would get them all killed. On the approach to Madaloni he was the only casualty in their section. A note from a general held by The IWM notes that everybody felt it expedient to gloss over the fact he was killed by a single bullet in his back.

Not nice this war game. Glorifying it with pomp and circumstance leaves a bitter taste both ways.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:37 AM

Jim, have you ever seen the Indian Rope trick performed by a street entertainer? Hundreds, thousands possibly millions have heard stories about it and know of the trick - yet nobody has ever seen it performed.

Jim, have you ever heard of a thing called an "Urban Myth", hundreds, thousands possibly millions have heard them and believe them - yet none of them are true.

Do I think Harry Patch was lying? What about? Never having seen anybody suffering from Shell Shock? Or about having witnessed Officers summarily executing men frozen to inaction because of shell shock? Now as Harry Patch was only in France for three months at a time when it was the British Army that was on the offensive (late summer 1917) I would say that it was highly likely that Harry Patch never saw anyone suffering from shell shock and that he himself never suffered from it. Now if he telling the truth about that how could he possibly have witnessed the summary execution by an officer of a man suffering from shell shock - it is a contradiction, so what could account for it? The link so smugly supplied by Raggy is to the BBC History website, Harry Patch came back from the First World War and kept steadfastly silent about his experiences for 80 years, he then gave an interview to the BBC as a 100+ year old man. Who thinks that the article linked to is the complete article? It would be utterly remarkable if it was, everything is edited prior to publication, now how do we know what was left out? How do we know where the gaps were? It is undisputed that the French Army carried out summary executions on the western front, could they have been the stories that British troops heard about?

Ever since you and the Musktwats introduced alleged summary executions I have looked long and hard for any substantive evidence of them ever happening in the British Army - I have found NONE

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that you talked to and recorded a man who you say was a WWI veteran over the course of three days and not once in all that time did he mention what theatre of war he served in or what regiment or corps he served in. Most common experience in talking to veterans of that period the first thing they will tell you is what branch of the armed forces they served in (Army, Navy or Air Force), where it was they served and saw action, and for ex-Army men they will ALWAYS tell you what regiment or corps they served with. Your man didn't and you made no attempt whatsoever to find out. If that is your approach to gathering "history" then any work you have produced can only be viewed as being highly speculative and unreliable.

Your inattention to detail is staggering Jim:

306 British Soldiers were executed for desertion - the word according to Jim Carroll

Here is a summary, all documented, all recorded of the Courts Martial undertaken during the First World War:

The outcomes of Courts Martial

In all, 5,952 officers and 298,310 other ranks were court-martialled. This amounts to just over 3% of the total of men who joined the army. Of those tried, 89% were convicted; 8% acquitted; the rest were either convicted without the conviction being confirmed or with it being subsequently quashed. Of those convicted, 30% were for absence without leave; 15% for drunkenness;***14% for desertion (although only 3% were actually in the field at the time***); 11% for insubordination; 11% for loss of army property, and the remaining 19% for various other crimes. The main punishments applied were : 3 months detention in a military compound - 24%; Field Punishment Number 1 - 22%; Fines - 12%; 6 months detention - 10%; reduction in rank - 10%; Field Punishment Number 2 - 8%.

3.080 men (1.1% of those convicted) were sentenced to death. Of these, 89% were reprieved and the sentence converted to a different one. 346 men were executed. Their crimes included desertion - 266; murder - 37; cowardice in the face of the enemy - 18; quitting their post - 7; striking or showing violence to their superiors - 6; disobedience - 5; mutiny - 3; sleeping at post - 2; casting away arms - 2. Of the 346, 91 were already under a suspended sentence from an earlier conviction (40 of these a suspended death sentence)."


YOUR 306 does not represent those executed for desertion they include all of the above minus those charged with and found guilty of murder. The Court Martial process and proceedings for every single one of those courts martial are available for you to read, study and examine.

***14% for desertion (although only 3% were actually in the field at the time*** the 266 executions were for desertion in the field. Those who deserted whilst in training, on leave, or on duty in the UK were not subject to the death penalty and none were executed in the UK.

Tell me Jim why is it that you can never get Donnellan's name right?

Are you seriously trying to equate a 105 minute long DOCUMENTARY broadcast in 1980 on the British Army covering some 150 years which was quite correctly lambasted and criticised for the biased and poor nature of its content to the extent that it was screened only once and the BBC banned any overseas transmission to a fragment of a BBC Drama that is 100% FICTION as evidence that summary executions took place!!! Utterly ridiculous.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 03:49 AM

Inventing people who criticise him now.

This gets better.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM

I can think of two good reasons why reports of summary executions cannot be found. From the soldiers view they wouldn't want the next-of-kin to be presented with the "fact" that their son/brother/father/husband was a "coward". From the Army's viewpoint they wouldn't want it to be acknowledged officially that they responded in that manner. They certainly wouldn't write it in their official reports thus YOU can't find an example of such.

However many years later the last surviving soldier of WW1 decides that perhaps we SHOULD know what actually happened all those years ago.

I know I am not going to change your mind, or that of the professor. You are both too involved in maintaining support for your "masters"

I am more inclined to believe it did occur.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:21 AM

Oh Jim, just one other point, do any of those men who were summarily executed, either by Special groups of Military Police - current flavour of the month or by their own officers right there in front of their mates have any names in all of these stories you have been told? Indian Rope Trick, Urban Myths and Chinese Whispers - all rumour, hearsay, pure invention and lies and you Jim Carroll have swallowed the lot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

And apparently so have you Raggy:

"However many years later the last surviving soldier of WW1 decides that perhaps we SHOULD know what actually happened all those years ago." - Raggytash

Ehmmm I hate to keep dragging your attention back to this Raggy but how on earth could the last surviving soldier of WWI state what actually happened all those years ago to soldiers suffering from shell shock when he himself clearly states that he never saw anyone suffering from shell shock or experienced the condition himself? Just asking, and to date you have not given any explanation as to how that could be - I on the other hand have - he did not "witness" it he heard stories - nobody knows where these stories originated from - but just along the front lines in the French section summary executions were being carried out.

Harry Patch was quite good with both names and knicknames of those he served with - yet he didn't come up with any names for people he had "seen" officers shoot, come to think of it he couldn't name any of the officers either, and believe me Raggy, everybody who serves knows the names of their NCOs and Officers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:39 AM

You can't be jingoistic with your head bowed.

Cue arguments over how bowed you should be...............

Just saying!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:51 AM

Teribus, you only person you are convincing is yourself (and the professor of course)

As for Harry Patch, who you are convinced is lying, I am not too surprised he didn't mention names. Ye gods I couldn't recall the names of most of my schoolmates from 45 years ago. Half a dozen perhaps if I put my mind to it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:52 AM

THE only person *((??!!!%&$£)(***!!!!~@!!!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 04:58 AM

History is written by the victors. The dead can't speak.

And just to muddy the waters, very often you find the really brave don't tell you. They know they were lucky and foolhardy as well, and did it for necessity not ideology. And they deal with PTSD in their own way - silence.

age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. Neither should we!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM

"306 British Soldiers were executed for desertion - the word according to Jim Carroll"
Nope - the word according to The Guardian,   date and quote given - please pay attention and read what is put up.
"Urban Myth"
How do you know - where has it ever been denied?
You claim that no summary executions took place - who sez so - only you so far, the authorities have never dienied it when the statement was made publicly - since when were you appointed as a spokesman for the British military establishment (you certainly strut around as if you were)
Yo fellers make a great fuss about the Commemoration, even to the extent that on;ly you Christians take part, yet when any of the veterans step out of line and tells it as irt was (first hand) you're happy to flush what he has to say down the pan - what king of two-faced twerps are you people??   
You've had the facts of the executions - respond to what #has been said by these people who have been remembered recently and who you choose to dismiss as liars
I ask for any evidence that the British authorities have denied it - you offer none and insist on speaking on their behalf
"Tell me Jim why is it that you can never get Donnellan's name right?"
Tell me - why do you always resort to misspellings and typos whenever you run out of ideas - why are you people so ***** predictable?
You waffle on about press accounts of numbers, typos etc. - but offer s.f.a in return.
By what authority do you dismiss out of hand what WW1 veterans have to say when even the establishment can't be arsed to do so.
Are you frustrated that you never made it in the military, as you once claimed to have done, and only made it as far as cooking bad fry-ups in a galley - I think they call it a Walter Mitty Complex!
Think we're done here - don't you?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:04 AM

Loved this bit of nonsense from Raggy:

"I can think of two good reasons why reports of summary executions cannot be found. From the soldiers view they wouldn't want the next-of-kin to be presented with the "fact" that their son/brother/father/husband was a "coward". From the Army's viewpoint they wouldn't want it to be acknowledged officially that they responded in that manner. They certainly wouldn't write it in their official reports thus YOU can't find an example of such."

Ah so your best friend gets shot out of hand right in front of your eyes and you and all his other mates just stand there and do nothing - the first thing in your mind as the highest priority is We can't tell his Mum she will be upset!!!! - f**kin' laughable. If you yourselves did not immediately kill the officer who shot your mate, you would have shouted about the incident to any beggar with a pair of ears to listen, the one thing you most certainly would not do is keep quiet about it.

On to the second of your reasons - Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law so please, please,please explain to me exactly how it came about that all of a sudden Officers would be permitted to shoot troops under their command, and if such behaviour was indeed sanctioned by the Army Council and High Command why would the Army have any qualms about such instances appearing in official reports - have you any idea what is meant by logic, reason and commonsense? I ask as you appear to be sadly lacking in all three.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:10 AM

PS Raggy:

I hate to keep dragging your attention back to this but how on earth could the last surviving soldier of WWI state what actually happened all those years ago to soldiers suffering from shell shock when he himself clearly states that he never saw anyone suffering from shell shock or experienced the condition himself?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 06:31 AM

"state what actually happened all those years ago to soldiers suffering from shell shock when he himself clearly states that he never saw anyone suffering from shell shock or experienced the condition himself?"
It is perfectly obvious from his statement that he served with those who had witnessed and possibly experienced the results of shell shock - didn't soldiers talk to each other?
Why d you continue to denigrate veteran war heroes as gullible fools and liars - is the reputation of politicians and the military that important to you?
Where is the denials that these executions happened apart from your own?
- more than happy to drag you back to this at any time
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 07:22 AM

The question was for Raggy Jim - He's a big boy and shouldn't need you to jump to his rescue.

Harry Patch never suffered from Shell Shock and he never saw anyone who did suffer from shell shock - Source Harry Patch himself in his own words.   I believe Harry when he says that I do not believe that he is lying - Do you and Raggy think he is lying in clearly stating the above fact?

Now if Harry is telling the truth there - then it becomes impossible by his own statements that he could have "witnessed" the summary execution of a soldier suffering from shell shock by an officer in a trench. He might have heard stories about it but if Harry Patch is telling the truth then he could not possibly have witnessed it.

By the way Jim can you dream up anything else that the British Goverment hasn't done that they haven't denied thereby proving beyond any doubt in your mind that they must therefore have done it?

Please indicate where anyone has formally accused the British Army of summary executions of their own soldiers THEN you might get an official response but I don't think that the Government is too fussed about what is discussed on a forum such as this or in the content of your tapes. Hey how about you, raggy, gnome and the Musktwats starting an action group, write a letter to the MOD copied to the Judge Advocate General and the Lord Chief Justice formally accusing the British Army of summarily executing British Soldiers then sit back and await the response. You could use your tapes and notes and produce them as "evidence".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 08:08 AM

"Do you and Raggy think he is lying in clearly stating the above fact?"
No I don'r but I believe that he could easily have talked to and fought beside people who knew about the executions first hand - do you consider this beyond the realms of possibility and that he was either lying or a gullible half-wit?
At no time did Patch claim to have witnessed shellshock why are you harping on him "witnessing it" - he makes it clear he didn't.

why are you suggesting he said something else - do you dislike and distrust veterans so much that you feel th need to twist their words

Once agabi, this is what he said -
"You were in that trench. That was your front line. You had to keep an eye on the German front line. You daren't leave. No. I suppose if you left, and some of them did, they were shot as cowards. That is another thing with shell shock – I never saw anyone with it, never experienced it – but it seemed you stood at the bottom of the ladder and you just could not move. Shellshock took all the nervous power out of you.
An officer would come down and very often shoot them as a coward. That man was no more a coward than you or I. He just could not move. That's shell shock. Towards the end of war they recognised it as an illness. The early part of the war – they didn't. If you were there you were shot. And that was it. And there's a good many men who were shot for cowardice and they are asking now … that verdict be taken away. They were not cowards."

Still not find any official denials of these executions? - must be all your own work then
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 10:07 AM

Very good Jim, now tell your pal Raggy that at no time in his three months in France did Harry Patch ever see an officer summarily shooting any British Soldier. His mention of it amounts to pure hearsay, he doesn't know and cannot vouch that it ever happened with any degree of certainty at all, you suggest he talked about it and heard the story from "someone" who may or may not have seen such an act as they too could have talked about it to someone else, etc, etc - Not really all that convincing is it - 100% supposition. So much for Harry Patch who just because he was the last WWI Veteran to die does not convey any crown of infallibility on his shoulders, I say that because scores of other soldiers (And I MEAN soldiers, not officers, not Generals) wrote their memoirs and autobiographies, lots of them covering the entire span of what to them was known as the Great War, not just three months and guess what Jim? - NOT ONE mentions anything about summary executions in the field - funny that isn't it with all that talking going on, like a said "The Indian Rope Trick" and "Urban Myths" everybody has heard of them and none are real or true.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 10:20 AM

Apologies Jim I forgot to ask at the end of that last post.

How did your "Special Groups of Military Policemen" know where to position themselves in the line when they were tasked with forcing squaddies "over the top" at gunpoint instantly shooting any that didn't move quick enough? What was the time limit that defined "quick enough" and who set it? I mean it must have come down the chain of command - You obviously believe all this shit, yet you can tell us all very little about it, perhaps you need to refer to your notes, or round up some other distant relation to supply another load of unverifiable hearsay to fill in the details. Names, Regiments, places, dates would certainly be of some help. But we're not going to get any of that are we? You know it and so do I.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

If we had another go at the Germans tomorrow, MoD could employ Teribus to do the same as Comical Ali, the Iraqi who was feeding the press with bullshit about how they were winning. "What about the gunfire over there right now?" Said BBC's John Simpson. "I can't hear any?" Said Comical Ali.

Here, Teribus. Is that your only nom de plume? Only I notice Max Hastings came out with similar bullshit when he was defending the executions in his history revision 101.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 12:57 PM

Here, Teribus. Is that your only nom de plume?

He also goes by "Colonel Blimp".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

"Very good Jim, now tell your pal Raggy that at no time in his three months in France did Harry Patch ever see an officer summarily shooting any British Soldier."
So?]
"His mention of it amounts to pure hearsay, "
So?
He was there - he was fighting along other soldiers - He spoke too them presumably - he had a life preserving interest in what was going on.
Presumably the people who passed on the information too.
Wha are we honouring these lying bastards ya#ar after year - let them rot in hell, I say.
What kind of people are you that go to such lengths to defend an establishment that cold-bloodedly slaughtered a generation of British youth.
I asked whether it was conceivable that Harry got his information from people he fought with - you decline to reply
I ask to provide examples of denials of these executions - you decline to reply
Patch, and others who claimed these executions took place were there at the time fighting.
You were not, you have no evidence that these people were lying, you have no examples of others saying they were lying, yet you mount a one-man crusade to make them either liars or gullible eejits.
What exactly are you on?
If they are lying - where is your evidence apart from your own somewhat distasteful claims?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM

Hmmm Teribus, You seem to be cherry picking, as we all do, which bits of Harry Patch's testimony you want to believe.

Firstly you say he had not experienced "shell shock" although today "shell shock" seems to be an accepted "fact" today.

Do you really believe that he never met anyone suffering from "shell shock"?

I would proffer the argument that the term "shell shock" was not acknowledged at the time and that he didn't recognise the term. I seem to recall that "shell shock" was not an accepted diagnosis until quite late in the war.

Secondly in your rather convoluted logic you state "then it becomes impossible by his own statements that he could have "witnessed" the summary execution of a soldier suffering from shell shock by an officer in a trench. He might have heard stories about it but if Harry Patch is telling the truth then he could not possibly have witnessed it"

If he didn't recognise it as a condition he couldn't say he saw it. Being honest I believe

Thirdly, and I'm sure we'll come back to this point, I find this quite bizarre you state "Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law" Are you truly expecting us to believe this didn't happen? Do you want to tell us about the floggings of Indian troops?

Finally, as I know this is a subject you are deeply interested in,could I suggest that rather than making automatic responses claiming that the hierarchy of the British Army were all good men and true you contact the MOD, Judge Advocate General and Lord Chief Justice and just ask them the question.

Cheers

Raggytash


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 04:35 AM

Of the hundreds of thousands of front line soldiers, only one claims summary executions and even he does not claim to have seen it.
Is every other soldier a liar?
Many memoirs exist. Not one mentions it.
Two that I have read are those of Graves and Sassoon.
Both became anti- war and both are very critical of the establishment.
Graves says that the legal executions were not always reported, but he never mentions summary executions because they did not happen in the British Army.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:01 AM

"Of the hundreds of thousands of front line soldiers, only one claims summary executions and even he does not claim to have seen it.
Is every other soldier a liar?"

Could someone please explain the logic of this sentence to me because I'm buggered if I can see it.

So far Keith the only soldier to be called a liar is Harry Patch, by you. Remember when you typed " He was certainly wrong about it, but he never claimed to have witnessed such a thing"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:21 AM

In answer to the posts directed at me:

Firstly to Guest 12:24 and to Greg F:
Mock all you like but neither of you have ever been able to refute and counter a single thing that I have stated which makes your contributions to the discussion nothing more than irrelevant "white noise" - It would appear that you know nothing, understand nothing, are prepared to learn nothing, classic examples of boorish, pig ignorant buffoons who revel in portraying yourselves as being as thick as shit and proud of it - The pair of you make Dumb & Dumber look intelligent.

Jim Carroll:
"Hearsay" is not considered as being evidence of something having actually happened. Stories can simply be stories "urban myths" abound - none of them are true but thousands if not millions believe them to be true.

My explanation for Harry's story about officers summarily executing soldiers specifically states that he probably heard it from someone else and that the stories originated from British Units operating alongside French troops who had actually seen such executions IN THEIR ARMY.

"What kind of people are you that go to such lengths to defend an establishment that cold-bloodedly slaughtered a generation of British youth."

The kind of people who believe in the fundamental legal principle that someone who is accused of something is "Innocent until proved Guilty" - so far you have offered no substantive evidence at all to convince me of their guilt. I also believe that the people responsible for "slaughtering a generation of British youth" between August 1914 and November 1918 were the enemy, I also believe that that generation of men from Great Britain were responsible for slaughtering a rather larger number of Germans - That is what happens in War Jim, your own father must have fully realised that when he went to Spain to fight, he did not go down there to dissuade and befriend the enemy he went down there to kill and defeat them.

Now then Jim when it comes to declining to reply - tell us all about these "Special Groups of Military Policemen", how did they know where to position themselves? Who was it defined what the allowable time to "get over the top" was?

Harry Patch served as part of a Lewis Gun crew in the Cornwall Light Infantry and was sent to France with his Unit in June 1917, he was wounded in September 1917 and evacuated back to England to recover from his wounds. In France he would have moved, trained and fought alongside men that he had served with in England - He was not attending a social the other units he would come across would only be in passing as his unit moved up to the front. His main opportunity for talking to soldiers from other units would have been in hospital.

Finally Raggytash:
Cherry picking? No you specifically addressed my attention to that particular section of the interview and I answered the point that you were attempting to make, i.e. that what Harry Patch said in the interview was conclusive proof that summary executions were carried out - I merely pointed out the anomalies, which you have conveniently completely ignored.

The interview was conducted 80 years AFTER the event - if Harry Patch did not recognise the term Shell Shock in 1917 (By then the term had been coined and people were aware of it to the extent they were having misgivings about it) then he sure as hell would know what was meant by it when he gave that interview and when specifically asked to comment about it in 1997. - TRUE??

"Do you really believe that he never met anyone suffering from "shell shock"?"

While he was in France in 1917? Yes I do believe he never met anyone suffering from shell shock as his three months deployment to France would have consisted of:
- Transport to France with his Unit
- Training in France with his Unit
- Movement up to the forward area in the build up prior to the launching of the Passchendaele Offensive
- Fighting in that Offensive
- Suffering his shrapnel wound and being cleared to the rear as a casualty
- Evacuation as a casualty to Southampton.

By the way the extent to which I did not cherry-pick Harry's interview - I would suggest you read the bit right at the end about "the mutiny" where after the war while waiting for demob his section refused to turn out for bayonet practice - you will find out exactly what would have happened to any officer attempting to summarily execute one of their number.

"Thirdly, and I'm sure we'll come back to this point, I find this quite bizarre you state "Just a little bit of information for you - neither an Officer or an NCO can so much as strike a Private Soldier because that is an offence under military law" Are you truly expecting us to believe this didn't happen?

On the contrary I am sure it did on occasion, but that does not negate the fact that such an action is an offence against the Army Act and if any Officer or NCO did strike a Private soldier he could face disciplinary proceedings for it - that being the case do you really think that summary execution would be sanctioned? Rhetorical question it wasn't if it happened it would be construed as "Murder".

"Do you want to tell us about the floggings of Indian troops?"
While punishment by flogging had been removed from the Army Act affecting British troops it remained as a punishment in the Indian Army (Unduly harsh?? Hardly, people are still flogged in Pakistan to this day - Pakistan being part of India during the First World War). Floggings were not carried out on the whim of any individual the punishment was handed down as part of due process - unless of course you have evidence which proves to the contrary.

"Finally, as I know this is a subject you are deeply interested in,could I suggest that rather than making automatic responses claiming that the hierarchy of the British Army were all good men and true you contact the MOD, Judge Advocate General and Lord Chief Justice and just ask them the question."

Ehmmm no Raggy the boot is firmly on the other foot. It is Jim Carroll, yourself and others that "believe" on the strength of pure unsubstantiated hearsay that those commanding the British Army during the First World War ordered or at least sanctioned summary executions of British troops by junior officers commanding them. It is therefore up to you to raise the matter with the proper authorities - that is if you can be arsed, which you would be if you really did think there was a case to answer - But you don't do you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:05 AM

All bullshit designed to make veterans liars Terry
The existence of these executions are based on reports of people who were there - if they were false, they would have been denied long before now.
The authorities have respected the opinions of those who fought (those you claim are fit to be commemorated only by Christians) so much that they first forbade them to keep journals to describe their horrific conditions, then by keeping the ones that were written locked up for a century, because those experiences were as horrific as they were, even now they are available selectively.
A century after this horrific bloodbath, we still have only a partial view of the conditions undergone and the reasons men joined.
Maybe one day we'll get round to discussing honestly the justification for the war unclouded by the jingoistic bullshit.
Why the **** should we accept your one-man campaign - a serial establishment arselicker, a member of the Norman Tebbitt "Get on your Bike Club"
You haven't made your case that these men were liars and gullible morons - try harder!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:08 AM

Rag, one person in the whole period from 1914 to the present claims it.
No other of the hundreds of thousands there corroborate it.
If I put up such a thing as evidence you would rightly laugh me to scorn.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:09 AM

The existence of these executions are based on reports of people who were there

What reports?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:37 AM

You've had them Keith - there have been others, even naming the squads given the job of executing those who didn't go over the top fast enough - try to keep up
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 06:46 AM

As asked by Keith A - WHAT REPORTS?
You cannot even verify that the Tommy Kenny you interviewed was ever in the Army FFS!! As research work goes your approach is just too damned sloppy to be of any merit or value at all.

If Journals were forbidden how come so many of them and we are talking tens of thousands here exist? There was no prohibition on keeping either a journal or a diary, what they did do was ban you from taking it into the front line - worked out as about 5 days a month - you see troops were regularly rotated - unlike the portrayal in Blackadder that they moved into their little dug outs for the duration. If what you state is true there would not be the wealth of memoirs and autobiographies of ordinary soldiers who saw action during the First World War would there. And oddly enough Jim none of those authors bang on about "special groups of military police" or about summary executions of British troops carried out by their own officers - perhaps because they were too busy writing diaries that they weren't supposed to have to have time to chat to those bending the ear of the likes of Harry Patch?

The material donated to the Imperial War Museum has been available to historians with proper accreditation for decades, but in most cases the material is normally donated on the death of the author.

I can go back to find out but it was you and your fellow travelers who challenged the three points put up in a post by Keith A relating to the First World War that post 1970 historians concluded that:
1 - The war was necessary
2 - That the people of Great Britain understood why it was necessary to fight it
3 - That in general compared to other combatant powers the British, Commonwealth and Empire armies were well led.

It was you who tried to tell us that all those volunteers were mindless morons, idiots who didn't know what end was up, fools who could be easily lied to and manipulated. Keith A, myself, Lighter and a number of others countered those slurs of yours and demonstrated that those men, those volunteers were educated men who were fully aware of the situation and responded as they did out of principle, duty and respect for freedom.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

"As asked by Keith A - WHAT REPORTS?"
That's official then - we only take the word of the authorities and not the men who fought?
Can't say plainer than that - thanks
"who didn't know what end was up,"
Nope it was programmes like Paxman's who went in depth into why men joined up - and that's part of history
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:07 AM

I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons, idiots who didn't know which way was up" etc. Those expressions have only come from your side.

What I would suggest it that in 1914 all working-class soldiers would have been used to being at the bottom of society, with all that entailed.

And please Teribus can we not go back to the mind numbing and pointless 3 points, that was tedious by any standard.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:42 AM

"I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons"
It hasn't - that is Terrytoon's interesting take on what has been said.
Men joined up for a whole variety of reasons - because a "short war" was a way out of poverty, for the romance, emotional blackmail, white feathers 0- some because employers threatened them with the sack if they did not.
The main reason was a massive, totally unprecedented campaign of lies and distortion (propaganda) which ran out of steam within 18 months and was replaced by enforced conscription under threat of imprisonment and even death (when Kitchener left office he was demanding that conscientious objectors should be executed).
The "mindless morons" bit is further evidence of the#is jingoist's contempt for the serviceman
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:52 AM

Nope it was programmes like Paxman's who went in depth into why men joined up - and that's part of history

What Paxman actually said.

"Don't insult my Uncle Charlie or his comrades. Their sacrifice in WWI foiled Germany's plan to rule the world,"

"Yet we are stuck with the default conviction that the First World War was an exercise in purposelessness. That was not the prevailing view at the time. On the contrary, Lord Kitchener's appeal for volunteers in the early days of the war had been so successful that lines at recruitment offices snaked for blocks down city streets.
The great harvest of anti-war memoirs and novels did not appear until ten years after the Armistice. Throughout it all, the resolve of the British people did not weaken."

"What aggravates our ignorance is the false assumption that we do understand the First World War. We need to cast ourselves back into the minds of these men and their families, to try to inhabit the assumptions of their society rather than to replace them with our own.
How, one wonders, would the teacher explain to her students that after writing his celebrated denunciations of battle, Wilfred Owen returned to the Western Front to continue fighting and, furthermore, described himself in his last letter to his mother as 'serene'? It was, he said, 'a great life'."

"The retrospective narrative of innocent conscripts, dullard generals and boneheaded battle plans has become tiresomely familiar. It is precisely because the Great War changed so much that we understand it so little."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 07:54 AM

First Paxman programme of his BBC series on WW1,

About 9 minutes in, Paxman to camera.

"Most people seemed to have accepted that the war had to be fought.
To honour treaties. To defend the empire. To protect Britain.
And, what else were they supposed to do?
To sit back and watch as Germany amassed an empire from Russia to the shores of the English Channel?
Now war had broken out, almost everyone backed it.
Most trade unions suspended strikes, which had been common."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 08:12 AM

Can anyone decipher that lot, I can't be arsed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 08:18 AM

Been here Keith - Paxman then went on to show that the reasons for people joining were down to the propaganda of the time - he devoted a part of that to war being presented as a pantomine by master recruiter-cum millionaire-cum jailed criminal.
Of corse some fell for the propaganda - wouldn't be forth the effort if they didn't
When will you realise that presenting only part of the story doesn't work?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 08:28 AM

Paxman also dealt with the peer pressure of the Pals Brigades, the threats of dismissal by employers and the White Feathers   
As I said - half arsed selective information - again
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 09:30 AM

2nd programme

"43 minutes in. Paxman to camera.

"The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."

""The war was dreadful, and it was bloody, but unless Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony, it had to be fought, and most British people saw that."

Previous quotes,
"Now war had broken out, almost everyone backed it."

"Most people seemed to have accepted that the war had to be fought."

" Lord Kitchener's appeal for volunteers in the early days of the war had been so successful that lines at recruitment offices snaked for blocks down city streets."

"Throughout it all, the resolve of the British people did not weaken."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 10:14 AM

"That's official then - we only take the word of the authorities and not the men who fought?"

By all means let us take the word of the men who fought. So far you have at least two men who were told but who never actually saw any summary execution and stacked up against them you have the written autobiographies and memoirs of hundreds of "the men who fought" who make no mention or reference to any such summary executions. On balance of probability I would say the silent majority win that one.

By the bye Jim, what is your problem, indicated by your complete silence, with giving us the details requested about these "Special Groups of Military Policemen?" - Could it have anything to do with the fact that they never existed?

A question for you Carroll have you any explanation of why none of "your" sources can put names to those who were executed (They would have been in the same platoon, same company if they were standing alongside them in the trench - i.e. they would not be strangers) or the names of the officer who shot them? (Or do you wish to tell us that the men in the trench did not know the officers who led them?) The answer of course Carroll is that it is all bunk, all rubbish.

"I do not think that anyone of this side of the discussion has ever referred to the troops as being "mindless morons, idiots who didn't know which way was up" etc."

No not referred to them as such Raggy, you lot only INFERRED that they did not know what they were doing when they volunteered, which I most certainly know from personal experience was not the case with any of the WWI veterans I ever talked to, read about, or listened to their recorded interviews (Take it Raggy that you have not been arsed to listen to the veterans interviews recorded for the 1964 documentary The Great War)

"What I would suggest it that in 1914 all working-class soldiers would have been used to being at the bottom of society, with all that entailed."

Ah so all the volunteers in 1914 were "working class" were they Raggy? Got any evidence to back-up that preposterous claim? Actual fact in most cases they were not, primarily as the "working class" was required to ------ work. The queues of volunteers in 1914 contained solicitors, bank clerks, teachers, students, etc, etc , they came from all different backgrounds - NOT JUST WORKING CLASS. The mass of "working class" recruits came in with conscription as women replaced them on the factory floor and the Army was none too impressed with the material, in their first two months of training your average "working class" recruit gained two stones in weight and 1" to 2" in height - simple matter of record - another thing you will no doubt not be arsed about checking (Can't really see why I bother providing you with the information - possibly in the vain hope that one day you will wake up to the fact that a discussion is more than simple sniping)

RE: The Paxman Programmes Jim, your ability to deliberately misunderstand everything stated is truly astounding - having watched them I would advise you to go back and do the same - you will find out that Keith A's quotes accurately reflect the message being put across.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 11:05 AM

Sorry lads - not going round in circles with you clowns any more - we really have been here, done that when you pair ALONE telling us that "'twas a famous victory." (Robert Southey).
Now you're contradicting what you were arguing last time.
You denied it was an Imperial war, Keith went to great lengths to show that 'The Great Imperial War', as it is known, didn't man Imperial in the Imperialist sense, yet now you're digging up quotes like "Britain was prepared to see the rest of Europe turned into some enormous German colony"
If the war was inevitable, it was so because the politicians and industrialists made it so - s.f.a. to do with "freedom" - just a family squabble over which of Victoria's sprogs should rule the planet - over 18 million people died - over territory.
Must be true, Keith's just quoted it - twice.
No argument with that.
The other reasons were down to propaganda - Harry Patch made the point beautifully when he said he had no argument with the lads he was sent out to kill - he had no argument with them - he didn't know them
The same with them, of course.
You want to continue justifying that, feel free - once more you do it alone.
As for the summary - we've got your message - the politicians are great - the military is great (though neither have ever denied the executions happened - just you) - the men who actually fought were lying or gullible shit.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 01:32 PM

" Ah so all the volunteers in 1914 were "working class" were they Raggy? Got any evidence to back-up that preposterous claim?"

Two things Teribus.

1. The statement said that "in 1914 all working-class soldiers would have been used to being at the bottom of society, with all that entailed" Not that all volunteers were working class.

2. It was a quote from Gary Sheffield whom I seem to recall is one of Keith's favoured historians.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 15 - 05:17 PM

Is Sheffield alive or dead?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:12 AM

If the northern powerhouse works, Sheffield will be very much alive. Although Manor Top will still be eating rather than burying their dead. Attercliff will always be the home of the topless hand shandy.

As to discredited revisionist historians, to be fair he also came out with a few more objective essays before rallying to Gove's call for rose tinted glasses.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM

In WWI, as now, the working class had been persuaded that their fate and the fate of the ruling class were the same. Would their lives have been any different if Germany had won the war? I very much doubt it. It was just a squabble over which branch of a family of inbreds lorded it over them.

WWII was different, the rulers of Germany at that time were a different kind of person altogether.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:56 AM

"Sheffield will be very much alive. "
Concur - despite Maggie's attempts to kill of the North of England and killing of the (crappy, according to some) British Steel industry.
Great folk song conferences at the Uni.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

"the rulers of Germany at that time were a different kind of person altogether."
A piece of history, largely neglected, is what happened in Germany following the war.
Germany entered into a period of revolution which swept the entire country and ended up in the abdication of Wilhelm II and the establishment of the Wiemar Republic.
The new republic was divided into left and right - in 1919 the leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered, the right came to prominance and in the same year the Nazi Party was founded and eventually rose to power with the support of German industrial capitalism.
Would highly recommend an extremely readable book on the period, 'The Kings Depart' by Richard M Watt, one of the great classics of Twentieth Century European history.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 08:55 AM

An historian's view,

"Far from being fought over trivial issues, World War One must be seen in the context of an attempt by an aggressive, militarist state to establish hegemony over Europe, extinguishing democracy as a by-product. To argue that the world of 1919 was worse than that of 1914 is to miss the point. A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM

One historian - there are around 200 researching WW1 - to understand what they have to say you need to read a few, not scoop up convenient books that suit your own particular prejudices.
Than you can claim that "the majority of historians....." whatever
And by your own goalpost emplacements, tabloid journalists who cut their teeth on a paper which openly supported Hitler doesn't hack it
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

Which historian, which book or probably more accurate which webpage


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

actually don't bother to reply to that I'm not really interested in anything you have to say


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 09:59 AM

A historian who works to a preconceived hypothesis rather than examining the evidence, as real historians do.

Anybody quoting historians would cite, give reference and if they have the intelligence, explain what that quote means in support of the view they express on this subject.

Any chance of learning debate Keith? Some of us are fed up of making allowances for your capacity when you fail to grasp the fundamentals, then perhaps your points can be dealt with correctly


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 10:10 AM

Jim,
there are around 200 researching WW1 - to understand what they have to say you need to read a few,

I have. You and your friends seem to have read nothing written less than 20 years ago!
You will find they all say much the same on the issues we have discussed.

The quote was of Dr. Gary Sheffield in a piece written for the BBC History site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 11:39 AM

We have friends?

Gosh! When is the next slumber party to discuss Keith?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM

A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse

Well, I'll be... I am surprised that someone would express this as a fact. I would say it would have been a possibility. Even a probability. But can you be absolutely sure that things would have been worse? Worldwide? Would WW2 had happened if Imperial Germany had won? How do these people know these thing? I'm gobsmacked.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM

"I have. You and your friends seem to have read nothing written less than 20 years ago!"
Then your postings show no fore-knowledge of the subject - every single one of them is a hastily gleaned cut-'n-paste - every one.Your latest one from Sheffield - no new insight into the war, but an opinion, and on you might expect from someone who built his career as an British Army employee - a lecturer to the troops.
Your accusation that none of us know anything more recent than twenty years old is also typical apart from my particular interest in 20th century history, do you think we all went to bed after tea last year when we were bombarded with all those radio and televion offerings?      
Bloody insulting clown.
When I described the German revolution (the one which overthrew the Kaiser and established the Wiemar Republic), you described it as "made up shit" or some such phrase
I cannot believe that somebody who claims to have made a life-long study of the period is that ignorant - or does your own kowledge end in 1918?
You even contradict yourself - you dismissed the idea that the war was Imperialist inspired - even going to great lengths to explain why it was refered to as 'The Great Imperial War'
Then you turn up with a quote from Paxman that it was an Imperialist war
Give us a break - lifelong study my arse.
You are the only one on this forum who comes here to "win" something - I counted about a dozen occasions when you claimed that you had "won" and we have "lost".
You are also the only one who has dominated a thread on a subject, by your own admission, that you have neither knowledge nor interest in - you apparently know nothing, nor do you wish to learn from what others have to say.
I concur complete with Guest's request - "Any chance of learning debate Keith?"
You will now ignore all this and continue with your support for the establishment line.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:17 PM

can i just change the subject from history to geography - surely nobody these days still believes that sheffield is in the north of england (never mind the uk)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:26 PM

Nah, achmelvich. Everyone knows it is the peoples republic of Sheffield and totally outside the scope of normal geography :-)

For those interested there is a new TV series released by Amazon this Friday. The man in the high castle is advertised as being based on a SciFi classic by Philip K. Dick (stop sniggering at the back there, boy) but after being stunned by the certainty of earlier statements I am beginning to wonder if it should actualy be classed as history...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 01:40 PM

Just an opinion, but all the historians seem to share it.
In their books they justify their opinions with hard evidence from a hundred years of research.

Here is Margaret Macmillan, a Canadian historian,

"Most of the poets who were widely read at the time – notably Rupert Brooke – were writing patriotic verse, and the "futility of war" line only emerged later. "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/25/margaret-macmillan-just-dont-ask-me-who-started-war

"Soldiers did not fight just because they were afraid of their officers. The toughest discipline was in the Italian army, which had the highest rate of desertion among the Allies. Soldiers fought for something. Indian soldiers, as their letters reveal, for honour, the British for king and country. As one French soldier said simply, 'I do not want to become a Boche.' "

"Stevenson argues persuasively that we must believe that men and women meant what they said when they talked about duty and sacrifice, that they accepted the war, even willingly."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n23/margaret-macmillan/von-hotzendorffs-desire

"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:12 PM

"Just an opinion, but all the historians seem to share it."
You haven't read the 100 or so historians, I doubt if you have read one (yet another hastily grabbed cut-'n-paste.
You have single-handedly made the term "historian" a joke - I hope they appreciate what you have done for their profession
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:25 PM

WW1 has been a life long interest of mine and I have read much Jim.

On some things there is a consensus among the historians.
Those 3 views I expressed for instance.
That is why, in the years we have been discussing this, you have failed to find any that contradict me, except a few long dead and discredited.
You appear to have read nothing less than 20 years old.

I can produce any number in support, and have done.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM

Dave,
How do these people know these thing? I'm gobsmacked.

Historians derive their views from the results of years of research Dave.
They challenge each other to justify everything they say.
Unlike you, historians do not regard it as acceptable to express an opinion that they can not support with hard facts.

Not being an historian, I form my views by reading history books.
That is what intelligent people do.

You must have a huge ego to imagine that you know better than the history books, and the historians who research and write them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:01 PM

"WW1 has been a life long interest of mine and I have read much Jim"
Doesn't show one inch Keith - talk about hidden talents!
You have not responded top one single point people have made about your appalling behavior
Said you wouldn't
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:37 PM

I do not have an ego big enough to warrant stating 'what if' scenarios as facts but I do know reality from fantasy.

No-one can possibly know what the world would look like today if the Germans had won WW1. By all means speculate on possible scenarios but remember it is just speculation, not fact. It never happened. Historians are good at what they do, but they are not Gods that know all possible outcomes.

What are you going to come up with next? It would have been better if the Roman invasion would have failed? After all, what did the Romans ever do for us? What if the crusades had failed? Would we all be Muslims? What if the mayors of Rome and Carthage had not met to end the third Punic wars after over 2000 years? What if Berwick upon Tweed had won the war with Russia? What if Keith lived in Hamburg instead of Hertford? Very interesting but it is all fantasy.

I am not disputing any of your 'facts'. I am just saying that an opinion over what would have happened if the Germans had won is not, in any way, shape or form, the fact that you would have us believe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Nov 15 - 03:38 PM

"Soldiers did not fight just because they were afraid of their officers"

The main difference keith is that you took the words as they are written. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would have read it as:


"Soldiers did not fight JUST because they were afraid of their officers"

Having said that we know you lack the intelligence.

Nuff said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 02:48 AM

So let's get this right. David Irvine is a historian.

Ok

Move on


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:02 AM

No-one can possibly know what the world would look like today if the Germans had won WW1.

Obviously.
Only a complete moron would expect that to be spelled out.
A professor and doctor of history whose life's work has been the study of that period is well placed to extrapolate upon his vast knowledge to consider the most likely outcomes.
That is what he did, and if you read his books you will see he supports his views with hard facts.
His peers would rip him to shreds if he could not.

It is hard to have any respect for people with no specialist knowledge who really believe they know more about history than the historians, and who actually ridicule people who learn their history from history books instead of just imagining how they think it should have been.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:05 AM

I think you do not understand the mindset of subservience which existed before WWI. Soldiers fought not because they were afraid of the officers, or because they thought that the cause that the officers were asking them to fight for was just, but because not to have done the bidding of the higher classes was unthinkable. The monarchy, the aristocracy, had been put in their place by God, and not to obey them was not just treason, it was blasphemy. WWI broke this mentality in the UK, I think it still existed elsewhere. And it is experiencing a renaissance today.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:16 AM

Keith,

I think the world today would have been little different, Germany would be the industrial powerhouse of Europe and the UK would be trailing along behind. WWII would have been a different war, possibly a face-off between Europe and the USA. But I think by today everything would be much the same.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:16 AM

" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."
Whilst enthusiastic crowds certainly existed in August 1914, the new research suggests that this didn't reflect the whole picture. "Other gatherings around late July and early August opposed the war," Dr Pennell explains, "and many more people were shocked and disbelieving that such an event could happen."
"Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances.""
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:18 AM

But I think by today everything would be much the same.
Sheffield only said that 1919 would have been much worse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:38 AM

"A piece of history, largely neglected, is what happened in Germany following the war.
Germany entered into a period of revolution which swept the entire country and ended up in the abdication of Wilhelm II and the establishment of the Wiemar Republic."


Certainly neglected by you Carroll - go away and do some reading - it will make for a bit of a switch to reality in your postings:
- The Kaiser abdicated the throne on the 9th November 1918 and fled Germany going into exile in the Netherlands on the 10th November 1918
- The War ended on 11th November 1918

Whatever you do Jim don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

"Soldiers did not fight just because they were afraid of their officers"

Now why would soldiers be afraid of their officers? To anyone who has ever served in any of the armed forces such an idea is laughable - Keith A knows that and so do I, but who on this forum is trotting out the fiction and attempting to tell us that soldiers were afraid of officers due to the incorrect fact that officers were allowed to and allegedly carried out summary executions of their own troops - definitely NOT Keith A or myself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM

" The Kaiser abdicated the throne on the 9th November 1918 and fled Germany going into exile in the Netherlands on the 10th November 1918"
The Germa revolution began in November 1918 - th Kaiser abdicated at its outbreak of internal unrest - I suggest you go read something.
"To anyone who has ever served in any of the armed forces such an idea is laughableTo anyone who has ever served in any of the armed forces such an idea is laughable"
You were a greasy fry-up slinger, weren't you - lots of action in the kitchen, especially when you burn the bacon!!
Officers held the power of imprisonment and death in their hands in wartime - World War.
Whatever the man thought of them, they kept it to themselves - or else.
Fiction!!!
From British Library account of wartime discipline
"But armies did not leave men's behaviour in battle down to chance: the system of military discipline existed to coerce them into obedience. Punishments for disobeying orders could be severe, and men who were convicted of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' or desertion from their unit could receive the death sentence. Many hundreds of soldiers were executed by their own armies for military offences during the conflict. "
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM

When Sheffield casts an opinion he speaks as a person giving a view.

That is not a historian speaking.

A historian collates, assesses and presents information. When he says the future would be x y or z he says it as a person and his view has no more weight than anyone else. After all, his work as a historian is to get such information presented so people can form their own views.

Only a moron would say otherwise eh Keith?

You really don't grasp this, do you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 06:33 AM

From a 2002 study of discipline in the British Army From a "real" historian who sells his books in a "real " Bookshop
Jim Carroll

In a recent study of military discipline during the First World War David Englander rightly asserted that 'British and Belgian soldiers were more at risk [from capital punishment] than either their French or German counterparts'2. This contradicts existing ideas about both Prussian militarism and popular notions of French military justice – or more accurately injustice – such as conveyed by Stanley Kubrick in his film Paths of Glory. A comparison of statistics for discipline in the British, French and German armies, the three main combatants on the Western Front between 1914 and 1918, supports Dr. Englander : the British condemned more than 3000 men compared with 2000 in the French army and only 150 in the German army3. Indeed, the comparative harshness of the British was especially marked in the case of deserters on the Western Front4. Whilst it should be noted that the number of French soldiers executed (perhaps as many as 700) exceeded that of the British army (officially 346, but probably many more5) the two remain comparable given the relative size of the armies. Only 48 of the 150 German soldiers condemned by military courts were shot. On the face of it the British army was not beset by disciplinary problems any more than were the other major armies, yet no historian has adequately explained this striking differential. This is even more surprising given pervasive British attitudes of the time : Germany was castigated as authoritarian and militaristic and France was viewed from across the Channel as decadent. The French army, so it appeared, was not immune from this and its collapse at Sedan was regarded by many in Britain as evidence of the moral degeneration of the French, a view seemingly confirmed by the chaos of the Commune. Accordingly, when discipline in the French army collapsed in 1917, the British commander, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, emphasised what he considered the lack of 'moral qualities' in the French army as its major cause6. Paradoxically, German authoritarianism and militarism had, according to some, been a major factor in securing the Prussian victory in 1871 : British generals had a high regard for the discipline of the Prussian army if not their tactics7. Yet these continental armies exhibited more tolerance of their soldiers than the supposedly more progressive British. Paradoxically, therefore, it was in the country that believed it most espoused liberal values that military discipline appears to have taken on its harshest form.
The harsh nature of military discipline in Britain owed much to tradition. The earliest armies were regulated by Articles of War issued on the prerogative of the Crown and valid only during the duration of any given conflict. This power, introduced by William I, was not superseded until the nineteenth-century. But if military law seemingly became more the concern of parliament than of the Sovereign, the Crown was still able to exert considerable influence in this area, playing the 'apolitical' card to great effect – the army shared with the Crown a (mythical) status that supposedly transcended politics. The nature of these earlier Articles was pejoratively described in a military manual of 1914 as being 'of excessive severity, inflicting death or loss of limb for almost every crime'12. Ironically, a certain amount of this severity was to return in the years that followed.
8The peacetime army, thanks to the British aversion to a standing army, did not exist in a modern sense and no regulations were thought necessary beyond what was covered by criminal and civil law. This changed, however, after the so-called Glorious Revolution whereupon the Mutiny Act was passed in 1689. The object of this annually renewable act, which made mutiny and desertion a capital offence, remained largely unchanged until 1878. It did, however, undergo a series of refinements each reflecting the circumstances of the time. The Act, often allowed to lapse during times of peace, was frequently re-introduced, usually with an extension of its jurisdiction to include overseas territories as the army's garrison duties expanded around the globe. The Mutiny Act finally superseded the prerogative power to make Articles of War towards the end of the Peninsular War in 1813 and remained in force, largely unaltered until our period.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:44 AM

When Sheffield casts an opinion he speaks as a person giving a view.
That is not a historian speaking.


Yes it is. He is a leading historian of WW1.

A historian collates, assesses and presents information.

Yes he does, but you will need to read his books. The quote was from a brief article for the BBC history site.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:06 AM

Have you actually read Catriona Pennell's book "A United Kingdom" Keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:09 AM

"Yes it is. He is a leading historian of WW1."
No he isn't Keith - he is one historian
He expresses the establishment view - which is no more valuable than any other person in terms of opinion - certainly not of the people who actually fought on the front, which you pair of jingoists have sought to denigrate (step up from shooting them if they stepped out of line, I suppose)
Up to these arguments, you had never heard of Sheffield - your first choice was a tabloid journalist - you stumbled across him in your attempts to justify the indefensible.
He is only a "leading historian" because his defence of the war from the point of the establishment coincides with your own jingoism.
"Yes he does, but you will need to read his books."
But you haven't Keith - you stumbled across him by accident and have only read out-of-context quotes.
If you read what he says fully, you will realise that expertise is on the actual war - his expertise does not go beyond that therefore he is in no position to comment on what would have happened had the war gone the other way.
Democracy was not any more under threat under Germany as it was elsewhere - "gallant little Belgium" our ally and one of the ploys for conning men to enlist, was quite free to massacre 10 million Congolese and cut the hands of their workers if they didn't work hard enough - how "democratic" was that.
The conditions in the British Colonies were little better - no democracy to be threatened by Germany there.
As you have pointed out with your own quotes - it was not about freedom, or democracy or better conditions - it was a colonial war on a world scale.
How about coming out from behind an establishment historian who you haven't read and responding to the actual situation?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:26 AM

Here, BBC includes him as one of the "ten leading historians of WW1"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

Can you find a single historian who disagrees with anything I have quoted him on Jim?
No you can not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:34 AM

Have you actually read Catriona Pennell's book "A United Kingdom" Keith.

No never Guest.
I did read her "A Kingdom United" a couple of years ago. Would you like me to dig it out?

Meanwhile, here is a review of it from The Times Higher Education Supplement,

"Pennell argues that historians of the UK have lagged behind historians of German and French history in reassessing the picture of "war fever". She seeks not to demolish the notion of Britain and Ireland as accepting the need for war, but rather to argue that the public's support for war against Germany was based on a reluctant, but rational, agreement that it was necessary. After an exhaustive search in primary sources, she concludes that "in reality, the responses of ordinary British and Irish people were much more complex than the myth of war enthusiasm would suggest...[they] did not back the war because they were deluded, brain-washed and naively duped into an idiotic bloodbath, as the subsequent myth would have it"."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/a-kingdom-united-popular-responses-to-the-outbreak-of-the-first-world-war-in-britain-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:44 AM

I have not read Catriona Pennells book A Kingdon United. However there are numerous historians notably Jo Fox who seem to consider that propaganda played a significant role.


Propaganda 1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:45 AM

"Historical myths are notoriously enduring, but that of a British "collective war enthusiasm" at the outbreak of war in 1914 should not survive after this excellent and important book, and should be replaced by a view of a nation accepting the need for a war of national defence."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM

Propaganda 2


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM

"I did read her "A Kingdom United" a couple of years ago. "
Then why are you arguing that men joined up because they supported the cause - in fact, in 'A Kingdom United', she argues that the reasons for joining up were varied and complex and they fluctuated as the circumstances changed.
She puts much of the reason down to the pressure of propaganda and points out that the inability to maintain that pressure led to the introduction of compulsion.
You most certainly have not read it - bloody nonsense!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 09:08 AM

"You were a greasy fry-up slinger, weren't you - lots of action in the kitchen, especially when you burn the bacon!!"

Really Jom where on earth did you get piece of fiction from? One of your own troll pals or was it just more Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit"

""But armies [NOTE JOM "Armies" as in Armies in general] did not leave men's behaviour in battle down to chance: the system of military discipline existed to coerce them into obedience. Punishments for disobeying orders could be severe, and men who were convicted of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' or desertion from their unit could receive the death sentence. Many hundreds of soldiers were executed by their own armies for military offences during the conflict [However NOT in the British Army - 346 does equate to many hundreds]."

Look up the figures if you like Carroll (I know neither you nor any of the usual suspects will) but during the First World War there were 304,262 Courts Martial held and of those defendants 265,496 were found "Guilty". Just taking the crime of desertion that accounted for 14% of that total meaning that during the First World War 37,169 men deserted - 29,205 did so in the UK. Yet the Courts Martial only resulted in death sentences being carried out on 245 men being shot for desertion and a further 17 being shot for "cowardice". Perhaps you should stick to Traditional Folk Songs JOM - you seem to know quite a bit about that - on this subject you are totally clueless.

""Any chance of learning debate Keith?""

WHAT??? Debate against the likes of this?

" Raggytash - 19 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM

actually don't bother to reply to that I'm not really interested in anything you have to say"


Hey Raggy if you aren't prepared to listen then butt out of the discussion - you obviously have S.F.A. to add to any discussion OR debate.

"A historian collates, assesses and presents information. When he says the future would be x y or z he says it as a person and his view has no more weight than anyone else."

Ehmm NO anonymous GHOST - As a historian and specialist in the subject and the period just purely by the information at his fingertips his opinion would have far, far greater weight than say yours, purely because it would be based on a far greater understanding of the times, the people and the era than you have.

Ah have a word with your "Historian" Jom - and by the way my recollection is it was you and your grinning hyena "mates" who started taking the "piss" out of historians - as David Englander when it was during the First World War that the French collapsed at Sedan, now I know he is referring here to the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 - but the man's writing is all over the place - no wonder you like his style Jom - it's as chaotic as your own. David Englander was not a historian who specialised in the study of the First World Was his area of specialisation lay elsewhere - why didn't you mention that Jom?

As to whether or not things would have been better or worse under the Germans, who would have annexed Belgium and taken over all of the French overseas possessions - as you mentioned Belgium and their treatment of their subjects in the Congo - have a look at how the Germans treated the indigenous tribes under their care - you might just learn something.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:55 AM

" GUEST - 20 Nov 15 - 08:06 AM

Have you actually read Catriona Pennell's book "A United Kingdom" Keith."


More importantly GHOST - Have you?? If so please appraise us of what it is that alters anything stated so far. It would appear that Keith A knows the work and can actually give it it's correct title. Does she recount "special groups of military police" roaming about the front line gunning down British troops? Does she identify the incidents where British Officers summarily executed their own troops? Still can't get my head round the fact that NONE of these Officers or their "victims" have names - I mean if I'd joined up with my "pals battalion" I damn near would have known a good proportion of that band of 1,000 men and the Officers under whom we were all serving - Jim and the usual suspects haven't yet explained that little fact away have they - So boys, all you who know more than anyone else, tell us if the practice existed how come there are NO NAMES - not holding my breath, as they will not answer.

The other one, addressing the main point is how come if we were so appallingly led did we ever mannage to:

- Increase the size of our army tenfold
- never have a single instance of our troops mutinying at the front as occurred in the French Armies fighting alongside us.
- be the only army capable of mounting an offensive after having withstood the massive German Offensive in the spring and early summer of 1918
- carry-out what is recognised and acknowledged as being the most successful military offensive ever undertaken by British troops
- Win the war.

Over to you and your "experts" who for some strange reason very seldom happen to be specialists in the subject, or if they are are all pre-1970s vintage, whose works and conclusions have been discredited by information that has come to light since 1970.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 10:57 AM

"Jim Carroll "Made Up Shit""
So you say Mr Woodcock
"245 men being shot for desertion and a further 17 being shot for "cowardice""
Nothing to be proud of considering they were shooting men with shellshock - or is that another lie?
"WHAT??? Debate against the likes of this?"
Keith lies, backtracks and contradicts himself and - like you, when caught out, refuses to respond on the grounds you might commit yourself - in his case, his putting up the fact that it was an Imperialist was when he denied it, and in yours that soldiers were not afraid of officers - you've been given the level of discipline dolerd out at great length |(and the rest is silence)
Keith is the only one to "take the piss out of historians" in the way he misquotes them and doesn't read them
Attempts at bullying will never replace information my galley swabbing friend!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:00 AM

I do find it a bit strange that people who dismiss historians pre 1970 are quite happy to believe in the teachings of the bible written 2000 years ago.

Just saying like.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 11:08 AM

"never have a single instance of our troops mutinying "
ONLY HALF THE STORY
"have a look at how the Germans treated the indigenous tribes under their care "
Didn't comment on how the Germans behaved - just that the "freedom and democracy" excuse for going to war was bullshit.
It was an Imperialist war - Keith said so, so it must be true
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 12:31 PM

Keith thinks that a person giving an opinion is an extension of being a historian therefore you can't argue with the opinion.

That's a bit like the mental leap that vicars know a bit about theology therefore their opinion that sky fairies exist (well, not all of them believe in that tosh but I digress) isn't one you should argue with.

Historians set the scene. Your own intelligence provides the opinion. The only people who borrow opinions are shallow God botherers.

Slowly but surely, the Keith in the couch is revealing his condition. Once we have the diagnosis we can get nurse to rig up the enema hose.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM

No-one can possibly know what the world would look like today if the Germans had won WW1.

Obviously.


Well done, Keith. That is exactly what I have been saying. Glad we can agree on something.

So we gave gone from A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse. to Sheffield only said that 1919 would have been much worse. to saying that everyone knows that Gary Sheffield cannot possibly know what the world would look like etc. in the space of a few short posts.

Glad to see that your mind can be changed after all. Thank you :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 01:37 PM

Rag, all sides in every war use propaganda, but the Germans really did massacre hundreds of civilians including children in 1914.

Jim, of course there were executions, but they were not summary executions as you claimed, and most of those condemned were not actually executed.

Pennell said it was a "myth" that British and Irish people were "deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict."

She said "Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."

That directly contradicts your position Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 01:45 PM

Dave, here is the whole paragraph,

"Far from being fought over trivial issues, World War One must be seen in the context of an attempt by an aggressive, militarist state to establish hegemony over Europe, extinguishing democracy as a by-product. To argue that the world of 1919 was worse than that of 1914 is to miss the point. A world in which Imperial Germany had won World War One would have been even worse."

Only a complete moron would expect it to be spelled out that Sheffield can not actually see alternative histories!
A professor and doctor of history whose life's work has been the study of that period is well placed to extrapolate upon his vast knowledge to consider the most likely outcomes.
That is what he did, and if you read his books you will see how he supports his views with hard facts.
His peers would rip him to shreds if he could not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 02:03 PM

"but they were not summary executions "
You've been given them and all you can do is call the soldiers who spoke of them liars.
"and most of those condemned were not actually executed."
Doesn't make any difference to those with shellshock who were =- none should have been
"Pennell said it was a "myth" that British and Irish people were "deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict."
Out of context again - she said a great deal more - mentioning fear of humiation - and particularly that the reasons were complex fro enlisting - why do you persist in this - you have lied about reading her book - you are dealing with misleading half-quotes - again.
PARAGRAPHS ARE NOT ENOUGH - READ THE BOOK
None of these people said what you claim if you read the articles in full.You are trying to score points yet again
Does being a Christian encourage you to lie for your country? - I don't know any Christians who behaves like you - I really don't.
You are a shining advert for atheism
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 03:26 PM

"Hey Raggy if you aren't prepared to listen then butt out of the discussion - you obviously have S.F.A. to add to any discussion OR debate"

The comment I made was addressed to the professor. However I could quite happily extend it.

BTW Just for your delectation Teribleonacompass


This one has a compass on, Just for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 04:14 PM

Only a complete moron would expect it to be spelled out that Sheffield can not actually see alternative histories!

Absolutely agreed, Keith. No one, as far as I can see, has said he can. I do not believe anyone has asked for it to be spelled out either. I said quite categorically that Sheffield cannot see alternative histories. You agreed. Why bring it up again? Are you as amazed as I am that we agree on something?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:41 PM

"I do find it a bit strange that people who dismiss historians pre 1970 are quite happy to believe in the teachings of the bible written 2000 years ago."

And where Raggy have you ever read anything that I have stated that leads you to believe that I BELIEVE IN THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE WRITTEN 2000 YEARS AGO - Ball is in your court come up with something that I have written or shut the fuck up - you add and contribute absolutely nothing to this forum all you can do is bully and snipe reveling in your complete and utter ignorance. In future please do not address any further inquiries in my direction I will refuse to respond.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:46 PM

GUEST - 20 Nov 15 - 12:31 PM

About the most ridiculous comment I have ever seen on this forum. If it needs to be explained why I find that so then you are further gone than even I suspected.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 07:55 PM

OK then Jim, Raggy, Gnome, nameless GHOST tell me why none of those who were summarily executed by their own officers or by "Special Groups of Military Policemen" have any names - I mean you have stated, and you believe that they were shot in front of their comrades at the moment they were ordered to "go over the top" - how come nobody knew who they were - now c'mon give us just ONE F**kin' NAME.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Nov 15 - 08:37 PM

I haven't been in this thread. I don't know much at all about WWI. But what I do know, reading the three posts above this one, is that we are dealing here with a complete maniac. I'd say the best policy is to not respond.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:11 AM

The most ridiculous comment on this thread cannot be sought by a mere time reference. There are many contenders. One way of whittling them down to a finalist showdown is to concentrate on person not time. Start with anything by Teribus or Keith A of Hettford and take it from there.

Some howlers.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:36 AM

"I don't know much at all about WWI." - Steve Shaw

Suggest then that you just leave it at that then Steve - Can you offer any explanation as to how men were shot in front of their friends and not one of these so called "witnesses" to these murders can name the victim? If you can't then I can - they didn't actually witness anything, they heard stories and rumours about what was happening to soldiers in regiments in the French Army.

GUEST 21 Nov 15 - 02:11 AM

Really GHOST? - care to give us some examples and explain exactly what makes the content of those posts "Howlers"? Personally I don't think that you'll come up with any as the post referred to above is just another example of throwing some wildly inaccurate statement out there without one whit of substantiation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 02:46 AM

Sorry I forgot to ask my other question in that last post of mine.

Jim you haven't yet told us how those in command on the "Western Front" knew where to locate those "Special Groups of Military Policemen" prior to any offensive operation? I mean you do believe they existed yet you can tell us absolutely S.F.A. about them - I find that rather strange, but there again you'd take merest rumour over fact any day as long as it fits your preconceived notion - wouldn't you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM

Jim, even you can not deny that the Times Higher Education Supplement reviewer did read Pennell's book.

He says she argues, "that the public's support for war against Germany was based on a reluctant, but rational, agreement that it was necessary. After an exhaustive search in primary sources, she concludes that "in reality, the responses of ordinary British and Irish people were much more complex than the myth of war enthusiasm would suggest...[they] did not back the war because they were deluded, brain-washed and naively duped into an idiotic bloodbath, as the subsequent myth would have it"."

Another direct quote from the book, "the majority of people - including those in Ireland - supported the onset of war in a spirit of seriousness and acceptance of duty".

"That support for the war was no late-summer madness, born of a foolish optimism and the expectation of early victory, is demonstrated by recruiting figures. "

" It is significant that it was in September 1914, after the retreat from Mons and the revelation in The Times of 25 August of just how hard-pressed British forces were, rather than in the first weeks of war, that the greatest number of recruits came forward. As it became clear from military reverses that there was little hope of a swift and glorious end to the war, and as reports of German atrocities in Belgium circulated, so resolve hardened. This was no "war fever", but a commitment to victory by a UK convinced of the justice of its cause."

"the concept of popular support as an irrational fit is demolished convincingly by Pennell. Historical myths are notoriously enduring, but that of a British "collective war enthusiasm" at the outbreak of war in 1914 should not survive after this excellent and important book, and should be replaced by a view of a nation accepting the need for a war of national defence."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/a-kingdom-united-popular-responses-to-the-outbreak-of-the-first-world-war-in-britain-and-ireland/420302.article


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:28 AM

I gave you a quote of Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan,
"Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "

I gave you quotes from the Paxman/University of East Anglia programmes saying the same.
Also Sheffield.
They ALL say the same.
You will find no single exception among historians that your view is just a myth Jim.

I challenge and defy you to produce a single dissenting historian on that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 04:58 AM

"They ALL say the same."
You haven';r read "all" so how the hell do you know what they say.
You've made it fairly evident that you haven't read any - certainly not the ones you've quoted.
Go and read what's available on line of Pennell's writing - what she says doesn't bear any the slightest resemblance to what you claim - you;ve taken the bit that suits
"now c'mon give us just ONE F**kin' NAME."
I have no idea who they were and you ***** know it - I believe that it happened because people who were there said it happened.
I have no way and no intention of accessing records locked away in archives - the fact that much of what happened in generally inaccessible (including the unofficial soldiers' journals) is still inaccessible after a century is par for the course.
The only way you can deny these events is to call the veterans liars - you're happy to do that because you're that kind of feller - with your head rammed so far up the arse of the establishment you could clean its teeth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:09 AM

Teribums, you say OK then Jim, Raggy, Gnome, nameless GHOST tell me why none of those who were summarily executed by their own officers...

Yet I have not mentioned any such thing. Why ask me? Are you getting confused?

Mind you, you also said, of Raggytash and me, neither of you ever say anything germane to any subject under discussion anyway Yet you continue to argue with us and even quote our words. Why is that?

Apologies if it is some sort of mental illness.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 05:51 AM

Go and read what's available on line of Pennell's writing

I already posted this.

" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."
Whilst enthusiastic crowds certainly existed in August 1914, the new research suggests that this didn't reflect the whole picture. "Other gatherings around late July and early August opposed the war," Dr Pennell explains, "and many more people were shocked and disbelieving that such an event could happen."
"Once the decision to go to war was made on 4th August, the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause. Their support was very often carefully considered, well-informed, reasoned, and only made once all other options were exhausted. People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances.""
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:13 AM

From her own mouth, 3mins 5 secs - 3.34.

"A strong sense that Britain's cause was just, compounded by the miserable atrocities in Belgium and France committed at the hand of the advancing German Army, resulted in a stoic determination to fight, no matter what the cost, for victory. In other words, the task ahead was dutifully accepted other than enthusiastically embraced."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W0657Bwn_A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:17 AM

" A series of retrospective myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

I have no doubt at all of the veracity of this statement. What we are not told is of equal significance though. What proportion of the general public were less than enthusiastic about the war? What proportion were only informed of the facts that the government wanted them to know? How many changed their minds once they saw what was happeing?   

"People supported the war" is another vague statement. Of course there were many people who did support it for the right reasons. No mention is made of those who were 'duped', those who volunteered for the wrong reasons or those who were stridently opposed.

We are talking about real human beings here for heavens sake, not just battlefield statistics. There were thousands killed, on all sides, who had no wish to harm anyone and no axe to grind in the family disputes of their 'betters' at all. Lest we forget...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:20 AM

"Suggest then that you just leave it at that then Steve "

If you can give yourself a moment of respite from your bluster and wade back through this wearisome thread, you'll see that that is exactly what I have done and, from here on in, what I propose to carry on doing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM

Go and read what she has to say instead of looking of out of context clips - she goes on to say immediately after that that the reasons for joining were far more complex - shje mentions propaganda, fear, peer pressure and much much more - go read what she has written instead of dishionestly claiming that you have (not not a first for you).
No historian has ever presented a picture of people flocking to join up for 'freedom' - as you have.
If people had have done they would have been gullible idiots because, as you have pointed out, it was an Imperial war for territory - a war to gain and defend countries that none of the protagonists had a right to and all of them were plundering - Britain - Germany and especially "gallant little Belgium - a horrific Colonial master.
Your cut-'n-paste fully accepted that this was what it was about and nobody else has ever challenged that.
As Pennell points out, they did so for a whole host of reasons and 18 months into the war those reasons wore thin and compulsory conscription was introduced.
The War was sold like soap powder, Bottomly depicted it as something to be laughed at and a foregone conclusion - he made a million out of sending young man to their deaths.
Had our great national hero Kitchener, remained in office, conscientious objectors would have been executed for refusing to take part.
Men with shellshock were executed for "walking away from the noise" as Tommy Kenny put it, he described officers beating men up the ladders with their swagger-sticks, into murderous hails of bullets - fair to many accounts of this happening for even you pair to deny.
Some mamy fave gone out of a sense of duty, but many many others were tricked and eventually forced by law to go.
AS the lady said - "complicated" - read her book instead of claiming you have.
Go on - break the habit of a lifetime - read something
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

It's no good, Jim. Most people have preconceptions and will read things that confirm these more than things that undermine them. We all do it as it is simply human nature. What I will never say, however, is that an opinion or argument can ever be wholly correct. Keith's isn't. Yours isn't. Mine isn't. They are opinions. We take in information and we gain experience. From these actions we form our opinions. We don't have to justify them. We do not have to explain them. They are our opinions and people can ignore or agree with them as they please. No one is exempted from this. People should realise that the more complex an event gets, like a world was for instance, the more sides there are to every argument surrounding it. None of them are wholly correct but some are more humane than others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 08:32 AM

None of them are wholly correct but some are more humane than others.

Not to mention that some are more fact-based than others.

Not all opinions are equal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 08:43 AM

Can't fault what you write Dave. Do you think others will agree to differ?


Not a prayer!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:11 AM

Jim,
Go and read what she has to say instead of looking of out of context clips

I have, and my quotes are wholly representative. They are NOT "out of context." I supplied links so they can be seen in their original intended context.

she goes on to say immediately after that that the reasons for joining were far more complex

No. She says that they were "more complex" than your "myth of war enthusiasm would suggest."
It is YOU trying to put quotes out of context!

Dave,
What proportion of the general public were less than enthusiastic about the war?

Not enthusiastic. They just believed it had to be done.
Paxton said "most people."
MacMillan would not have said, ""Britain certainly thought" unless she knew it to be most people.

Pennell clearly meant most people or she would not have said, "the public rallied around what was perceived as a just cause." and " People supported the war, but only because they felt it was the right thing to do in light of the circumstances."

Most people Dave, and right to the end of the the war.
Most people Jim.
The myth you cling to is debunked and discredited, not by me, but by hard facts and hard evidence researched by leading historians who head university History Faculties.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:38 AM

Propaganda 3


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:40 AM

Propanda 4


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:42 AM

Propaganda 5


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM

It's surprising that with all those people queuing up to enlist that we needed all this propaganda and conscription isn't it.


Apologies Dave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM

Dense lady tuppence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 21 Nov 15 - 03:02 PM

if we are wondering about the effect of propaganda etc 100 years ago why not look at it from today's perspective? surely we can have a better understanding of that? foreigners all suspect or worse. immigrants attacked. and the fascist press calling on our government to bomb someone - anyone- to make our ignorant, pathetic, little englander government look as if it is doing something positive. depressing, innit?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:51 AM

Well said, achmelvich.

So, most people knew they were doing what had to be done did they? What if they were lied to? As described above. Were they doing what they knew had to be done or doing what they were told had to be done? Were all their lives given for the just cause they believed they were frighting for?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM

The government was not lied to.
They went to war over the invasion of Belgium and Britain's treaty obligations.
That was not a lie.
The people supported that, and most historians think they were right to.
No-one is lying to the historians.

Margaret Macmillan said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "

The myth you all desperately cling to is discredited and debunked.
Rubbished.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:29 AM

So, did most people believe that they were supporting a just cause or were they lied to?

What myth am I desperately clinging to?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 05:38 AM

"Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says."
You have pointed out that that reason was an Imperial one - part of one of your cut-'n-pastes.
It is not the job of historians - and historian - to pronounce whether that was legitimate - that is a moral, ethical or philosophical question, not a historical one.
Empire was about exploiting entire nations and using people and natural wealth for the benefit of the most powerful - go back in history as far as you want.
The British Empire collapsed under its own excesses a few decades after WW1   
If the war was one over colonies it was wrong - immoral - unethical.
The British people didn't benefit from any victory - we got nothing for the slaughter of our youth.
Things returned pretty much to the way they were at the beginning of the slaughter and before the twenties were out men were marching the streets demanding bread for their families.
The war never brought the improvements promised to those who fought - so which historian is qualified to say it was right - and why?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:19 AM

Dave,
What myth am I desperately clinging to?

The myth that people did not understand or know what it was about, what they were fighting for, that they were deluded, duped and manipulated.

Pennell, "myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

She knows that based on her extensive researches.

Based on nothing but your extensive ego, you are suggesting she is deluded, as are all the other historians who have separately and independently come to the same conclusion!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:22 AM

You have pointed out that that reason was an Imperial one - part of one of your cut-'n-pastes.

No I have not.
The government and most British people wanted Britain to keep out of the building conflict right up until the German armies swept into neutral Belgium.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:35 AM

Based on nothing but your extensive ego, you are suggesting she is deluded

I have suggested no such thing. In fact, of your quote, I specifically said "I have no doubt at all of the veracity of this statement." If I have suggested she is deluded, show me where and I will apologise.

I am asking a question of you. Do you believe that most people believed that they were fighting a just war? Not an historian's opinion. Not anyone else's opinion. Do you, Keith A of Hertford, believe that most people who fought in WW1 believed that they were fighting a just war?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:40 AM

Sorry - Misformated. Italics should be off after the first line.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:47 AM

Do you believe that most people believed that they were fighting a just war? Not an historian's opinion.

Yes I do.
I do not have a vast ego to compare with yours Dave.
I do not believe that I was born knowing everything.
I have not spent years doing research on original sources and I am not over a hundred years old, so I form my opinions on historical periods by reading history books.

I actually find it hilarious that people like you come on here and set themselves up as knowing more about history than the historians.
You even ridicule people for learning their history from history books instead of just imagining how things might have been and demanding that you empty head whims be given equal authority!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 07:57 AM

Questions for you professor, seeing as you have such a grasp of the subject:

1. Why if everyone thought is was a bloody good idea to go fight the Hun did the government put out so much propaganda.

2. Why did they then introduce conscription.

(just for your benefit) Propaganda:- "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view"

Please use the OED Definition of propaganda and not YOUR definition.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:30 AM

I do not have a vast ego to compare with yours Dave.
I do not believe that I was born knowing everything


Where did that come from? The only thing I have ever said that I know for certain is that I know very little. I am a constant student and fully understand that, even on those subjects that I may know a something about, I will never know everything. Please show me where I have claimed superior knowledge on anything or desist from such foolery.

Anyhow, back to the main thread rather than spurious claims. You agree that most people believed they were fighting a just war. Yes? So, approximately 50% of the combatants were duped. Logic dictates that if one side were fighting a just war, then the other side were fighting an unjust one. How did the German government fool their soldiers into believing they were fighting a just war if they were not? Or were the British people more intelligent that the Germans? I really am curious.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM

As to I actually find it hilarious that people like you come on here and set themselves up as knowing more about history than the historians.
You even ridicule people for learning their history from history books


Well, I have never said I know more about history than anyone and well you know it. I have ridiculed you on many occasions, but not for learning about history. Just for being a pompous ass. (From 'Urban Dictionary: Pompous Ass. A person who seems full of themselves and who grabs every opportunity to let others know of their feelings of superiority.) Seems to fit rather well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM

I do not believe that I was born knowing everything

Perhaps not, Professor, but you sure as shit think you know everything now.

knowing more about history than the historians.

WHICH historians, Prof? The liveones or the dead ones. All historians, or just the ones whose works are available in "real bookshops"? he oners you have actually read (< zero) or the ones you quote by way of out-of context clips from the internet? & etc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 12:49 PM

Before we discuss German public opinion, which I know nothing about, I would like to establish that British public opinion was that the war needed to be fought.

I have been unable to find a single historian who has expressed a different view, and none of you have either.
I have only found one historian, Niall Ferguson, who thought that Britain did not need to fight, and that was because of his far right views on Empire and Britain remaining a leading world power.

I do dot deny the findings of all those historians.
I accept them.
Do you?

And Rag, do you really think that historians specialising in WW1 are unaware of propaganda and conscription, and that they would change their views if only they knew what you know?
Really Rag?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:09 PM

"She knows that based on her extensive researches."
Which you haven't read - and you are still ignoring what she actually said - suits your jingoist case to do so.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM

British opinion was mixed. Education was not as good as it was up till recently and people borrowed their views from what they read far more readily than now.

That said, being encouraged to fight and doing so willingly is very different to understanding the reasoning behind it. Imperial ambition and carving up territory meant little to a postman from Barnsley, but being told a German will rape his sister possibly had an effect.

You can only look at now with people thinking further bombing of Syria will make the nasty people go away. That's a popular opinion, shared by readers of most newspapers and shallow politicians, so anyone looking at it in a hundred years might mistake it for reasoned assessment by the masses.

By the way, nobody on here has not accepted the findings of a single historian. Perhaps Keith might find a friend to explain the difference between evidence and judgement? Overview and assessment? Fact and fiction? Hypothesis and conclusion?

Although this discussion is stupid anyway. Most of the historians Keith refers to give a broader assessment than his cherry picking anyway and only a couple venture into personal opinion, and then contradicting each other.

Mind you, dismissing Ferguson because of his political views whilst worshipping Hastings gave me a chuckle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:33 PM

I do dot deny the findings of all those historians.
I accept them.
Do you?


Yes I do. I have never disputed any of their findings. I cannot because I do not know enough about it. Something I have stated time and time again. Which is why, I suppose, instead of addressing my points you imply that I do dispute them and cast erroneous aspersions on my character.

So, let us get back to the point. If the popular opinion in Britain was that we were fighting a just war, which I have never disputed, how was public opinion manipulated in such a way that both us and our our European neigbours believed the same thing and yet fought to the death about it? Does it not make you wonder about popular opinion and how it can be shaped? How it is still being shaped today, as was pointed out earlier.

And are you ever going to give us any evidence of my having said that I know more about anything than anyone on here? Or are you just going to continue on that track whenever you feel threatened?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:55 PM

Which you haven't read - and you are still ignoring what she actually said -

What she actually said,
"myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

By the way, nobody on here has not accepted the findings of a single historian.

Yes they have, including you.
The historians agree that British people believed the war to be a necessary evil, and all but one agree that they were right about that.

worshipping Hastings
Huh??

And are you ever going to give us any evidence of my having said that I know more about anything than anyone on here?
Do I need to?
My views are just those of the historians, and you have been challenging me over them for years now.

Earlier you asked
So, most people knew they were doing what had to be done did they? What if they were lied to? As described above. Were they doing what they knew had to be done or doing what they were told had to be done?

You had just been shown that the historians said that their views were not influenced by lies and propaganda, but were carefully thought and sensible. You clearly rejected all that. You must have believed you knew better.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 01:56 PM

I will attempt to put this as simply as I can.

Any historian, right, left, centre, published in popular bookshops or newspapers or the Internet paint A picture of WW1 not THE picture of WW1.

Most people accept this and glean information from it. Most people do not accept as "Gospel" the things that are written.

We apply the knowledge we have gained from other books and treatises and deal with the new information accordingly.

We do not accept that the particular historian is 100% correct, we apply a degree of logic to the things we read.

Thus when one person says THIS historian or THIS group of historians are correct we look at the other information we have gathered and think perhaps the TRUTH is somewhere in between.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:24 PM

Dave,
I have never disputed any of their findings. I cannot because I do not know enough about it.

I have only ever expressed 3 opinions about WW1, the first two being that Britain had no choice but to fight, and that the people supported that.

You have just been shown, again, that those are the findings of the historians.

DO YOU DISPUTE THEM?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM

Rag,
Thus when one person says THIS historian or THIS group of historians are correct we look at the other information we have gathered and think perhaps the TRUTH is somewhere in between.

On the points that I have defended, no historian has been found by any of us with a contradictory view.
You and your little group say you disagree with all of them.
You must believe that you know more about history than the historians!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

Once again professor you have demonstrated your complete inability to understand the written word.

The history you profess to read is just ONE picture of that period. They are not and cannot be the WHOLE picture.

Some people, that is those with any degree of intelligence, read absorb and decipher the information presented and consider ALL the available data.

We do not dismiss historians merely because we do not agree with their politics or that their books are not sold in High Street bookshops or because they wrote more than 20 years ago or they have an axe to grind. We accept that and judge their work accordingly.

To dismiss any historian is extremely foolish, but sadly we have come to expect no more of you.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It's really quite simple.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:00 PM

22 Nov 15 - 02:24 PM : ...the findings of the historians.

WHICH historians, Professor? The live ones or the dead ones? All historians of every nationality all over the world, or just the ones whose works are available in British "real bookshops"? The ones you have actually read (< zero) or the ones you quote by way of out-of context clips from the internet? & etc


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:10 PM

"What she actually said,"
You have put up just a few words of what she said
There is actually a greeat deal of what she said on line and a talk by her - you are selecting a few words out of context and once more making the term "historian" a laughing stock, not to mantion yourself.
In fact every historian available on line contradicts what you have to say oif you read it in full - you have edited your selections by missing out the bulk of what they have to say - as is your wont
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:15 PM

DO YOU DISPUTE THEM?

No, I don't and never have, as you well know. Instead you keep harping on about my ego and how I dispute what the experts say. I don't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 03:47 PM

"None of them are wholly correct but some are more humane than others.

Not to mention that some are more fact-based than others."


Only trouble with that Greg is that Jim Carroll and usual suspects can't come up with any facts - the best they can come up with is rumour, hearsay and fairytales - God knows they have been asked often enough to provide substantive details to support the things they contend but as now they have failed singularly to do so.

Jim Carroll just havers on in his bigoted , biased, "class warrior", Wolfie-Smith persona way while Shaw, Gnome and Raggy just like mobbing Keith A - it would appear to be their sole purpose in life - odd then that none of them have ever managed to take Keith to task on any details that he has provided


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 04:00 PM

Raggy somewhere along the line you forgot to supply any detail to back up this little contribution of yours:

"where Raggy have you ever read anything that I have stated that leads you to believe that I BELIEVE IN THE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE WRITTEN 2000 YEARS AGO"

As to discussing historians whose speciality is the First World War:

Those who studied, researched and wrote about it in the period 1972 to the present day had far more comprehensive information than those who wrote about it in the period 1929 to 1969. Perhaps you might dispute this but any grounds you might have for believing that would be very shaky indeed as the premise flies in the face of commonsense and logic - If A has more information from more varied sources than B, then A's work on the subject will be far more detailed and far more reflective and representative of reality than B's work on the same subject.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 04:19 PM

You flatter yourself Teriblunder. If you care to read my remark again I think you will find that no names are mentioned. It must be your immense ego at work ....... again.

I also see to recall that only recently, a day or two ago that you said that you would not engage with me again. I do wish you would stick to that.

Are your promises as good as your map reading.

I live in hope.


Bye for now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Nov 15 - 04:21 PM

"Only trouble with that Greg is that Jim Carroll and usual suspects can't come up with any facts -"
Bit rich for someone who makes pronouncements with no verification - ever - we are expected to take the arrogant pronouncements of a galley swabber - c#um a#wannabe soldier
You have been given the facts and you dismiss them as lies and urban legends - even when they are passed on by people who were there - "liars all"
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:05 AM

Has anyone noticed that GUEST is quoted by Keith as having said x y and z?

Apparently the many who don't wish to have Teribus find irrelevant bits about them to bully them with and those whose cookie had crumbled, not to mention those who forget to put a name and lastly those who want text not author to be considered all say the same thing!!!!

In a way that's true I suppose. Not everybody works on the same intellectual level as Keith A of Hertford and his fascination with his toy soldiers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:20 AM

"did most people believe that they were supporting a just cause or were they lied to?" - Gnome - you are asking the wrong person the question - With apologies to Mr Suffet and to quote from his excellent song:

"Ask the people of Belgium, or Alsace-Lorraine,
If my life was wasted, if I died in vain.
I think they will answer when all's said and done
That they welcomed this young man with a tin hat and gun."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:55 AM

"Questions for you professor, seeing as you have such a grasp of the subject:

1. Why if everyone thought is was a bloody good idea to go fight the Hun did the government put out so much propaganda.

2. Why did they then introduce conscription."
Asks Raggytash

In answer to your first question, between August 1914 and December 1914 over 1,200,000 men volunteered to join the British Army during a period where the British Expeditionary Force [80,000 strong out a total Army strength of 440,000] came close to being wiped out in Belgium and in France. So great was the response for men that the Army recruiting centres and training depots were completely overwhelmed. As to propaganda? All of the combatant nations churned out propaganda Raggy and do please go back to your examples and give us dates for them - because at the moment you are trying to put the incorrect idea across that they all date from August 1914. The propaganda campaign was not only targeted for home consumption - it was directed at countries that were so-far "neutral" primarily the United States of America in an attempt to convince THEIR politicians and populations of a need to become involved.

In answer to your second question. In 1914 Britain had a professional army of 440,000 men, by 1918 that Army had expanded to some 3,000,000 men [During the course of the war 2.6 million men volunteered and 2.7 were conscripted - all who joined the fight on the British side from Ireland, Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and India - were ALL volunteers], to undertake such an expansion in time of peace would have been difficult enough for any organisation, to do it in time of war when your forces are being hard pressed makes those difficulties ten times more daunting. The fact that it was accomplished and that the British Forces not only remained intact but went from being seen as "a contemptible little army" to the armed force that represented the greatest danger to the Germans on the western front indicates just how well led and trained Britain's first citizen army was. On the other hand since Napoleonic times France, Prussia(latterly Germany), Austro-Hungaria and Russia all had possessed citizen armies that relied on mass conscription. In 1914 the British Army had only light field artillery, the Germans had extremely good medium artillery to support initial attacks, the French had excellent field artillery and the thing that saved them in 1914 the best heavy artillery in the world. So Britain had to design, build and create all medium and heavy artillery, Haig "junked" two thirds of his cavalry divisions to create the Machine Gun Corps and the Royal Tank Corps - by 1916 when conscription was introduced the British Army needed men and needed to be able to assign those men to where they were needed - much easier with conscripts than with men who volunteer for service in a particular Regiment, Corps or Service. So in introducing conscription Britain just joined the rest.

No mutinies at the front during the entire course of the war, no riots or strikes at home during the entire course of the war, the same cannot be said for the Germans, the French or the Russians. That too indicates that most of the people of Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire supported the Government in the struggle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:09 AM

"You agree that most people believed they were fighting a just war. Yes? So, approximately 50% of the combatants were duped. Logic dictates that if one side were fighting a just war, then the other side were fighting an unjust one. How did the German government fool their soldiers into believing they were fighting a just war if they were not? Or were the British people more intelligent that the Germans? I really am curious." - Dave the Gnome.

That statement of yours above Gnome certainly shows that on this particular subject "that you know very little".

"One side fighting a just war the other fighting an unjust one"

Now I can see instantly why it would be considered just to come to the aid of a small country whose sovereignty has been guaranteed and whose existence as a free and independent nation is seen as being vital to my own country's national interest. Now explain to me how on earth it could in any way shape or form be viewed as right or justified to attack and invade that country and threaten total annexation just to fulfill your country's war aims.

By the way as explained in a previous post of mine the German Army as mobilised in 1914 was a citizen army that was already formed, their soldiers Gnome did not have to duped and lied to, all the German High Command had to do was to order them to attack, how the individual soldier in the German Army felt about it was of no consequence I do not believe that at any time he was consulted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:22 AM

Ah Jom, when was it that I was a "galley swabber" as you put it? Or did your little troll feed you that little piece of "Made Up Shit"? If you believe it then it simply proves my belief that you will believe anything on the basis of no supporting evidence as long as it falls in with your tooth-sucking, biased and bigoted "class-warrior" agenda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:25 AM

"That statement of yours above Gnome certainly shows that on this particular subject "that you know very little".
More unqualified proclamations - you say no evidence has been provided - where is yours?
If the soldiers thought they were fighting a just cause - they were duped into a lie - 10 million dead and millions more disfigured Congloese testify to that fact
There was nothing "just" about the brutality of Empire.
When are you pair of establishment arse-lickers going to address that fact.
It was a war to defend a predatory, murderous system and the British people went in, made their sacrifice, and ended up no better at th end of it.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:28 AM

Keith

You had just been shown that the historians said that their views were not influenced by lies and propaganda, but were carefully thought and sensible. You clearly rejected all that.

No I have not rejected it. I have simply expanded it to include all sides. Considering that both sides could not be fighting a just war then one of them must have been fighting an unjust one. The people of one country must therefore have been influenced by lies and propaganda to support it.

Teribums

I am sure Keith is quite capable of answering for himself but, seeing as you have brought up the subject of Belgium, twice, I think we could well expand your idea of asking other people what they thought was right. Maybe we should ask the people of the Belgian Congo if they thought 'brave little Belgium' was worth all the effort?

Both - I am not arguing history here but humanity. Something that you both appear to lack.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:33 AM

Several points Teribus.

1. You did state very recently you would not respond to any of my questions.

2. The questions were specifically put to the professor.

3. At no point did I mention any dates for the propaganda, in fact I only placed links to articles that I though even the professor would acknowledge (last 20 years, real historians etc)

4. We know the figures regarding volunteers v conscription I put them on another thread some months ago. The question is if support for the war was still so strong why was conscription necessary.

5. Let the professor answer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM

Rag and Dave,
The history you profess to read is just ONE picture of that period.

OK, but it is the one picture that all the historians writing about WW1 paint.
If you reject it, you are claiming to know more than the historians.

Some people, that is those with any degree of intelligence, read absorb and decipher the information presented and consider ALL the available data.

That is the job of historians.
I read their findings and that forms my views.
On what grounds do you refuse to accept them?

To dismiss any historian is extremely foolish, but sadly we have come to expect no more of you.

I do not, but historians now reject the views of some who wrote decades ago without the benefit of evidence now available.
There used to be some with different views on those points I have put, but now they are discredited and debunked.

You have been left behind.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:00 AM

Jim,
You have put up just a few words of what she said

Yes, and it is unequivocal.
They do not contradict themselves elsewhere. How could they?

Pennell, "myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

Margaret Macmillan said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "

Quite unequivocal Jim.
They reject your view completely, and you will find not one single historian who challenges either of them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:03 AM

Rag and Dave,
The history you profess to read is just ONE picture of that period.


I have said no such thing. Nor is the subsequent conversation anything to do with me. Why are you ascribing things that others have said to me, Keith?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:10 AM

It's one of his traits Dave, he said I said things you didn't say either.

Never did get the apology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:21 AM

"Maybe we should ask the people of the Belgian Congo if they thought 'brave little Belgium' was worth all the effort? "

Why Gnome? If you think for one instant that they would have been better off under German domination - then you had best think again.

As Keith A has stated I haven't yet seen so many people who admit that they "VERY LITTLE" about a subject have so many opinions and argue about it. If I started out "knowing very little" I would try to educate myself before entering the discussion. I originally came to these WWI threads in response to you and your friends unremitting bullying and mobbing of Keith A who as I read and understood his posts was putting forward fairly good points for discussion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:24 AM

"I haven't yet seen so many people who admit that they "VERY LITTLE" about a subject have so many opinions and argue about it."

Should of course read:

"I haven't yet seen so many people who admit that they "KNOW VERY LITTLE" about a subject have so many opinions and argue about it."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM

So Keith has formed an opinion?

I thought he said historians do that for him and if you think you know more than historians you are deluded?

Mind you, reading the prosaic and sometimes hilarious howlers from Keith and Teribus, you get an impression of how simple people get dragged into other people's wars.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:37 AM

Why Gnome?

Well, I assumed that seeing as you asked me to refer to a folk singer who's words were simply a parody of anothers, then it would be OK for me to refer to people who far more involved in atrocities than Mr Suffet. Still, I suppose that, like Keith, you have your rules for these things that the rest of us are not party to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:40 AM

...and how come you are still arguing with me seeing as I never bring anything germane to these debates? Are you daft?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:56 AM

Dave, the confusion arises because you now say you accept the historians' findings, but for years you have been ridiculing me for accepting the historians' findings.

The historians are clear that the British Public agreed the need to stand against the invading German armies.
You will find none that contradict that.
Do you accept or reject the findings of the historians on that Dave?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:04 AM

but for years you have been ridiculing me for accepting the historians' findings.

I think you will find I addressed that point 22 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM and on many occasions before.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this. I am sure that the British public did agree the need to stand. I am sure that the German public did agree the need to invade. I an sure that they could not both be right. There are two (or more) sides to every issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:16 AM

I remember it all. I was 7 when the war started, 13 when it ended; & perfectly conscious of what was going on. Coming from a large family [my mother was one of eight children, my father one of five] I had countless relations in the armed services. I was in London throughout the Blitz of 1940 & the flying bombs and rockets of 1944. I missed weeks of education when my school was destroyed by a 1940 landmine & the King & Queen came to inspect the damage. There was an unmistakeable spirit of public dedication and universal determination to resist invasion.

Just as well for me, at that: having been born to a Jewish family, I would never have become a senior schoolmaster, theatre critic, folk music journo, award-winning amateur actor, &c&c&c if invasion had occurred...

I would have become a bar of soap


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:20 AM

... or a lampshade


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:22 AM

GUEST of posting Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:34 AM.

Reading through this thread you (presumably) have been asked before to give examples of these "Howlers" you refer to. You failed to do so when asked before, if I predict that you will refuse to provide any such examples in response to this request, what odds does the forum in general think I'd get from Ladbrookes that I'd be backing a winner?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 06:27 AM

Coincidentally I came across this while browsing. It seemed very apt.

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change."

― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:08 AM

If you were seven when the war started, that makes you 108.

Well done.

We'll let you know when and if we get the usual suspects away from the "great" war and onto the war that had a consensus, other than Teribus's favourite newspaper, had to ge fought.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:33 AM

You can't count GUEST. My mention of 1940 made it quite clear which war I ref'd to -- WWii which started 3 Sep 1939. Which, my having been born on 12 May 1932, made me 7. And my present age 83.

Just bear in mind, would you, that nobody loves a smartarse.

And go away.

And in future have the goodness to acknowledge your fatuous posts with your name. Ashamed of it or something, are you? We Mudcatters despise pusillanimous anonymous soi-disant Guests who don't even have the manners to be civil to their hosts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:01 AM

Actually Michael you said you were 7 when the war started and finished that sentence with a full stop. You then said you came from a large family and again ended that sentence with a full stop. Then you said you were in London during the blitz of 1940.

As this topic is primarily about WW1 and the guest not knowing you it was not altogether beyond the bounds of possibility you were referring to WW1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM

Dave,
I am sure that the British public did agree the need to stand.

Thank you Dave. Jim and Rag, you have lost Dave's support on that.

I am sure that the German public did agree the need to invade. I an sure that they could not both be right.

I do know that both British and German historians are now clear that Germany was primarily responsible for the war and was the aggressor.
So if the German people supported it, they were duped, deluded or motivated by jingoistic nationalism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM

"Thank you Dave. Jim and Rag, you have lost Dave's support on that."
Still not a point-winning game Keith - you make your point by producing alternative arguments, not by gaining support
"Yes, and it is unequivocal."
it is out of context and incompete and had you read what she wrote in full, as you dishonestly claim, you would be aware of that (as you probably are but 'all's fair in love (of one's establishment)and point scoring)
"If you think for one instant that they would have been better off under German domination - then you had best think again."
Ten million of them were never given the opportunity to find out - they certainl;y would have been better off under anybody - as would those who got their hands hacked off.
Still blustering without backup I see.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 08:37 AM

The upshot of that last post must mean that you consider that the average German was much less intelligent than the average Britain.

If they were duped, deluded and motivated by jingoistic nationalism they can't have been well informed, erudite and educated.

Is this what you are saying?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:18 AM

Rag, not what I am saying.
Jim,
it is out of context and incompete and had you read what she wrote in full,

These can be seen in context by using the links I provided, and they are quite unequivocal.

Pennell, "myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

Margaret Macmillan said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:19 AM

Do you accept or reject the findings of the historians...

WHICH historians, Professor? The live ones or the dead ones? All historians of every nationality all over the world, or just the ones whose works are available in British "real bookshops"? The ones you have actually read (< zero) or the ones you quote by way of out-of context clips from the internet? & etc


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:34 AM

Thanks, Raggy. Don't think I have ever had anything I had written so minutely and exhaustively deconstructed before. Out of interest, do you favour the approach of Jacques Derrida above that Ferdinand de Saussure? Or perhaps Luce Irigaray? Or Hillis Miller?

I think we should be told!

Still think that anon GUEST a monumental pain·in·the·ɷ at that.

≈M≈

And I do wish they would go back to banning anon posts just headed GUEST -- if only becoz one never knows if two posts are from the same copulatory-stinking-bloody GUEST or two different ones & it all gets so intolewably confusing for my paw-ickle-bwain...

Max! Joe! Anybody listening? Please!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:37 AM

I have always said that I do not know enough about WW1 to dispute or agree with any of the factual statements given. I have no idea what is accurate and, as always, give people the benefit of the doubt. Why do you suggest that anyone has lost support that was never there in the first place? What I am sure of, but only by the postings on here, is that you are a pompous ass. In real life you may well be a nice bloke but until you stop pontificating and attempting to score points I will continue to ridicule you.

So if the German people supported it, they were duped, deluded or motivated by jingoistic nationalism.

Here we have a very significant statement. The British public were clever enough not be duped by propaganda. The German public were not. Nice to know that we are the intelligent ones while those nasty krauts are stupid. No wonder they lost the war...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:42 AM

You couldn't make it up could you!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:44 AM

"These can be seen in context by using the links I provided, and they are quite unequivocal."
Then explain here references to "fear" and "propaganda"
As I said, if people were persuaded it was a cause then i
it was a horrifically unjust cause - explain that
The Paxman programme spent a great deal of time on the recruiting methods used , the deception, the bullying the emotional blackmail that took place and the fact that this noble cause was so important to the people, after 18 months it collapsed and enforced conscription was introduced - if the cause was so noble - why did that happen - explain that.
You have studiously avoided the immorality of the war, of the near wiping out of almost an entire generation - is that so unimportant to you?- it obviously is - you "Christians" really curl me up.
In two years and over the space of half-a dozen thread you have refused to respond to any of these points and have clung to out-of context quotes by historians you have not read (but claim you have)
What kind of people are you - you certainly lack a shred of humanity?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:19 AM

"the fact that this noble cause was so important to the people, after 18 months it collapsed and enforced conscription was introduced - if the cause was so noble - why did that happen - explain that."

After 18 months it collapsed? Where Jom? In Australia, in Ireland, In Canada, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in Newfoundland, in India? Are you trying to tell me that nobody from those countries volunteered after March 1916? Are you trying to tell me that there were no volunteers from Great Britain after 1916? If so then you would be wrong. Every other combatant nation had started out with conscripted citizen armies, Britain and the British Government were told on day one that they too would have to raise one and that Jom old son was exactly what they did - however they did not have to rely in any way on conscription until the war was nearly half way through.

"You have studiously avoided the immorality of the war, of the near wiping out of almost an entire generation"

The immorality of the war?? What started out as a minor dispute between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia was manipulated and forced by German meddling and intransigence into the largest conflict the world had seen - Now then "Wolfie" I can see the immorality in that, especially as part and parcel of that German meddling was the goal of annexing Belgium and their colonies and robbing France of hers in order to then go on and attack the British. Tell me Jom, all those British workers beavering away and earning their daily crust producing and manufacturing all those widgets back then in 1914 before the war - where were they sold? Rhetorical question chump, they were sold to customers in the British Empire, her Dominions and her colonies. Now had the Germans managed to destroy the British Empire (As they tried to do by their support for the Boers in South Africa) who would all those workers in British factories be making stuff for? Or would they have found themselves out of work? And that "Wolfie" was a consequence that Niall Ferguson failed to grasp when he made his case for Great Britain staying out of what was known as the Great War.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM

"I have always said that I do not know enough about WW1 to dispute or agree with any of the factual statements given. I have no idea what is accurate and, as always, give people the benefit of the doubt." - DtG.

Absolutely risible, Gnome - In your self-confessed ignorance of the subject under discussion, when on earth have you EVER given Keith A the "benefit of the doubt

Looks like Guest Observer is going to win his bet if indeed he/she placed it - But for the GUEST he was referring to (Most likely Musktwat) the above from the Gnome - Now that really is a HOWLER of the first magnitude.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:34 AM

when on earth have you EVER given Keith A the "benefit of the doubt"

Always, Teribums. Evidenced in multiple threads and responses where I have said I have no reason to doubt him. I even believe stuff you tell me. Sometimes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:35 AM

...just because you believe someone doesn't stop them being a pratt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:46 AM

Dave and Rag, I do not even know how much support there was in Germany.
I have never looked into it.
You say there was Dave, but you do not tell us how you know.
And do you know how independent their press was?

I would never suggest that any population is more clever or stupid than any other.

My actual post,
"So IFthe German people supported it, they were duped, deluded or motivated by jingoistic nationalism."

Perhaps it was the latter.
Remarque's book "All Quiet On The Western Front" has the main character and his friends persuaded to enlist by the nationalistic, jingoistic fervour of their schoolmaster.
Remarque was writing of the common experience of Germans, and he would not have included anything unusual or atypical.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 10:58 AM

"After 18 months it collapsed? "
It did in Britain Cookie - I thought that's what we were talking about.
No idea what happened in those countries - what on earth has it to do with the opic on hand apart from it being another rat-hole to hide in.
IT COLLAPSED IN BRITAIN - OR IS THIS ANOTHER URBAN MYTH?
Banck to th pot and pan's I'm afraid Mr Woodencock.
The war was a defence of colonies - a family dispute over who got to milk the poorer nations, or in Belgium's case, who got to slaughter and hack pieces off them - may not b immoral to you Tebbitites, but pretty sick to the rest of us.
If the war was inevitable it was due to the predatory nature of colonialism - that it why a generation of British youth were sacrifed because they had been sent to slaughter the same genration of German youth who they did not know and had no quarrel with - pretty obscene, doncha think - my mistake, of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be putting up such efforts to tell us how noble it all was.
Can I smell burning bacon - sorry for distracting you fromk your work - back to your stove.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 11:10 AM

You say there was Dave, but you do not tell us how you know.

I don't know, Keith, but certain news articles indicate that the war was enthusiastically accepted in Germany. I believe a young Adolph Hitler was at a rally in Munich celebrating the outbreak of war but I am, as ever, willing to defer to someone who knows for sure. You say you don't know either. Anyone out there who does know what German reaction was?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 11:31 AM

Dave, you said, "I am sure that the German public did agree the need to invade."

How can you be sure?
I have no idea if they did or not.
IF they did, was it just the nationalistic fervour that they demonstrated again a few years later and which Remarque wrote about?

Were they lied to?
You tell us, because I do not know Dave.

I do know that the British public were not deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict.

Margaret Macmillan said, "Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did,"


Pennell, "myths have built up that suggest ordinary British and Irish people backed the war because they were deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict. My research shows that this was simply not the case."

The University of East Anglia (Paxman programmes) say the same as does Sheffield, Todman and every other historian who has expressed an opinion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:25 PM

More cut-'n'pastes - no honest responses
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 12:42 PM

Found any quote that supports you view Jim?
No.
Found any that contradict mine.
No Jim.

The historians findings are quite unequivocal.
The myths you cling to are discredited, debunked and rubbished.
Sorry Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM

"I do know that the British public were not deluded, brainwashed and naïvely duped into supporting the conflict"

But you are quite happy to believe the German population were.

Is there no end to this man's ignorance? What ******* planet does he live on?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 01:50 PM

"Found any that contradict mine."
]You have been given examples of what your own "historians" have said, stretcing back to last yers threads and you choose to ignore them - your latest "lets not go there "historian" being typical
She talks about propaganda and peer pressure, the fear, the emotional blackmail - all historians that have gone public do so
She also points out the complex reasons for joining up[, as do many others.
The fact you choose to ignore itt and only take the bits that suit is basically what you do.
You did it with Kineally, who blew up in your face when it turned out that she was saying exactly the opposite, yet you still clung on as you probably will now.
Your obsessive urge to defend every shitty thing Britain has ever done makes you one strange individual.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM

Ah but Jom what would have happened to all those workers producing widgets for the Empire, houkin coal to power the factories and ships needed to carry those widgets to their markets and bring back raw materials to make even more improved widgets - all of them out of work Wolfie, what on earth could they have turned their hands to? Folk Music? They could have followed your example and wandered round the country cherry-picking unsubstantiated and unverifiable stories to suit their own bigoted views on any subject you like, so that at a later date they could bore the pants of everybody retelling the tale.

Conscription was introduced because it made sense and was simpler. The British people knew very well why they fighting, why Germany had to be defeated and they knew what they were fighting to preserve.

Germany had only been a country for just over 40 years and they most certainly were extremely "nationalistic", all aspects of the country's foreign policy were held in the hands of the Emperor and a militaristic autocracy that lusted after supreme power in Europe and the establishment of an empire overseas. Wellington at the Congress of Vienna predicted that rabid nationalism was extremely dangerous and would tear Europe apart - how right he was.

Now then Jom tell us again why if "your" witnesses" saw soldiers from their own units being summarily executed why those same witnesses chatting away into your tape recorded couldn't refer to any of the victims by name? You see my commonsense, reasoning and logic tells me that IF such a thing ever occurred and a person saw it it and every detail related to it would have been seared on their minds forever. But there again you didn't even check to see if the old boy telling you the story was ever even in the Army did you - some bloody researcher you are - totally useless. By the way Jom, what is it that you have against cooks, that compels you to regard them with such contempt that you use their job title as an insult? Not very egalitarian, liberal, or charitable of you my little "wannabe working class hero".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:40 PM

Mudcat allows a person to be judged by what they type, not who they are. Please note Mr Lion or whatever your name is.

I like the idea that bullies such as Teribus and Keith A of Hertford have to either address what you put or ignore you. (Even if they address it, they ignore what you put anyway and waffle on with irrelevance and silly point scoring.)

So rather than scream that you don't know who is typing, try reading what they type instead prat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:41 PM

The English, the English, the English are best
I wouldn't give a tuppence for all of the rest







Sadly some silly buggers actually believe this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 02:50 PM

--Your obsessive urge to defend every shitty thing Britain has ever done makes you one strange individual.
Jim Carroll--

,..,
Find myself rather oddly reacting, Jim, to your apparent obsessive hatred of your own country. To hear you tell it, you appear to think that "shitty things" are all Britain has ever done. I appreciate that much of what you write is responding to other people's points, the exigencies of argument making you emphasise certain aspects to the detriment of the whole picture. But with all due respect, I find it peculiarly off-putting. Reminds me of Koko's Little List in The Mikado, which included

The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 03:02 PM

"Find myself rather oddly reacting, Jim, to your apparent obsessive hatred of your own country"
No I don't Mike - I hate what the politicians, bankers and big businessmen have done to my country.
The same goes for Ireland, where I now live.
The people I have spent my life with fill me with admiration and total respect - but the politicians - of all breeds - something else.
"what on earth could they have turned their hands to? Folk Music?"
Could have joined the army - saw that on a beer-mat in the Scottish Borders once - can't get a job - join the army.
Not sure what you're saying Popeye, me old shipmate - that the Empitre wasn't predatory - that they were an ungrateful lot for wanting out and biting the hand that fed them?
Gi'e us a break!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 04:35 PM

Sadly some silly buggers actually believe this.

Not just the UK, if that's any consolation. Plenty of butt-heads in the U.S. believe in nonsensical "American Exceptionalism".

Find myself rather oddly reacting, Jim, to your apparent obsessive hatred of your own country.

Well, EmGee, puts me in mind of the idiotic "America: Love It Or Leave It" jingoism. And you commonly react oddly- its one of your trademarks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:22 PM

Ay don't do anything 'commonly', if you don't maind, may dear Gee·Eff.

& if it's one of may ©'trademarks'©, then Ay'd better not ketch you traying to imitate it, hed Ay!

Wouldn't be may at all!

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 05:35 PM

Mr Lion or whatever your name is
...

My name is Michael Grosvenor Myer, as anyone who knows anything about the Folk Scene, or about Mudcat, knows.


try reading what they type instead prat...

Now, now; temper, temper! Just behave yourself on this decent forum, on which you are officiously intruding your unwanted and ill-informed presence, you vulgar little nonentity. If you are a Guest, then oblige us by conducting yourself with appropriate civility to your hosts, please; and refrain from telling them what, in your inaccurate opinion, may be permitted on their own forum.

Avaunt and quit my sight -- Macbeth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 07:10 PM

Missing the point aren't you Jom. Had Great Britain stood apart and ignored it's treaty obligations and decided than it was unimportant to look after the national interest then millions would have been out of work within 15 years.

Empire purely a force for evil?? A pretty naive view on things if applied to the British Empire which when all said and done was established on trade not conquest. Was it all sweetness and light? A bed of roses? Did those who ruled get it perfectly right all the time? Of course they bloody well didn't and nobody is attempting even remotely of suggesting that. Suggest you read Naill Ferguson's Book "Empire" he puts it far better than I could. Now without Great Britain and her Empire Jom:

- The Slave trade would have continued and expanded without a stutter, it was the British and the Royal Navy that broke it.

- Piracy would have hampered and limited trade and acted as a brake on development throughout the world, it was the British and the Royal Navy that ended the scourge of piracy allowing merchant ships of all nations to trade and sail unhindered.

- Development throughout the world was rapid due to the British industrial revolution which provided wealth and employment

- British inventions and engineering made the world smaller and more accessible.

- Advances in medicine took on and greatly reduced, and in some cases eradicated, some of the worlds greatest killers

- Spread of Parliamentary democracy, rule of law and order, came as part and parcel of the British Empire

The list Carroll goes on and on. Ferguson also states that by the 1880s the Empire was actually costing Great Britain money and it would have disappeared anyway.

On two occasions Great Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire came to the world's rescue and stood against would be tyrants, it cost her dear, but the costs of not acting were far higher. You ignore all that if you wish to, I won't and every time you trot out your idiotic, biased and bigoted beliefs I will pull you up on them. Those aired in this thread and in previous threads on WWI have been shown to consist of nothing but fairytales, whereas everything that has been stated by either myself, or Keith can be backed up by verifiable substantive evidence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Recidivist
Date: 23 Nov 15 - 11:08 PM

Mr. M.G.M., I appreciated your story.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Recidivist
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:29 AM

MGM Lion thinking just now I'd like to share one with you.

My Dad (orphaned at three (1920) was taken-in by a extended family of German Jews who his maternal aunt had married into. Long story short...in his 90's he candidly admitted being glad he wasn't raised by his own family (and honestly so am I (bunch of rough-necks).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:07 AM

Much gratified by your appreciation, Recidivist; and very interested in your father's experiences. Thank you.

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:04 AM

Dear Michael Grover Myer

I've been going to folk clubs and festivals for nearly forty years but haven't heard of you, if it helps.

My point being that who you are is irrelevant. It's what you type that allows me to start my day with a chuckle.

If Keith A of Hertford and Teribus posted anonymously, it wouldn't be difficult to notice patterns but more importantly each post by them would invoke the same opinion from me and I suspect, most people.

Yet their egos think it is something to do with them not the shit they spread on the Mudcat field. Your pompous post seems to self elevate you up to their depths.

Yours sincerely,

Person who enjoys debate


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:49 AM

Did I miss anything?

No. Still as daft as ever, this type of thread.

Hi Terribulus. Keep reading your newspapers. Clapton forbid you might learn something. Keith, Keith, Keith. Tell you what. If we give you double points for 24 hours, will that do? We can't have you not scoring points. zzz

Micha...

Nurse! He's out of bed again!






Eyup co Messiahs. What have I told you about playing with the Philistines?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:54 AM

"Had Great Britain stood apart and ignored it's treaty obligations and decided than it was unimportant to look after the national interest then millions would have been out of work within 15 years."
The war wasn't sold on treaty obligations - one of the great catchalls that persuaded young men to sacrifice their lives for 'Poor little Belgium' complete with pictures of nuns being ravaged and bayoneted - a pretended humanity that was sadly missing when Conglese rubber workers were being massacred in their millions and having their hands chopped off.
It was a colonial war for territory and it never pretended to be anything else (until now) - still remember the three volume set of 'The Great Imperial War' on our school bookshelf as late as the early 1950s.
"A pretty naive view on things if applied to the British Empire"
Natives being incapable of ruling themselves without the British Empire - Jay-sus - that takes me back to my schooldays!!
A gentle reminder that Britain was the main instigator of slavery and the powers that be fought ***** hard to keep it in its place until it was replaced by a different kind of slavery of the type that slaughtered a million Irish people (just 60 years before W.W.1). as "God's punishment for indolence".
Colonialism was an appalling system of oppression and exploitation and is now recognised as such in the civilised world (even reactionary Ronnie Reagan used the term as one of abuse when he referred to The Soviet Union as 'The Evil Empire')
But it's great to be back in the mid-1950s for a short visit as a reminder of those arrogant and patronising good old days.
You pair really are stereotype anachronisms
Made my day, you really have!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM

Rag, But you are quite happy to believe the German population were.

I have said no such thing.

Jim, You have been given examples of what your own "historians" have said, stretcing back to last yers threads and you choose to ignore them

If that is true give an example. You can not deny the unequivocal quotes I have provided.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:48 AM

Ah yes Teriblunder, the wonderful twenties and thirties for the average working Brit. Lack of investment in new techniques, depleted coal reserves, depression, decline, poverty, unemployment over 2,000,000 by the mid 20's, the great strike of 26 and the fantastic Wall Street crash of 29 leading into the depression of the 1930's.
Unemployment up to 2,500,000, crumbling industry due to lack of investment, the Jarrow Marches, more depression, the Means Test.

My God it makes you proud to be British.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:49 AM

Final programme of the Paxman series, made in collaboration with the University of East Anglia History Faculty,

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.

57 minutes in. Paxman to camera, "
Later generations would contend it had been a futile war. The war was terrible certainly, but hardly futile.
It stopped the German conquest of much of Europe, and perhaps even of villages like this.

Never before in the nation's History had a war required the commitment and the sacrifice of the whole population, and by and large, for 4 years, the British people kept faith with it."

He and the team clearly saying
1: That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;
2: That the British people overwhelmingly understood and accepted that;


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:06 AM

Guest of 24 Nov 0304 am ==

"Not to know me argues yourself unknown" (Paradise Lost) IV 830

Obviously during those 40 years you were not a reader of Folk Review whose regular tailpiece I wrote for 4 years as well as some hundred + reviews & features; nor of The Guardian, whose regional theatre critic and folk record reviewer I was for ¼C, late 60s-90s; nor of The Times Ed or The Times for which I reviewed folk records, festivals, concerts &c for about 20 years. You don't seem to have gone very deeply into the subject.

≈M≈


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:08 AM

Glad to afford you a chuckle, nonetheless...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:12 AM

"In June 2014 Paxman, speaking at the Chalke Valley History Festival about his new book, Britain's Great War, confirmed "what many had suspected about his political leanings", admitting he was a "one-nation Tory"


History credentials ................. none I think.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:30 AM

Gosh can I have your autograph?

I've heard of Colin Irwin if that helps.

Of course, them as can do and those who can't teach. Reviewers and critics are often shocked to find how much they are dismissed as irrelevant so no wonder nobody had heard of you.

So,.. Now we know your knowledge of WW1 to be as second hand and subjective as anyone's, care to make a contribution to the debate in hand rather than tell us all how important you are?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:54 AM

"That Britain had no choice but to resist the German onslaught;"
Not the perogative of either Historians or TV presenters
"If that is true give an example."
You've been given examples over and over again - why the hell should I dig out more for you to ignore
You really aren't important enough with your quaint jingoism to put in any more time - you fake the attitudes of historians you haven't read and you ignore everything they have to say.
By the way - Paxman dealt with some of the military disasters of the war caused by shoddy leadership - the "wrong shell" fiasco by Kitchjener being a prime example.
Another case of your taking somebody out of context to back up your jingoism
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:18 AM

Anotehr incident deal#t with by Paxman was the Battle of Loos - again a fiasco caused largely by underestimating the opposition - neatly summed up here -
"The failure at Loos led to the removal of General French from his position as commander-in-chief of the British Army and he was replaced by General Haig on 19 December 1915. Despite the severe setbacks, volunteers continued to swell the ranks of Kitchener's New Army which was fortunate because by March 1916 the British sector of the front extended from Ypres to the Somme, the French having abandoned Artois to fight in the infernal cauldron of Verdun.
Astonishingly, the grave errors committed by the British High Command at the Battle of Loos were not learnt from and were to be repeated on the first day of the Battle of the Somme which ended on 1 July 1916 in the greatest disaster in the history of the British Army."
Dare we mention Gallipoli?
Would you likje to tot up the number of dead that resulted because of these cock-ups
Good leadership my arse.
It was the job of the leaders to send the soldiers they had at their disposal (excellent word to describe their job) over the top in enough numbers to make headway - how long did it take to take Passchendaele, how many lives were expended and what was gained at the end of it?
That is good butchery, not good leadership.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:55 AM

Jim, it was you who decided that Paxman was relevant to this thread.
Rag, he was just the presenter.
The history content came from the University of East Anglia.

Not the perogative of either Historians

Er, it is history Jim. Who else's prerogative? (You think it is yours obviously!)

You've been given examples over and over again - why the hell should I dig out more for you to ignore

You have not. Quotes from the historians all support my views (that is where I got them!) and rubbish yours.

And Jim, in a four year war of a kind never known before, mistakes inevitably were made.
You will find no historian who finds the British leadership incompetent or less effective than that of any other of the armies involved.
You have your opinion, and the people who have studied all the evidence say it is shit.
Sorry Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM

Somme 30th June 1916
Aide: What do we do tomorrow General?
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 1 July
Aide: General we got 57,470 casualties 19,240 killed what do we do tomorrow General
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 2 July
Aide: Load more casualties General, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 3 July
Aide: Load more casualties General, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 4 July
Aide: Load more casualties Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 5 July
Aide: Load more casualties Sir, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 6 July
Aide: Loads of dead and maimed Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 7 July
Aide: We've lost a shed of men Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 8 July
Aide: Loads more wounded and killed, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 9 July
Aide: Same as yesterday Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 10 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 11 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the

Somme 12 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 13 July
Aide: Loads more dead and maimed Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 14 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 15 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 16 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 17 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 18 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 19 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 20 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 21 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 22 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 23 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 24 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 25 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 26 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 27 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Some 28 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 29 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 30 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top

Somme 31 July
Aide: Guess what Boss, what do we do tomorrow
Haig: Send the men over the top


And so on all through August, September, October and into November.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:23 AM

I doubt any of the people you refer to have read Jim's assessment so how can you say they reckon it is shit?

Evidence, references, citations... Come on, we are waiting.

Actually, there were quite a few mistakes. Enough to fill a book. What shall we call the book? I know what, let's call it Donkeys.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:32 AM

"Astonishingly, the grave errors committed by the British High Command at the Battle of Loos were not learnt from and were to be repeated on the first day of the Battle of the Somme which ended on 1 July 1916 in the greatest disaster in the history of the British Army."

Hmmm grave errors committed by the British High Command? Or grave errors imposed upon the British High Command at the insistence of the French Generals who when all said and done were at all times formed the Supreme Allied Commanders in France.

At Loos in August 1915 Haig told Sir John French that the area assigned for his First Army's attack by Joffre was far from suitable (As described by the French General), Haig also advised Sir John French that for the plan to have any chance at all for success the Reserves had to available instantly so therefore had to be held close to the front. Sir John French ignored Haig's advice - As you will no doubt refuse to take my word for it then read the words of a man who was there:

"A great deal of nonsense has been written about Loos. The real tragedy of that battle was its nearness to complete success. Most of us who reached the crest of Hill 70, and survived, were firmly convinced that we had broken through on that Sunday, 25th September 1915. There seemed to be nothing ahead of us, but an unoccupied and incomplete trench system. The only two things that prevented our advancing into the suburbs of Lens were, firstly, the exhaustion of the "Jocks" themselves (for they had undergone a bellyfull of marching and fighting that day) and, secondly, the flanking fire of numerous German machine-guns, which swept that bare hill from some factory buildings in Cite St. Auguste to the south of us. All that we needed was more artillery ammunition to blast those clearly-located machine-guns, plus some fresh infantry to take over from the weary and depleted "Jocks." But, alas, neither ammunition nor reinforcements were immediately available, and the great opportunity passed.
— Richard Hilton, who was present at the battle acting as a Forward Artillery Observation Officer.


In March 1915 the British First Army under Haig attacked at Neuve-Chapelle, All objectives were taken but Sir John French kept the reserves too far to the rear so that they could not deployed when they were needed to exploit the break through - The Germans mounted numerous counter attacks and lost heavily - Jom listen to this next bit, something that none of your 1929 to 1969 historians and playwrights ever heard about because it wasn't known till much later once German records were researched and translated - Neuve-Chapelle so frightened the Germans that it became policy after this battle that for the German Army when facing British Troops the lines of defence had to be doubled in strength and prepared in depth. That was the factor that met Haig's First Army at Loos and once again they very nearly succeeded. Two fuck-ups to Sir John French so he was sacked and replaced by Haig (Under the Buggins's turn system prevalent in the pre-war British Army the job should have gone to Robertson, but he had no experience of combat in France against the Germans, Haig had by now given the Germas a fright on two occasions so at Robertson's insistence Haig took command of the Army in France and he accepted the job of Chief of the Imperial General Staff)

The Somme in 1916 again was a fight picked for the British Army in France by British Politicians at home [David Lloyd George] and French Supreme Commanders with the primary objective of relieving pressure on the French defending Verdun. As at Loos Haig argued that to attack on the Somme was to attack at the wrong place place - Haig wanted to attack in Flanders in 1916, but again as at Loos Haig was over-ruled. The attack had to be made in conjunction with the French and that meant the Somme. However things were going so badly for the French at Verdun that roughly half the French troops who were supposed to have been attacking with the British on the Somme on the right flank of the British were withdrawn and sent to Verdun instead, as the "junior partner" Haig had no say or leverage in the overall scheme of things. The German Commander in the west in 1916 Falkenhayn started the year off promising to bleed the allies white using simple attrition - by the end of 1916 it was the Germans who had been bled white and Falkenhayn was dismissed - the Germans after 1916 knew that they could not defeat either the French or the British on the western front until after they had defeated the Russians in the east. The 1st of July 1916 might have been a bloody day and a disaster for the British Army, but 1916 ended up as being a bloody year for the German Army and a year that they never recovered from, we on the other hand did. It also caused the Germans to build and withdraw to the Hindenburg Line

And as you mentioned Passchendale Jom here we have another instance of David Lloyd George's meddling. Lloyd George completely mesmerized by the promises of the planned Nivelle offensive ordered Haig to attack at Passchendale in order that the ports on the Belgian coast being used by German U-boats could be captured, Haig argued that the ground on the Somme would be better for the tanks he know had at his disposal - Once again the advice and opinion of the man tasked with doing the job was ignored by those sitting hundreds of miles away from the action.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM

Brilliant, blame the French it was all their fault !!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:47 AM

GUEST - 24 Nov 15 - 08:20 AM

And AFTER November 1916 GHOST?

- German Army had lost the best they had and just simply could not replace them

- That German Army considered by many throughout the world as being the best in the world had been beaten by Britain's first ever citizen army, who now knew with 100% certainty that they would win.

- That German Army come September of 1916 began constructing the Hindenburg Line to their rear and in November 1916 retreated to their new DEFENSIVE position

- The German Commander Falkenhayn was sacked and replaced.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM

Well then GUEST - 24 Nov 15 - 08:36 AM if you are the same prat who posted at 08:02 AM if it was all Haig's fault because he was in Command then it must surely follow that the person who's actual fault it was has to have been the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and at all times from August 1914 until November 1918 he was a Frenchman - Or didn't you know that? You'll be telling us about REDTOPS next.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM

He was a General for ***** sake not the teaboy.

You create a fuss, a big one involving governments . You say these bastards are killing all my troops.

You do not stand by and let it happen day after day, week after week, month after months.

OR you resign.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:47 AM

And how many armies have you commanded Raggy? How many battles fought with you in command where others have picked the time, the place and the enemy?

I would venture to guess that the answer to both of the above would be NONE - Yet for someone who says they know very little about the War and the period you trot out that rubbish ( Raggytash - 24 Nov 15 - 09:24 AM)

In the vast expanse of your relevant experience Raggy can you tell me how many Generals have resigned in time of war whilst on active service? IIRC "resignation" is not an option open to them, they can protest and complain all they like, they can act and seek dismissal but if done they face the music for it when they reach home.

Oh and for your information on the Somme the horrendous British losses were restricted to one area of quite an extensive front. Joffre insisted on feeding more men into that particular area but Haig refused, instead he reinforced commanders who were making ground and at the end of the battle:

"British and French forces had penetrated 6 miles (9.7 km) into German-occupied territory, taking more ground than any offensive since the Battle of the Marne in 1914."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:52 AM

You seem to forget you are not replying to me. Haven't you anyone to tug your forelock to today.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:01 AM

And how many armies have you commanded Raggy?

Et tu, T-Bird?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM

Rag, you and Jim cling to your myth of incompetent generals.
Only sad old class warriors still believe that, and because they are just sad old class warriors.

You will find no single historian who believes that.
Again you are arguing against the historians about history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM

And only idiots like you believe everything that you read.

Some of us read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come to a reasoned conclusion based on ALL the evidence we have digested, not just the evidence that suits our preconceptions.

You have shown time and time again you are incapable of such reasoned analysis.

Oh, by the way, don't bother to tell me the 3 points again I've heard them all before.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:27 PM

Keith
**** Paxman - **** your historians
You claim to have "made a life-long study of WW1
If that is true If you claim the war was well led - YOU EXPLAIN SEBASTAPOL, LOOS, THE FIRST DAY OF THE SOMME, THE AMMUNITION COCK-UP
you have persistently hidden behind historians you have nott red by misquoting or only partially quoting them
When this is pointed out to you, yo ignore it, go on with your claims, the claim that nobody else had given proof you have lied.
You are the most dishonest and shameless contributor to this forum
If you have "made a lifelong study of th war, explain the aboove, and tell us why the war was well led and not the simple bu#tcchery of sending men to be slaughtered as fast as they could get them under their command - where are the tactics that made it a "well conducted war" as you pair of clowns claim?
Failure to answer these points - not a mythical historian - YOU - will confirm what we already know - that the pair of you are mindless jingoists
By the way - which one of you is General Melchett and which Darling?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

Many historians conclude that the generals were incompetent in many ways, including a callous disregard for the safety and welfare of those in their charge. Dereliction of duty, as Sheffield, a historian, noted.

If Keith A of Hertford repeats his mantra enough times, he thinks others might believe him. The evidence, fields of the fucking things, says otherwise. The hours of carving on thousands of war memorials say otherwise. The evocative words "lest we forget" says otherwise.

Incompetent military thinking goes back as long as you can think. From bad planning by the French at Agincourt, our less well known fuck ups of the time, through to the Crimea, via Galipoli and the whole of the western front, via small fishing boats rescuing the soldiers poorly led and planned in WW2 to Suez, Cyprus and NI, all the way to poor planning and inadequate equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's before we look at military incompetence at MoD in learning to spell the word "budget." Any chance of recruit training without coroner fucking inquests?

So... Why, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, should anyone believe that military top brass just happened to become competent for four years out of a few hundred? Especially four years when all over Europe, a whole generation were butchered and damned, to coin the phrase.

It's funny to read the bullshit and aggressive bollocks of Teribus and Keith A of Hertford, but their silly point scoring and cap doffing attitude is displayed here on a very serious subject. And displays rather poor taste. Some here actually know what they are talking about. A pity they are derided by ignorance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:15 PM

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said I may not know much about history, but I do know about humanity. Haig and Co. may have been the best generals in the world, with the backing of historians and the adulation of the press but they still callously sent thousands of men to their deaths. OK, call them the heroes that won the war but don't forget the cost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:46 PM

"only idiots like you believe everything that you read.

Some of us read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come to a reasoned conclusion based on ALL the evidence we have digested, not just the evidence that suits our preconceptions.

You have shown time and time again you are incapable of such reasoned analysis."


Do we believe everything that we read? I don't believe much of what A.J.P. Taylor wrote about the First World War. I certainly do not believe or agree with the conclusions drawn by many of the 1929/1969 "revisionists" (Especially the likes of Alan Clark who like Jom just "Made Up Shit") Why? Because others followed who studied and researched the period armed with far better knowledge and new and far better information from a far greater, varied and wider range of sources - and their conclusions were vastly different from the idiotic likes of "Donkeys", "Blackadder Goes Forth" and "Oh What A Lovely War" (I know the latter was dear to the heart of someone once married to Ewan MacColl - which means that Jom has swallowed all that shit ""hook-line-and-sinker). Would those be the sources that some of you (For some read "The Musktwats", Raggytush, The Rotund Balding Gnome and Steve Shaw) "read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come" up with a load of complete and utter bollocks that doesn't even withstand the most cursory challenge. All in all it seems a bit strange because to date we have:

1: Dave the rotund gnome
2: Ragged Arse
3: Steve Shaw

All professing that they all know very little about the First World War, yet here we have Ragged Arse stating that he believes that they have "read, digest, consider, read other authors, digest, consider and then come to a reasoned conclusion based on ALL the evidence we have digested" Well I would have said having considered and digested that information that over the course of the last 18 odd months we've been discussing this subject that by know if indeed you had done as you have stated you have done, you would ,or should by now know a great deal about the subject - and yet you don't, in fact you are as clueless today as you were when all this started as an attempt to bully and drive Keith A from this forum - an attempt that I am pleased to say has failed spectacularly.

As for the bit about just believing the evidence that suits your preconceptions - that is precisely what you have done throughout. Do you actually want me to detail the stuff that you have claimed as being true yet cannot provide a single shred of evidence to back up your statements. Not once have you been able to challenge a single thing stated by either myself, Keith A, Lighter, GUEST# and others. All you have succeeded in doing is to make yourselves out to be complete and utter fools.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:05 PM

Well, apart from, once again, I have never disputed any historical facts, I don't carry on arguing with someone who I have already stated adds nothing to the discussion do I teribumkins?

Who's the fool now?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest - if you must know
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:18 PM

The person behind the anonymous moniker Teribus appears to be someone who should restrict their internet usage if they can't get beyond dismissing anyone who doesn't share his personality disorder.

Regarding the original post, I feel it is jingoism these days on the back of what was commemoration of those the original cenotaph standers actually knew.

Old men who cannot come to terms with not being heroes in the eyes of those who see as as abhorrent coupled with politicians and clergy for whom war is convenient. Look at how we are forgetting welfare, NHS, social care and equitable spending in the last week because the government, thankful as ever to ISIS, are taking the opportunity to spend what they have on boosting their ability to control people, security and yes, irrelevant military spending that is neither designed nor competent to deal with disillusioned communities and countries we fuck with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:30 PM

Rag,
And only idiots like you believe everything that you read.

I believe the historians when they all say the same thing.
Only an idiot would imagine that they knew more about history than they do!

Jim,
If that is true If you claim the war was well led -

I am not an historian and make no claims about history.
I do claim that all the historians say our leadership was competent, and they do know about all those issues you listed.

Guest,
Dereliction of duty, as Sheffield, a historian, noted.

No he did not.
You made that up. A silly lie from a silly man ashamed of his identity (Musket.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:38 PM

What Sheffield really says,

"One undeniable fact is that Britain and its allies, not Germany, won the First World War. Moreover, Haig's army played the leading role in defeating the German forces in the crucial battles of 1918. In terms of the numbers of German divisions engaged, the numbers of prisoners and guns captured, the importance of the stakes and the toughness of the enemy, the 1918 'Hundred Days' campaign rates as the greatest series of victories in British history.

Even the Somme (1916) and Passchendaele (1917), battles that have become by-words for murderous futility, not only had sensible strategic rationales but qualified as British strategic successes, not least in the amount of attritional damage they inflicted on the Germans."

"He(Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM

Teribus, dear boy, as I have refrained from contributing anything at all to the substantive in this thread, I would thank you for not dragging me in for your contumely as if I have. Thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:17 PM

Magaret Macmillan,

The wartime generals were not all cowards and incompetents as Alan Clark argued in his infamous The Donkeys (1961). A new generation of British historians, among others, has done much to explode such lazy generalisation and show that commanders developed both strategies and tactics that, in the end, worked.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/7b6f0490-6347-11e3-a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2oJ9WwKyd


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:20 PM

GUEST with regard to your post of 24 Nov 15 - 12:54 PM

The first bit and the "made up" quote from Sheffield - Well maybe it wasn't made up maybe some "man-in-the-street" in the city of Sheffield said it but certainly not Dr Gary Sheffield the historian whose specialty is the study of the First World War - Keith A has quite comprehensively just blown that little invention of yours out of the water.

Let us therefore have a look at rest of your post.

"If Keith A of Hertford repeats his mantra enough times, he thinks others might believe him. The evidence, fields of the fucking things, says otherwise. The hours of carving on thousands of war memorials say otherwise. The evocative words "lest we forget" says otherwise."

What Mantra? I recall he listed three points that represented the current prevailing historical opinion with respect to Great Britain's involvement and prosecution of the First World War, he put those points up for discussion and was attacked for doing so on the basis that those points of view had been formulated by Keith A himself - not really his fault that his moronic attackers could not read and comprehend basic English. The "evidence" you are emotively trying to refer to are the graves, which are to be used as the metric for judging the competence of those who led the British Army? If that is the case then please explain why those who commanded the French and German Armies do not feature? After all of the three main protagonists fighting on the Western Front the British suffered the fewest killed and wounded, was that down to the poor quality of their leaders?

"Incompetent military thinking goes back as long as you can think."

Hate to burst your bubble but:

"Incompetent thinking in all walks of life, both in peace and in war goes back as long as you can think."

Only trouble is that looking back through those ages in terms of military thinking Great Britain's Army and more importantly her Navy did rather well when asked to act in defence of the realm.

When it comes to incompetence and waste related to Government Ministries and their "budgets", why highlight the MOD (After all their "Budget" is tiny compared to those of the real wastrels) C'mon GUEST tell us about the billions wasted in Health, Welfare and Education. On Coroner Inquests I don't think our hospitals come out too well there especially the Stafford Hospital - tell us the number of deaths deemed to be excessive due to lack of care over a two year period - IIRC it was roughly three times our entire Afghan fatalities which were spread over 13 years of combat - Incompetence you prat with those figures it meant that you were safer on foot patrol in Sangin District of Helmand Province in Afghanistan in 2007 than you would have been if you were admitted to that hospital's A&E Department the same year.

"So... Why, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, should anyone believe that military top brass just happened to become competent for four years out of a few hundred? Especially four years when all over Europe, a whole generation were butchered and damned, to coin the phrase."

What evidence to the contrary? The achievements and innovations introduced by the British in those four years were astounding considering the starting points for each of the main 1914 combatant nations. And if victory is any metric by which to judge military success and most people who DO KNOW about such things would say that that is an important, if not THE most important, marker then over those hundreds of years you were wittering on about earlier on, then we have done far, far better than many we have had to come up against - and believe me GUEST there IS overwhelming evidence of that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM

Total Casualties WW1

          killed            Wounded          Missing       Total

ALLIES    5,000,000         13,000,000       4,000,000   21,000,000

Axis      3,300,000          8,300,000       3,600,000   15,200,000

But that doesn't matter to the likes of Teribus and Keith BECAUSE most of them were FOREIGNERS and WE won.

YAR BOO SUCKS, NAR NAR NA NAR NAR!

Truly, truly pathetic.

SOURCE:HISTORY LEARNING SITE,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:35 PM

Ah Raggy, having to shift goalposts now I see. You and your pals challenged the conclusions drawn by a number of historians who specialized in the study of the First World War who with respect to Great Britain's involvement who stated that in general the British Army was well led (NOTE THAT SMARTARSE - British Army NOT Allied Forces).

Now toddle off and come back with what the British casualties were in comparison to the other major combatants who fought on the western Front.

You and your pals who have all said that they know little about the war really should do some real reading about it before you flounder about desperately trying to find facts presented in such a manner that fit YOUR preconceived notions - so far all that you have established beyond any doubt is that you are on a hiding to nothing.

And you have the utter gall to accuse others of being pathetic - f**kin' unbelievable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:43 PM

Do I really need to remind your poor little tired brain that you said just a few days ago you were not going to respond to me. I do wish you would keep your promise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:58 PM

But Raggy how on earth can I fail to respond when you, who have clearly stated that you know little about the subject, keep attacking things I have stated with information that is completely inapplicable and irrelevant to the point you are trying to attack - or do you always compare apples to oranges?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 24 Nov 15 - 08:16 PM

Just for you Teriblunder. In the past year or so I have read a good deal regarding WW1. None of which is so simplistic as you and the professor would have us believe.

Anyway I'm in the middle of a good book a the moment, not related, so I'm going back to that.

Do try and keep your promises, go and polish your Masters boots or something, there's a good little pleb.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest if you must know
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 03:07 AM

More selective quoting from Keith A of Hertford. As I said, Dr Gary Sheffield concluded that senior military leaders were both callous and incompetent. He also mitigated on the basis you can't be stupid and wrong all the time, although Haig did have a good stab at it.

I am aware, as someone who reads a bit of Mudcat banter that there are a few people under the umbrella name Musket. I am also aware through reading that they seem to have the usual suspects weighed up. But isn't it amazing that anybody who points out (it isn't difficult) the glaring outrageousness of such people get accused of being Musket.

I don't know any of them but I'm sure they must be laughing if any of them read this. I see a similar complaint in other threads by someone at the same level of intellect and reason as Keith A of Hertford. Are you sure it's Hertford and not somewhere in Scotland?

For the record, I have read Sheffield's assessment but disagree on some of his conclusions. His verdicts don't always follow his own evidence, an elementary mistake but understandable if your pressure comes from book publishers. He got it right but looked for too many exceptions with which to sanitise a rotten lot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:00 AM

"I am not an historian and make no claims about history."
Yes you do - you claimed that you have made "a life-long study of World War One" - a claim that nobody here has made, yet, having claimed that the war was well led, you decline to comment on badly conducted campaigns that
Gallipoli casualties totalled 89,000
At Loos, the "good leadership amounted to:
By 28 September, the British retreated to their starting positions, having lost over 20,000 casualties, including three major-general
British casualties at Loos were about twice as high as German casualties.
8,000 casualties out of 10,000 men in four hours
British casualties in the main attack were 48,367 and they suffered 10,880 more in the subsidiary attack, a total of 59,247 losses of the 285,107 British casualties on the Western Front in 1915
On the first day of the Somme there were 57,470 British casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed - the highest by far of all the combating armies (Germany was a runner-up with between 10 and 12 thousand)
The leadership of the war was appalling (if anything, Blackadder payed it down!!) - sacrifice as many young many young lives as possible - that is not leadership simple butchery.
You claim to have made a lifelong study of the war - you have now admitted you lied - you know nothing of this war and you continue to excuse the death of many millions of young lives.
All historians do not back your claims - you have misquoted less than half a dozen of them and you have now scurried back behind historians who you have obviously not read, - not one single one of them
Your bullying blustering galleymate is exactly the same - now refusing to answer on the grounds that the questioner "knows nothing" (same as you, apparently.)
Your campaign to justify the bloodbath is about as well-conducted as was the bloodbath itself.
Your case becomes more and more idiotically dishonest.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:09 AM

More selective quoting from Keith A of Hertford.

Not true.
I provided whole paragraphs and linked to the whole article.
I can produce many more examples of him saying the same.

As I said, Dr Gary Sheffield concluded that senior military leaders were both callous and incompetent.

As you lied, actually.
General French has come in for some criticism, but who else?

You say you(?) disagree with Sheffield's conclusions on Haig.
The fact that other historians do agree will make that easier for him to live with!
What is your opinion worth when it is rejected by all the people who actually know anything?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:17 AM

Sheffield,
"When Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig died in 1928, the major controversies about his reputation were still to come. His death was a cause for national mourning; a moment that loomed as large in the nation's consciousness as the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997. For many, the achievements of Haig and his fellow commanders was worthy of that tribute."

"The British generals of the First World War were not an homogenous group. They performed a variety of functions and roles and they did so to differing degrees of effectiveness. A few were incompetent, most were not, all were operating under incredible pressure. "

"Haig led his armies to decisive victory in the 1918 Hundred Days offensive that ended with German capitulation on 11 November. The contributions of other Allied armies must be recognised; indeed all Haig's offensives need to be seen in this context. Battles earlier in the war, such as the Somme in 1916, saw heavy loss of life but were also strategic successes for the Allies. Haig argued they created the conditions for the victories of 1918 by wearing down the strength and morale of the German army. I agree with this assessment - traditional victories were not possible in trench warfare, so attrition was a vital and valid method."

"The British army, like all other armies, began the war using outdated tactics. These were progressively replaced by cutting-edge methods incorporating the latest technology, including artillery, air power, machine-guns, gas, and tanks. By 1918 Haig's forces had evolved a war-winning weapons-system that enabled them to defeat the German Army in battles such as at Amiens in August that year. As for casualties, win or lose, Western Front battles were costly in human life. A French commander, General Mangin, rightly remarked, 'whatever you do, you lose a lot of men'."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:18 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zq2y87h


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:38 AM

You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why - that is mindless.
You claim you have made a life-long study of the war yet all you can do is provide yet another cut'n-paste which you have hastily sought out which in no way explains the fiascos that took place (which you have just been given)
That is both mindless and dishonest
Owzatt - you're our
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:57 AM

You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why

Yes I can.
That is the findings of the military historians.

all you can do is provide yet another cut'n-paste

Yes. Quotes of historians unequivocally rejecting your views.
I do that because I can.
You can produce nothing to support your baseless assertions.
There is nothing out there for you.

Your views derive solely from your extreme class war politics.
I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some, any, support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 05:53 AM

"That is the findings of the military historians."
No it isn't - not all of them by any means - you refused to read the list of nearly 200 you were given because it was "tto large"
You dismissed the historians who actually said it was ba
dly led because they wer "dead" or "not real historians" or obscure and "didn't sell their books in "real" bookshops"
You ave refused even to comment on the actual examples of bad leadership on the grounds of your now self-confessed ignorance (having claimed you have made a "lifelong study of the war"
You have sought out out-of-contexts quotes fro, less than half-a-dozen historians which you have not read, nor do you understand (or more likely - have deliberately distorted).
Historians are not gods - their opinions as to the justification of this colonial family squabble which ended the lives of millions of young men are worth no more than those on historians who describe th war as a waste of human life - historians don't deal in the ethics of colonial wars - it is not their field.
Sheffield is an employee of the military establishment making his views of the history of the war suspect and the morality of the war useless yet he continus to be one of your gallant less-then-half-dozen witnesses!!
Yoiou sais you studied thewar - you didn't
You claimed to have read a book by one of your historians - you obviously haven't, and you refuse to respond to what she actually says.
As I said - the most dishonest contributor to this forum by far.
Your only support for your case is from a bullying, blustering no-mark who would like us to believe he has a service record but in fact never got nearer that the sink in a ships galley.
You have no case - you have never had a case yet you continue to justify the decimation of a generation - and you call those who fought in it "liars" if what they had to say challenges your jingoism.
It seems the war isn't the only thing lacking ethics.
Jim Carroll

.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM

"In the past year or so I have read a good deal regarding WW1. None of which is so simplistic as you and the professor would have us believe."

IF that indeed is the case then your contributions do not reflect that fact. Nobody has ever pretended to make or put forward the case that anything to do with the conflict was simple, but plain facts and truths as stated by myself and by Keith A are correct - evidenced by yourself and your pals being unable to refute anything we have stated.

One thing that puzzles me Raggy, IF as you say that over "the past year or so I have read a good deal regarding WW1." why do you post to this thread stating that you know very little about the subject? Is that because you find it difficult to take things in, or were you simply being "economical with the truth"?

"go and polish your Masters boots or something, there's a good little pleb."

The subject matter is WWI. Here is a quotation from someone

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Now this good little pleb would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1: Identify who it was that stated the above?
2: Who is the "YOU" mentioned in the quote?

After you have done that you can go back to your book.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 07:45 AM

Where's that GUEST who was going on about "Howlers" when you need him?

"You tell us it was a well conducted war yet you can't tell us why? - Jim Carroll

Ehmm Jim you have been told time and time again - get your head round the fact that as far as you are concerned anything about any subject on earth that you haven't come up with simply does not feature, anything told to you that fits your view must be taken as being "gospel" without any check being made by way of verification.

But here it is again by Dr Gary Sheffield:
"He(Haig) encouraged the development of advanced weaponry such as tanks, machine guns and aircraft. He, like Rawlinson and a host of other commanders at all levels in the BEF, learned from experience. The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability. It was led by men who, if not military geniuses, were at least thoroughly competent commanders. The victory in 1918 was the payoff. The 'lions led by donkeys' tag should be dismissed for what it is - a misleading caricature."

The British Army and its Divisional Commanders started learning in 1914 and continued to learn throughout the war. Fortunately for the rest of Europe the German Army and its Commanders DID NOT exactly the same thing stopped them in their tracks on the Marne in 1918 as stopped them in their tracks in 1914.

"Gallipoli casualties totalled 89,000"

And on two occasions during the Dardanelles Campaign had the Allies advanced the intended aim of the campaign would have been accomplished, Turkey would have been knocked out of the war and a secure supply rout to arm the Russian Army would have been secured. It came that close to being a complete success. 1915 both in overall command of the troops at Gallipoli and at Divisional level at Suvla you have examples of poor British Generals - Neither of them were Douglas Haig.

"At Loos, the "good leadership amounted to:
By 28 September, the British retreated to their starting positions, having lost over 20,000 casualties, including three major-general
British casualties at Loos were about twice as high as German casualties.
8,000 casualties out of 10,000 men in four hours
British casualties in the main attack were 48,367 and they suffered 10,880 more in the subsidiary attack, a total of 59,247 losses of the 285,107 British casualties on the Western Front in 1915"


This was the first big British attack, they had carried out a smaller one earlier in the year at Neuve-Chapelle. Basic rule of thumb is that if you attack a defended position you must outnumber the defenders by at least 3:1 - why do you think that is Jom? You have read, or maybe you didn't bother, from a man who was there, right in the thick of it as an Artillery Observation Officer. At Neuve-Chapelle and at Loos, Haig's advice and placement of the reserve required to achieve the breakthrough that was there in both battles were ignored by Haig's superior officer General Sir John French who was simply too timid and as a result of that timidness and inability to think and act quickly was dismissed from his command and replaced by Haig and from that point on the British Army didn't look back, it went from strength to strength employing new tactics that continually evolved and improved upon.

"On the first day of the Somme there were 57,470 British casualties, of whom 19,240 were killed - the highest by far of all the combating armies (Germany was a runner-up with between 10 and 12 thousand)"

On the first day of the Somme eh? 1st July 1916. So on one day in a war that lasted for 4 years and 3 months you have managed to find one day when the British Army suffered more casualties. Congratulations Jom. Now what was the position once the campaign and the battle drew to a close in November 1916 - talking about the entire battle here Jom not just ONE DAY of it. The 1st July 1916 might have been a bad day for the British Army but 1916 was a bad year for the German Army - a year they never recovered from. 1916 to the First World War was what 1943 was to the Second World War - after those years in both those conflicts the allies knew they were going to win and for the first time in both the Germans stared the spectre of failure full in the face.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:04 AM

Try re-reading the post yesterday at 07.07pm and then come back and tell me that the Allies (we were fighting with others on our side remember, you tried to place all the blame on the French yesterday) lost more men than the axis forces.

And THAT is the crux of most of the discussion, you and your sidekick don't seem to care about the humane issues.

No, we WON the war, jolly good, well done lads, we taught those pesky Hun's a thing or two didn't we. What? all those bodies, oh never mind them we'll get someone round tomorrow to have a tidy up. Now then chaps who's for polo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:33 AM

"Ehmm Jim you have been told time and time again "
No we haven't - you explain Loos (think you said it wasn't a defeat on a previous thread)
You explain Gallipoli
You explain the armament cock-ups
You explain the catastrophic losses at the opening of the Somme
You explain how any of these can be put down to "good" leadership"
You explain how "good leadership" was ever anything more than forcing masses of young men to be cut down by other young men they, knew or had any argument with
You haven't so far - neither has anyone else.
If you want to make a plea for good butchery, you may have a point.
You have the figures of casualties for these glorious battles - explain how any of them can be put down to "good leadership"
It was simple carnage and all your bluster doesn't make it anything else.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:42 AM

Ragged Arse - The point under discussion as raised by Keith A what seems like ages ago now concerned Great Britain and the British Army. Don't you dare try moving the goalposts now - Haig did not coimmand the Allied War effort - the French did, on the western front both the French and the Germans lost more men than the British - Tell me and everyone else just how the hell that could have been Haig's fault, tell me just how thoise deaths came about because of poor British military leadership?

I will ask you one more time:

The subject matter is WWI. Here is a quotation from someone

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Now this good little pleb would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1: Identify who it was that stated the above?
2: Who is the "YOU" mentioned in the quote?

If you don't answer then in my next post I will - you bloody two-faced hypocrit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 08:50 AM

Talking of hypocrisy I seem to recall you were not going to respond to me.

It's one of the few things that you've typed that I really wish you were correct about.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM

Who's "ME" GUEST? How many different GUESTs post on Mudcat? And how do any of us who do use constant cookies to identify ourselves tell which GUEST is which.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:30 AM

I have oftened questioned your intelligence. If you cannot figure out who posted that without a name how the hell can you pretend to understand WW1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:53 AM

Out of all your posts on this subject Jom your contribution of 25 Nov 15 - 08:33 AM has one little bit right at the end that actually sums up the reality of the First World War in a nutshell:

"It was simple carnage and all your bluster doesn't make it anything else."

And Jom neither Keith A, or Lighter, or a number of others (myself included) have ever tried to state that it was anything other than that.

Yes it was simple carnage it was a static war fought for the first time ever on a truly industrial scale, so just for once in your life look at the entirety of it.

Taking all of the main combatant powers who were there from the start in 1914, Britain, her Commonwealth and her Empire suffered fewer fatalities and casualties than any of the others. What do you put that down to Jom? As a percentage of everyone mobilised in the main combatant armies deployed on the western front casualties amongst the British & Empire forces, French forces and German forces were ~35%; ~75%; ~70% respectively fatalities in the British & Empire forces were the least by quite a margin.

In 1914 on the western Front between Germany, France and Great Britain, who had the smallest army? Can you explain how that army survived through 1914 to become one of the largest and most effective armies in the field by 1918?

In the spring of 1918 once the Germans had transferred the bulk of their armies who had been fighting the Russians, who was it they threw against? In 1914 it had been the major threat - the French. In 1918 the Germans saw the greatest threat to them as being the British. Now how did that come about Jom?

In 1918 the Germans from March onwards into Summer mounted five major offensive operations aimed primarily against the British in northern France. Yes they pushed the line back almost to their 1914 high water mark, but in August 1918 only 21 days after their last gasp attempt at victory in the west Haig went over to the offensive and 100 days later the war was over - Tell me Jom does that look like poor leadership? Certainly does not to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:58 AM

"If you don't answer then in my next post I will - you bloody two-faced hypocrit.
Every time you paint yourself into a corner you beat a hasty retreat ad refuse to respond - on the profit made from ceramic poppies, on the War, on every single point about the Irish Famine - despite constant requests, you remained silent - making you a "bloody two-faced hypocrite".
Let's see how you get on with Loos, Gallipoli, the early days of The Somme and the wrong ammunition cock-up - won't hold my breath though!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:05 AM

Ah Raggy posting as an anonymous GUEST - if you are ever accused of doing so again please don't deny it.

But none the less as promised:

The subject matter is WWI. Here is a quotation from someone

"You are obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

Now this good little pleb would like to ask you a couple of questions:

1: Identify who it was that stated the above?
2: Who is the "YOU" mentioned in the quote?

The answer to question 1 was Guest Raggytash
The answer to question 2 is me - Teribus

The quote comes from a message I received from Guest Raggytash on the 17th November 2015. The message was one asking for help and advice, which I gave.

As to the hypocrisy charge please take a look at the forum exchanges between Raggy and myself since that message and then judge whether what Raggytash says person to person in private reflects what he states when posturing on the open forum. Judge for yourselves whether in public Raggy considers me to be obviously interested in the subject and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum.

Now then Raggy go off and read your book.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:09 AM

OK Teribums off you go and read your compass ..................... oh you can't do that either.

Not that you have ever admitted that mistake.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:12 AM

Shot and completely miussed the target again Jom I see:

Jim Carroll - 25 Nov 15 - 09:58 AM

Read my last post which is addressed to Raggy as was the charge of hypocrisy.

Hate to say this Jom but it isn't all about you - truth be told very little of it ever is, you are too much of a bigot to really bother about - but at times "Wolfie" you do make me laugh.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM

Good Raggy - is that really all you've got? No vehement denials that you sent me a message stating that I am "obviously interested in the subject [First World War] and far more knowledgeable than some others on this forum."

My compass reading is probably a damned sight better than yours part-timer. But by all means if you wish to discuss how well connected the port of Cork was to the hinterland to the south and west in the mid-1840s to mid 1850s then by all means feel free to open your own thread on the subject.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:31 AM

Teribus is more interested in who is writing rather than what they write. What's up? You don't need to get concerned about a cookie in order to clarify the bullshit you keep spewing.

Oh gosh. All the historians seem to agree with Sheffield's conclusions so why be bothered with the conclusion of someone else given the same evidence? I don't know what, if anything Keith A of Hertford does for a living but I hope it isn't being a teacher or lecturer. First off I doubt "they" do, not that there is a "they" to make such a silly claim from and secondly, Sheffield himself has published various conclusions at different times. He's a historian not a god botherer.

Eeh, it's worth coming on here just to tour the cages and give them the odd rattle when the zoo keeper isn't looking.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:32 AM

My word !!! Are those goalposts moving again?

I may find the pertinent post later if I'm bored


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:37 AM

Jim,
- you refused to read the list of nearly 200 you were given because it was "tto large"

Not true Jim. If it was you would be quoting some of them, but you can not quote any.
I know that there used to be a few who believed what you still do, but knowledge has moved on.
Nothing written in the last twenty years supports your views.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some, any, support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:45 AM

Rag, I have never defended any army bit ours, and I have pointed out how much better led ours was than the French, and most definitely the Russians.

Jim,
You explain how any of these can be put down to "good" leadership"

I refer you to the work of the historians and military historians, all of whom know much more about the Somme and all your other issues than you do, and are still quite clear that the army was well and competently led.

You have still not found anything written within the last twenty years that finds otherwise.

Jim and Rag, I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some or any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 11:20 AM

"Not true Jim. "
Oh not again!!
"Jim and Rag, I suggest we leave it there "
Surrender -= you mean?
You have nor made your point - you two have not convinced anybody with your jingoism, you have faked history and you have lied throughout
Happy to leave it there unlessw you'd like to explain the examples of bad leadership you have been given, of course!!
As with Cap'n Pugwash - won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 12:10 PM

You might, of course, look at what your old Ally, Max Hastings jas to say about the war – somewhat typical of the way you have misused historians in this argument

OR THIS

OR THIS
Jim Carroll

The Wisdom of Max Hastings from a review of his book 'Catastrophe'
Why does Max Hastings have such a hatred for the British military?
David Crane is taken aback by the particular contempt Max Hastings appears to reserve for the British at the outbreak of the first world war
14 September 2013
One of the great problems for any historian writing writing of 1914 and the slide into conflict is that everyone knows the causes of the first world war and those of us who don't still imagine that we do. It is clear that no historian can simply ignore the causes and get straight down to the fighting, but with the best will in the world it is hard not to feel like some poor Easyjet passenger, stranded on a Gatwick runway and sadly watching the precious take-off slot slipping further into the distance while the cabin crew go though the familiar old pre-flight safety instructions that they know perfectly well nobody is listening to.
Serbian ambition, the internal incoherence of the Hapsburg empire, the Kaiser, Alsace-Lorraine , the 'first blank cheque', the 'second blank cheque,' Pan-Slavism, Ulster, mobilisation, uncertainty over Britain's intentions, fear of decadence, fear of Russia, fear of socialism — none of them can be any more dodged than can the emergency doors or the oxygen mask. But when half the world seems to be writing about what happened in 1914, or should have happened and didn't, it is an uphill struggle to make it fresh or interesting. It is immensely to Max Hastings's credit that he manages to dispose of it all as economically as he does; but this huge, compelling, argumentative bully of a book only really hits its stride when the fighting starts, and the full catastrophe that the 'absurdly amateurish' 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip unleashed with the assassination of the unloved and unlovable Archduke Franz Ferdinand begins to unfold.
'A bullet does not go precisely where one wishes,' was how an apologetic Princip explained away the unintended murder of Franz Ferdinand's morganatic wife, Sophie; but Hastings will have no truck with the idea that a chapter of accidents brought about the war, or with any liberal, guilt-ridden guff about equal moral and political responsibility of the warring belligerents. There is no reason to think that Germany was gunning for war when it gave Austria their 'blank cheque' for the extermination of Serbia, but they were certainly prepared to live with the consequences in the firm belief that they were in a stronger position to win any war against Russia and France in 1914 than they would be in the years ahead.
One of the great strengths of Catastrophe is the space and energy it gives to the less familiar theatres and aspects of the conflict — the barbarism of Austria's Serbia campaign, the chaos of Galicia, East Prussia and Tannenberg, the Home fronts, the North Sea, German 'beastliness' — but like the fortunes of the war itself, the book stands or falls on the Western Front. From the start the Germans had gambled on the rapid and total defeat of France before turning their full attention to the east, and by the time they realised that no number of victories over Russian armies was going to win them the war, they were inextricably mired in the bitter stalemate in France and Belgium to which the strategic fantasies of Schlieffen and his disciples had doomed them.
It is the story of the Germans' bid for a quick and crushing victory in the west, told with an equal richness of detail and sure narrative sweep, that is at the core of Catastrophe, and no story better deserves the name. In the popular imagination the first world war is always going to be associated with the miseries of trench warfare; but the trenches were the consequences of this first fluid phase of the war, a place of troglodytic sanctuary from a war of open movement in which 19th-century strategies and armies led into battle by mounted officers and bands playing came up against modern technology.
Eighteen thousand French and German dead in the Ardennes on 23 and 24 August alone, 329,000 French dead by the end of the year, 800,000 German dead or wounded in the same period, 150,000 Austrian, 16,000 British, more than half of Samsonov's 230,000 Russians, killed, wounded or captured at Tannenberg in the last week of August — it is impossible, or at least it ought to be impossible, to write about the first world war without a sense of moral indignation at the waste and futility and stupidity of its leaders. But Max Hastings saves his particular animus for Britain and her army. There are precious few generals on either side of the war who escape his wrath, but if he is rightly contemptuous of Moltke and dismissive of his army commanders, the British seem to inspire something approaching a hatred — it is the only word to convey the level of hostility — that adds a startlingly bitter edge to this formidably impressive book.
Hastings hates British complacency about her military past, he hates British chauvinism, he hates Britain's patronising attitudes towards her allies, he hates Britain's love of turning retreats — Corunna, Dunkirk, Mons — into moral victories, he hates her continuing penchant for 'gesture politics', and he is damned sure that he is going to leave no treasured national myth unexploded. For the officers who only arrived in France in 1915 there already seemed something heroic about the men of the BEF; but in Hastings's hands even the old saw of lions led by donkeys is turned on its head, with the VCs they win 'soft' VCs, the battles they fight 'little battles' and even Mons — the jewel in the Old Contemptibles' crown — little more than a sideshow of a sideshow.
'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading. Anyone travelling down the 900-odd Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries that mark the line of the old Western Front from Ypres to the Aisne might be forgiven for thinking otherwise, but Britain no more won the first world war by herself than it did Waterloo and here is chapter and verse. Whatever happened later, it was the French who saved France in 1914 and saved it in spite of everything our own Sir John French could do to scupper the alliance, and with the centenary looming it is important to be reminded of that. 'No part of the Great War compares in interest with its opening', wrote Churchill, and Hastings does full justice to its appalling drama. He is, unashamedly — thankfully — a historian in the Barbara Tuchman tradition andCatastrophe is rich in unexplored sources from every side of the conflict and every theatre of the war. He is wise, too, to end the book where he does, with the German defeat at Ypres. I, for one, could not take much more and — more to the point — I'm not sure the author could either. If the performance of the old army that died at the First Ypres can reduce him to such frustration, God knows what, the 2nd and 3rd Ypres, Loos, Gallipoli, Kut and the Somme might do.
It is going to be a long five years of grim anniversaries, so triumphalists might want to pencil in 8 August 2018 — Ludendorff's 'black day of the German army' — for the next centenary we can really look forward to.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM

I am still quite amazed that teribums seems to be oblivious of the fact that I am not disputing any of his, or Keith's, 'facts' when even Keith seems to have eventually twigged that. I have always said that it is the attitude of some posters that is particularly obnoxious, not the content. How anyone can be so intent on winning completely useless points while seeming to be completely oblivious of the human suffering is, I suppose, a reflection of their wartime role models. Fortunately none of the merry little band here are in a position to cause anyone any damage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:27 PM

It's not what you say, it's their prejudice against reading your name in the title block. Hence their having a paddy when we post anonymously.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 03:56 PM

Jim, your two links are to two anonymous pieces!
Historians put their names to their work, so no credibility there at all Jim.

You provide a review of a book that is only about the outbreak and lead up to the war. Nothing about the actual conduct of the war at all!
The reviewer himself has written nothing about WW1 except something about monuments!
He finds things that no other reviewer has found and that Hastings has never said.

So Jim, you still have provided nothing on the issue of leadership, or support for the war, written by any actual historian!
I have found plenty that rubbish your views and can produce more if you like.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some or any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:08 PM

A wonderful independent voice is Max Hastings, public school, Oxford, Knighted, member of The Other Club, editor of the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail columnist. Not that I'd expect him to be biased or anything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 05:13 PM

You know I posted an urban dictionary definition earlier. I just realised I did not post the whole thing. The example at the end seems strangely coincidental...


Pompous Ass
A person who seems full of themselves and who grabs every opportunity to let others know of their feelings of superiority.
This professor sounds like a complete pompous ass. (See from time 3:00 of this recording: soundcloud dot com/kingston-university/music-at)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:04 PM

Ah but Jayzus Gnome, unlike others I could name, you could never accuse the man of being a coward, a bigot, a hypocrite or a liar now could you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 03:47 AM

Rag, Why do you believe that no Tory voter can have a valid opinion about WW1?
That is most English people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:03 AM

In the same way as you think no left wing historian can.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:12 AM

Gary Sheffield is a left wing historian.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:21 AM

" My politics, however, lay on the Left, not Right."

I can not do links for pdf files.

PDF]The Centenary of the First World War: An unpopular view by ...
https://www.history.org.uk/file_download.php?ts=1406712453&id...
article by Gary Sheffield in this edition of The ... and a half years Professor Sheffield will be one of the ... 'Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths ..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:36 AM

Jim, your two links are to two anonymous pieces!
So **** what - just as Gary Sheffield before you trwaled him out of the ether, or any other historian you have ever put up - you wouldn't have a clue who they were if they were identified - you don't read historians and it is obvious you are more interested in defending the past honours of the British establishment than you are of political facts.
They are two valid pieces from historical sites - no political prejudices, no agendas evident - they are a historical analysis every bit as valid as your unqualified Max Hastings and they are saying what the rest of us have always known
Your rejecting history because it doesn't suit your of quaint jingoism is long over - about time you came to terms with it.
One of the pieces is a brilliant analysis by a group of international historians who are taking a holistic approach to the subject - ie - not presenting it from the point of view of interested nations
It is exactly in line with much that has been said by soldiers who actually fought the war, who you pair of disgusos have written of as gullible liars.
You totally ignore what your hero Hastings has to say - because it goes against all your claims (you did so a year ago when I first linked to it - that's the way you work)
You are a pair of clowns, though your technique is a little different - you go for the Uriah Heep, hand wringing approach while your mate favours the Bill Sykes thuggish approach to arguing of sneering and shouting down.
Both clowns, and sometimes entertaining nevertheless - as now.
Keep up the good work
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Harry Forest
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:37 AM

Hoisting your own pair of hairy petards there, I think Mr Hertford.

By your own weird logic, historians cannot as historians be left right or up their own arses. According to Keith A of Hertford they are infallible. People on here are scoffed at for forming a different conclusion to their research.

So.. Which bit is left wing? Collecting evidence? Reading it? Laying it out, presenting it or giving your own perspective on what to conclude?

A historian you quote as gospel appears to be politically motivated? Tut tut. Next you'll be saying he is therefore selective to ensure his conclusions are backed up by selective cherry picking of evidence.

Busted
Fucking
Flush



I personally would like you to carry on spouting because I could do with a laugh and Teribus's drivel is too long winded to fully enjoy, but if I were you, I'd keep my mouth shut and go away and learn a subject before attacking anyone who doesn't see life in the wannabe tin soldier fantasy that you inhabit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 04:50 AM

Keith, most English people are not tory voters. Even most English people who voted are not tory voters. Its only our undemocratic electoral system which gives them a majority in parliament, and the ability to push through their extremist policies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:36 AM

Now then I wonder where and when Keith A ever said that "historians" are infallible - perhaps Harry can enlighten us. I believe that what Keith A has pointed out, quite a number of times, is the rather reasonable and logical comment that "historians" who specialise in the study of the period covering the First World War, who have written on the subject post 1970 have far more information, from far more sources, than their predecessors ever had. Which means that the work that they have produced is better informed and provides for far better understanding of the period and the events of the times. The main objectors to the conclusions drawn by the "historians" mentioned by both Keith A and myself cling with the tenacity of limpets to conclusions, myths, half-truths and misrepresentations of "historians" whose conclusions have been discredited in the light of newer, and more complete information. Keith A's main critics on this forum prefer to quote as "gospel" the work of playwrights with a particular axe to grind that had nothing whatsoever to do with WWI and the output of television drama and comedy scriptwriters.

And as those objectors admit that they have little or no knowledge of the "Great War" I can hardly see how those people can possibly have formed any sort of different opinion to be scoffed at if they have not studied what all of that new information has turned up. My guess is that out of pure idleness they have simply adopted their automatic default position without making the slightest effort to actually inform themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:52 AM

Jim,
You totally ignore what your hero Hastings has to say -

No I do not.
Produce a quote that challenges anything I have said.

Re your two anonymous sources.
What universities do they teach at, and what acclaimed books have they written?
Obviously none or it would be specified.

There are lots of people, especially on Mudcat, who have seen Lovely War and Blackadder and believe they know all about WW1.

I can quote actual, named historians to support my views.
You can not find a single one who still believes that shit you cling to.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some or any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:54 AM

Ferguson


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 06:58 AM

Furguson does not claim the British army was incompetently led, nor does he deny that the ordinary people and soldiers supported the need to fight.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:14 AM

Dominic Alexander


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:30 AM

Dominic Alexander has published no single book on WW1 and is not an academic at any university.
His "work" only appears on an extremist website. You can not take seriously anyone whose stuff only appears on extremist sites, whether extreme left or right.

I suggest we leave it there unless and until you can find some or any support for your dogma from people who actually know about WW1.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:59 AM

Par for the course, dismiss anyone who doesn't fall into your little boxes. Can't be bothered anymore, basically Keith because you are as boring as hell.
Jim, Dave the Gnome, Raggytash, #, Rahere, Steve Shaw, Musket(s),Greg F, Ed T, Big Al Whittle, Troubadour, Some Bloke in Scotland, Modette, Jim 1, Bill D, et al I don't know why you bother.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:11 AM

GUEST - 26 Nov 15 - 06:54 AM in what way does Ferguson support either "your" dogma or good ol' Jom's? Does he cast light on roaming bands of special groups of Redtops gunning down British soldiers who aren't moving at the desired rate? Does he argue that even although British casualty rates were lower than any other combatant powers on the western front that Britain's Generals were the poorest leaders, or that British forces were the worst led? By the way what exactly is "your" dogma? After all you've never told us what you think, and why you think it.

GUEST - 26 Nov 15 - 07:14 AM in what way does Dominic Alexander support either "your" dogma or good ol' Jom's? Does he cast light on roaming bands of special groups of Redtops gunning down British soldiers who aren't moving at the desired rate? Does he argue that even although British casualty rates were lower than any other combatant powers on the western front that Britain's Generals were the poorest leaders, or that British forces were the worst led? By the way what exactly is "your" dogma? After all you've never told us what you think, and why you think it.

As none of these questions will be answered all we have is just more GUEST "white noise" which it would appear that Keith A is silencing quicker that nameless GUEST can come up with suggestions. Now why is Jom not coming up with suggestions of his own - ah of course Jom's sources are drama and comedy scriptwriters and an ex-wife of Jom's most holy of holy's - Ewan MacColl "blessings be upon his name" - standing by for next incoherent rant interspersed with totally unwarranted, negative aspersions and contempt for those usefully employed in kitchens and galleys throughout the land and on the high seas. Strange really I thought that Jom always fancied himself as a champion of the working man, mind you he hasn't sunk so low down the scale as to call them "plebs" yet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:21 AM

Baldrick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM

"Produce a quote that challenges anything I have said."
"'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading." - will do for a start.
The review (by the right wing Spectator) objects to Hastings' book as undermining the official view of the war.
"Dominic Alexander has published no single book on WW1 and is not an academic at any university"
Real books by real historians from real universities - you are a ***** joke Keith.
"There are lots of people, especially on Mudcat, who have seen Lovely War and Blackadder and believe they know all about WW1."
Give one example where anybody has ever used either as historical fact - I seem to remember that used a song from Dad's Army to prove your point - but then again, you are a law unto yourself
"Dominic Alexander" is every bit as qualified to have a point of view on history as does Max Hastings, and you fought tooth and nail to have him (a right wing tabloid journalist who cut his teeth on a newspaper that openly declared itself in support of Hitler and fascism) accepted as a credible historian.
"Now then I wonder where and when Keith A ever said that "historians" are infallible"
Keith's whole argument is based on the claim that THE HISTORIAN HE HAS CHOSEN ARE INFALLIBLE AND ALL WHO DISAGREE, OR ARE DEAD, ARE LEFTIES AND THEREFORE WRONG - wake up cookie or you'll burn the pans again!!
He continues that argument now
" Strange really I thought that Jom always fancied himself as a champion of the working man, "
Nope - I am a working man, or was one until I retired and I have never suggested them to be either gullible or liars (and before you repeat it - it is not gullible to believe the mass of misinformation and emotional blackmail that was pumped out to gain support for this colonial family squabble - at the time, the media was the only source of information that the working man had.
When they broadcast the idea that Germany was about to invade and bayonet us and rape our women, as they were doing in "gallant little Belgium", who was to deny them tell us it was all a foregone conclusion that would all be over shortly,?
I have never called a soldier a liar to make a case as you pair consistently have.
"I don't know why you bother."
It's good fun to see these two squirm as these two worms are, and, using the same logic as did the courts martials and execution squads - as a warning for the future.
Don't think these two will ever be taken seriously again, with their real historians and flag-wagging crap - do you?
Have to admit that I can't suppress a smile whenever the word "historian" is mentioned - it's become a punchline.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 09:49 AM

That was not a Hastings quote Jim.
Just some bloke called David Crane who has written nothing about WW1.

A review of the same book by an actual WW1 historian in the paper Hastings once edited,

"Hastings's second adversary is more amorphous: what he calls "the poets' view" of the war as a futile struggle for a few blood-drenched yards of mud, which wasted a whole generation, solved nothing and which Britain should have steered clear of, allowing those funny foreign fellows to slaughter each other without compromising its splendid isolation.
This view, propounded by various powerful voices from the great economist John Maynard Keynes in 1919 down to the scriptwriters of the television comedy Blackadder Goes Forth, has been hammered so relentlessly into our heads that it is now the received opinion on the war. "
"Hastings, who received a knighthood in 2002, will have none of this."

"Hastings pushes the parallels between the two world wars even closer. He details the barbarities perpetrated by the Kaiser's armies as they marched through Belgium, showing that such atrocities, though smaller in scale than the Nazis' crimes in 1939-45 (6,000 civilians murdered rather than six million), were inflicted in the same wanton spirit. With irrefutable logic Hastings argues that if it was right for Britain to wage war in defence of Poland in 1939, then it was also correct to take up arms in defence of Belgium in 1914."

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/historybookreviews/10382547/Catastrophe-by-Max-Hastings-review.html"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 10:21 AM

"That was not a Hastings quote Jim."
It is a summing up by a reviewer of what Hastings wrote - are you in all your great wisdom and after " a lifetime of study" going to contradict what he has written (after having read Hasting's book, of course - maybe you'd like to claim you've read that one too!!!)
Pis off Keith - you are making yourself a bigger and bigger joke each time you put finger to keyboard
And you can piss off with selective pieces you have neither read nor could understand if you ever broke the habit of a lifetime and actually read something
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:53 AM

No other reviewer said anything like that Jim.
There is much written by Hastings available on line.

Why can't you find a real Hastings quote?
Because Jim, your claims are bollocks!

About the British Army in 1914.(Hastings' book is just about the outbreak)

Because Britain neither intended nor expected to be involved in the brewing conflict, its army was not prepared to fight it.
Not the army's fault.

The Germans heavily outnumbered them, and had far more machine guns and artillery.
Not the army's fault.

The British Army were attacked by overwhelming force and had to retreat.
Not the army's fault.

They fought a remarkable fighting withdrawal and just managed to halt the German advance before Paris.
A remarkable achievement of arms.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 11:59 AM

Ah God Bless you Jom - you never let me down:

"standing by for next incoherent rant"

Gentlemen I give you ----------------------------------

Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM

(Damn me though I should have predicted "stand by for the next incoherent multi-coloured rant - Still I'll know for the next time)

One question for you Jom (I know I do have so many) - This apparent "hard-on" you've got for Max Hastings - he didn't happen to have been a cook at any point in his career did he? - I mean you do have this apparent massive downer on them so I just wondered.

One last point I would like to make Jom. As far as this bit of your last "multi-coloured rant" goes:

'Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading.

In November 1918 the victory celebrations were held in London and in Paris - NOT Berlin or Vienna.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:00 PM

Max Hastings in his own words.
A real quote Jim, not some prat trying to tell us what he thought he said but didn't!

". But his own(David Cameron) and his colleagues' knowledge of 1914-18 derives chiefly from watching Blackadder when they were in short trousers.
They learned to think of the struggle simply as a pointless tragedy in which Britain's idiot generals committed mass murder.
This 21st-century view has also been strongly influenced by the satirical musical Oh, What A Lovely War!, and by the 'trench poets' Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, whose impassioned pens depicted in the most vivid and moving terms the nightmare to which their generation was subjected in France.
But no poet ever identified a route by which the British, French and Belgian people could have escaped the conflict, save by accepting the Kaiser's domination of Europe. Germany's 1914-18 war aims fell not far short of those of 1939-45, except that there was no genocidal programme against the Jews.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2339189/MAX-HASTINGS-Sucking-Germans-way-remember-Great-War-heroes-Mr-Cameron.html#ixzz3scM6rRU5


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:08 PM

Just popped in.

Think I'll pop back out.

It's bad enough that The Daily M*il exists without being encouraged to read it by the resident TC.

Tatty bye


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

I really do think we've finished here - don't you.
Soldiers are liars, historians are liars - Spectator reviewers are liars
Have you gone completely insane in your efforts to defend your lords and masters?
It's over Keith llie down - unless you can prove the Spectator review is a leftie plot
"Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 15 - 09:01 AM"
Sorry Cookie - lost me there
Perhaps you could explain your rather aggressive and bullying posting (nothing new there)?
Would you also like to explain the Spectator review for your friend?
"This apparent "hard-on" you've got for Max Hastings"
Not mine Cookiue - he's Keith's friend and both of you displayed your own "hard -on's" supporting him
I use him here to explain the dangers of doing so without reading what he has to say first.
As far as I am concerned, he is a right wing tabloid journalist who learned his trade in a fascist supporting bumwipe of a newspaper - one of your own, in fact.
You explain your feet in mouths for using him as a witness to your anachchronistic jingoism
"Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading."
Take it up with the author - nuffin' to do with me, it was a direct quote from the review.
I have litle doubt that you know volumes more than he does - or anybody else, judging by your permanent contemptuous tone
PLEASE, PLEASE TELL US THAT THE SPECTATOR REVIEWER DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT - NOW THAT REALLY WOULD MAKE MY DAY - MY MONTH, IN FACT!!
Amazing how much you can learn when you have a break from cooking fry-ups!!
I think it's time you both had a bit of a lie down, don't you?

Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 01:36 PM

Ah but Jayzus Gnome, unlike others I could name, you could never accuse the man of being a coward, a bigot, a hypocrite or a liar now could you.

No teribums, I couldn't. He has the courage of his convictions and is no coward. I could not say he is a bigot but some of his statements about certain races being predisposed to certain crimes are, in my opinion, ill considered and may be viewed as bigoted by some. Hypocryte and liar? Tough one. As I said, I will always give the benefit of the doubt. When Keith has said one thing and then, when challenged, changed it to mean another, I always consider it a breakdown of communications rather than a deliberate deceit. I hope I am right.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 02:00 PM

Jim Carroll - 26 Nov 15 - 12:24 PM

A recycled multi-coloured rant

1: Soldiers are liars - Wouldn't know Jom - you prove to us that you actually talked to an ex-soldier and maybe I'd start to believe you - Oh but your and your "interview team" didn't bother to check anything did you, this ex-serviceman did not tell you where he served, he did not tell you what regiment he served in, he told you some cock-and-bull story about first military police, which then became special squads of military police executing British soldiers, unfortunately he never specified any time, or place and although those being shot would have been in the same platoon or company "your soldier" couldn't put a name to any of his friends he saw being shot for not getting out of the trench quick enough. Hundreds of memoirs and autobiographies of soldiers who served and fought during the Great War exist and no mention of these summary executions exist - I believe them, they most certainly were not liars.

2: historians are liars - No historians who wrote about the Great War in the period 1919 and 1970 did not have access to the information that historians who wrote about the same period post 1970 to the present. As the latter day historians have more information from more varied sources (Primarily foreign sources) their studies are more comprehensively researched and provide us all with a far better picture as to what actually happened and why. Obviously such work "discredits" views and conclusions reached in the pre-1970 works.

3: Spectator reviewers are liars - Spectator reviewers are only giving their opinion on what they have read, they are most likely riding to the instructions given by their editor who has told them what "slant" to put on it. The opinion of a reviewer is as valid as the opinion of anyone else.

4: "Max Hastings" - As far as I am concerned, he is a right wing tabloid journalist who learned his trade in a fascist supporting bumwipe of a newspaper - one of your own, in fact.

Now talking about feet being in mouth Jom old boy:

Taking them in reverse order
(a) I do not, nor have I ever, owned a newspaper.
(b) I believe the newspaper in question ceased to support fascists about five years before Max Hastings was born - Before the death of the first Viscount Rothermere in fact.
(c) Max Hastings learned his trade as you put it working for the Evening Standard.

All a matter of record you prat - all you have to do is look it up. Oh but I forgot your style of doing "research".

5: "Dodgy' battalions in the Ypres Salient, wholesale abandonment of weapons and positions, pusillanimous leadership, a reluctant showing at the Marne, a navy that couldn't fire, politicians who knew nothing of war, it all makes for chastening reading."

Taking all of the above at face value, care to explain how it was that in November 1918 the victory celebrations took place in London and in Paris - NOT in Berlin or in Vienna Jom? It is a simple enough question, if the answer to it was because the British learned from their mistakes and put in place the changes necessary to come out of the greatest conflict mankind had ever experienced on the side that was victorious then poor leadership and a reluctant populace would not explain it - good leadership and a country four square behind it would.

Rant on Jom - it must be playing absolute hell with your blood pressure.