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


History and mythology of WW1

Keith A of Hertford 18 Dec 15 - 01:05 AM
Joe Offer 18 Dec 15 - 01:17 AM
GUEST,Musket 18 Dec 15 - 02:30 AM
Dave the Gnome 18 Dec 15 - 03:05 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Dec 15 - 03:28 AM
GUEST 18 Dec 15 - 04:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Dec 15 - 09:50 AM
Dave the Gnome 18 Dec 15 - 09:56 AM
Jim Carroll 18 Dec 15 - 10:10 AM
Greg F. 18 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM
Dave the Gnome 18 Dec 15 - 10:50 AM
Greg F. 18 Dec 15 - 11:05 AM
Keith A of Hertford 18 Dec 15 - 02:54 PM
Teribus 18 Dec 15 - 02:58 PM
Dave the Gnome 18 Dec 15 - 04:15 PM
MartinRyan 18 Dec 15 - 04:55 PM
Greg F. 18 Dec 15 - 05:46 PM
Kampervan 18 Dec 15 - 05:56 PM
Greg F. 18 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM
GUEST,Hilo 18 Dec 15 - 06:35 PM
Teribus 18 Dec 15 - 07:12 PM
Jim Carroll 18 Dec 15 - 07:13 PM
Teribus 18 Dec 15 - 07:17 PM
Greg F. 18 Dec 15 - 09:10 PM
GUEST,Phil d'Conch 19 Dec 15 - 01:07 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 03:54 AM
gillymor 19 Dec 15 - 04:09 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 04:15 AM
GUEST,Beverley Minster 19 Dec 15 - 04:58 AM
Teribus 19 Dec 15 - 05:09 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 06:37 AM
Mr Red 19 Dec 15 - 07:27 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 19 Dec 15 - 07:32 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 19 Dec 15 - 07:34 AM
Jim Carroll 19 Dec 15 - 08:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 19 Dec 15 - 12:41 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 15 - 12:56 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM
GUEST,Dave 19 Dec 15 - 01:15 PM
Keith A of Hertford 19 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 19 Dec 15 - 04:00 PM
GUEST,Dave 20 Dec 15 - 04:01 AM
Teribus 20 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM
GUEST,Dave 20 Dec 15 - 08:33 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Dec 15 - 08:39 AM
GUEST,Dave 20 Dec 15 - 08:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Dec 15 - 09:07 AM
GUEST,Dave 20 Dec 15 - 11:41 AM
Teribus 20 Dec 15 - 12:32 PM
GUEST 20 Dec 15 - 03:38 PM
GUEST,Dave 20 Dec 15 - 04:37 PM
Keith A of Hertford 20 Dec 15 - 05:31 PM
Teribus 20 Dec 15 - 07:30 PM
Greg F. 20 Dec 15 - 09:49 PM
GUEST,Dave 21 Dec 15 - 03:45 AM
GUEST,Dave 21 Dec 15 - 03:48 AM
GUEST 21 Dec 15 - 04:01 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 15 - 04:17 AM
Teribus 21 Dec 15 - 05:44 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 15 - 06:25 AM
GUEST,Musket 21 Dec 15 - 06:33 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 21 Dec 15 - 06:35 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 15 - 06:51 AM
GUEST,Dave 21 Dec 15 - 06:59 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 21 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM
GUEST 21 Dec 15 - 08:28 AM
GUEST 21 Dec 15 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,Musket 21 Dec 15 - 10:26 AM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 15 - 11:26 AM
Teribus 21 Dec 15 - 11:32 AM
GUEST 21 Dec 15 - 12:11 PM
Teribus 21 Dec 15 - 12:37 PM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 15 - 01:15 PM
Teribus 21 Dec 15 - 01:19 PM
GUEST 21 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM
Jim Carroll 21 Dec 15 - 02:57 PM
Teribus 21 Dec 15 - 03:11 PM
GUEST 21 Dec 15 - 04:43 PM
GUEST,Dave 22 Dec 15 - 03:51 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM
Teribus 22 Dec 15 - 06:15 AM
GUEST 22 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 06:28 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 06:35 AM
GUEST 22 Dec 15 - 06:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM
GUEST 22 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM
GUEST 22 Dec 15 - 07:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 07:24 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 07:31 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 07:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 07:57 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 08:02 AM
GUEST 22 Dec 15 - 08:05 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 08:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM
GUEST 22 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 08:27 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 08:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM
GUEST,Dave 22 Dec 15 - 10:18 AM
GUEST,Dave 22 Dec 15 - 10:20 AM
Greg F. 22 Dec 15 - 10:35 AM
Teribus 22 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM
GUEST,Dave 22 Dec 15 - 10:55 AM
GUEST,HiLo 22 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM
Greg F. 22 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM
Greg F. 22 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM
Teribus 22 Dec 15 - 11:06 AM
GUEST,HiLo 22 Dec 15 - 11:11 AM
GUEST,Dave 22 Dec 15 - 11:14 AM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 11:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 15 - 12:02 PM
The Sandman 22 Dec 15 - 12:23 PM
GUEST 22 Dec 15 - 12:27 PM
GUEST,Musket 22 Dec 15 - 12:41 PM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM
Richard Bridge 22 Dec 15 - 06:15 PM
GUEST,HiLo 22 Dec 15 - 07:14 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 22 Dec 15 - 07:27 PM
Jim Carroll 22 Dec 15 - 07:37 PM
GUEST,HiLo 22 Dec 15 - 07:59 PM
GUEST 23 Dec 15 - 02:28 AM
GUEST,HiLo 23 Dec 15 - 02:38 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 03:50 AM
GUEST 23 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM
GUEST,Dave 23 Dec 15 - 05:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 15 - 05:11 AM
GUEST 23 Dec 15 - 05:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 07:32 AM
GUEST,HiLo 23 Dec 15 - 07:38 AM
GUEST,Dave 23 Dec 15 - 07:39 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 08:10 AM
GUEST,HiLo 23 Dec 15 - 08:18 AM
GUEST 23 Dec 15 - 08:44 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 08:45 AM
GUEST 23 Dec 15 - 08:47 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 08:49 AM
GUEST,HiLo 23 Dec 15 - 08:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 23 Dec 15 - 09:16 AM
GUEST,Dave 23 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM
GUEST,HiLo 23 Dec 15 - 10:20 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 23 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM
GUEST,HiLo 23 Dec 15 - 11:03 AM
GUEST 23 Dec 15 - 11:08 AM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 11:12 AM
GUEST,Dave 23 Dec 15 - 11:18 AM
Teribus 23 Dec 15 - 11:25 AM
Teribus 23 Dec 15 - 11:30 AM
Teribus 23 Dec 15 - 11:56 AM
GUEST,Dave 23 Dec 15 - 12:01 PM
Teribus 23 Dec 15 - 12:16 PM
GUEST,Dave 23 Dec 15 - 12:25 PM
GUEST,HiLo 23 Dec 15 - 12:43 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 01:11 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 02:45 PM
GUEST,Dave 23 Dec 15 - 02:50 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 23 Dec 15 - 02:55 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 23 Dec 15 - 03:09 PM
GUEST,HiLo 23 Dec 15 - 04:37 PM
Richard Bridge 23 Dec 15 - 04:59 PM
GUEST,HiLo 23 Dec 15 - 05:16 PM
Jim Carroll 23 Dec 15 - 08:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Dec 15 - 04:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Dec 15 - 04:53 AM
Jim Carroll 24 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Dec 15 - 05:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 24 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM
GUEST,Dave 24 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM
Dave the Gnome 24 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM
GUEST 24 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM
GUEST 24 Dec 15 - 11:26 AM
GUEST 24 Dec 15 - 12:22 PM
The Sandman 25 Dec 15 - 01:15 AM
GUEST,JTT 25 Dec 15 - 04:53 AM
Teribus 25 Dec 15 - 05:38 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 25 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM
akenaton 25 Dec 15 - 07:36 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 25 Dec 15 - 09:34 AM
Teribus 25 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 26 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Dec 15 - 07:02 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 26 Dec 15 - 07:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Dec 15 - 07:23 AM
GUEST 26 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 26 Dec 15 - 07:45 AM
GUEST 26 Dec 15 - 07:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Dec 15 - 07:59 AM
GUEST 26 Dec 15 - 08:13 AM
Teribus 26 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 26 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM
Teribus 26 Dec 15 - 10:43 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 26 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM
akenaton 26 Dec 15 - 12:24 PM
akenaton 26 Dec 15 - 12:30 PM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Dec 15 - 01:12 PM
Teribus 26 Dec 15 - 01:17 PM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Dec 15 - 01:31 PM
Keith A of Hertford 26 Dec 15 - 01:38 PM
Teribus 26 Dec 15 - 02:27 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 26 Dec 15 - 02:30 PM
Teribus 26 Dec 15 - 04:07 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 26 Dec 15 - 07:14 PM
Teribus 26 Dec 15 - 10:24 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 27 Dec 15 - 04:00 AM
GUEST,Dave 27 Dec 15 - 04:49 AM
GUEST 27 Dec 15 - 05:37 AM
Teribus 27 Dec 15 - 06:51 AM
GUEST 27 Dec 15 - 07:21 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 27 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM
Teribus 27 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 27 Dec 15 - 08:15 AM
Teribus 27 Dec 15 - 09:09 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 27 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM
Les from Hull 27 Dec 15 - 09:30 AM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Dec 15 - 11:52 AM
Teribus 27 Dec 15 - 12:08 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Dec 15 - 12:13 PM
Teribus 27 Dec 15 - 12:19 PM
GUEST,Dave 27 Dec 15 - 12:40 PM
Keith A of Hertford 27 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM
Jim Carroll 27 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 27 Dec 15 - 07:55 PM
Teribus 27 Dec 15 - 10:28 PM
Teribus 27 Dec 15 - 10:35 PM
Teribus 27 Dec 15 - 11:37 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 04:06 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 04:27 AM
GUEST,Dave 28 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 15 - 05:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 15 - 05:27 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 28 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 05:56 AM
GUEST,Dave 28 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM
Teribus 28 Dec 15 - 06:06 AM
GUEST,Dave 28 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 28 Dec 15 - 06:22 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 07:56 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM
Keith A of Hertford 28 Dec 15 - 09:32 AM
GUEST 28 Dec 15 - 09:48 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 09:55 AM
akenaton 28 Dec 15 - 09:56 AM
GUEST,Dave 28 Dec 15 - 10:03 AM
Greg F. 28 Dec 15 - 10:14 AM
GUEST 28 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 10:19 AM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 10:51 AM
GUEST 28 Dec 15 - 01:22 PM
Greg F. 28 Dec 15 - 01:27 PM
GUEST,Dave 28 Dec 15 - 01:48 PM
GUEST 28 Dec 15 - 01:55 PM
Teribus 28 Dec 15 - 02:39 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 02:42 PM
GUEST 28 Dec 15 - 02:43 PM
GUEST,Musket 28 Dec 15 - 02:51 PM
GUEST,Dave 28 Dec 15 - 03:50 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 15 - 04:05 PM
akenaton 28 Dec 15 - 05:49 PM
GUEST 28 Dec 15 - 06:08 PM
Jim Carroll 28 Dec 15 - 08:42 PM
GUEST,Musket 29 Dec 15 - 03:32 AM
GUEST,Dave 29 Dec 15 - 03:32 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 04:30 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 04:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 15 - 04:52 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 05:56 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 29 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 15 - 06:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 15 - 06:24 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 29 Dec 15 - 06:46 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 07:07 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 07:25 AM
Teribus 29 Dec 15 - 08:45 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 09:25 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 29 Dec 15 - 11:52 AM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 12:08 PM
Teribus 29 Dec 15 - 12:13 PM
GUEST 29 Dec 15 - 12:29 PM
Teribus 29 Dec 15 - 12:29 PM
Jim Carroll 29 Dec 15 - 02:09 PM
GUEST 29 Dec 15 - 03:40 PM
GUEST 29 Dec 15 - 05:19 PM
akenaton 29 Dec 15 - 06:56 PM
Teribus 30 Dec 15 - 03:13 AM
GUEST 30 Dec 15 - 03:44 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 15 - 03:52 AM
GUEST,Musket 30 Dec 15 - 05:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 07:43 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 15 - 08:42 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 30 Dec 15 - 08:42 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 15 - 09:05 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 09:41 AM
Greg F. 30 Dec 15 - 09:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 09:51 AM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 15 - 09:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 02:05 PM
GUEST,Dave 30 Dec 15 - 02:52 PM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 15 - 02:58 PM
Jim Carroll 30 Dec 15 - 03:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 03:10 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 03:14 PM
GUEST,Dave 30 Dec 15 - 03:37 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 04:14 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 04:21 PM
Greg F. 30 Dec 15 - 04:23 PM
GUEST 30 Dec 15 - 04:24 PM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Dec 15 - 04:31 PM
gillymor 30 Dec 15 - 05:10 PM
GUEST,Dave 30 Dec 15 - 05:13 PM
GUEST,Dave 30 Dec 15 - 05:17 PM
Greg F. 30 Dec 15 - 06:14 PM
akenaton 30 Dec 15 - 06:36 PM
Greg F. 30 Dec 15 - 06:57 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 02:08 AM
Dave the Gnome 31 Dec 15 - 03:13 AM
Dave the Gnome 31 Dec 15 - 03:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 04:33 AM
Dave the Gnome 31 Dec 15 - 04:34 AM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 04:37 AM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 04:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM
GUEST 31 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM
Teribus 31 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 04:58 AM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 05:04 AM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 05:06 AM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 05:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 05:11 AM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 05:17 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 15 - 05:23 AM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 05:39 AM
GUEST 31 Dec 15 - 05:43 AM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 05:53 AM
GUEST 31 Dec 15 - 06:03 AM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 06:09 AM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 06:12 AM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 06:19 AM
GUEST 31 Dec 15 - 06:30 AM
GUEST,Hilo 31 Dec 15 - 06:39 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 07:10 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 07:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 07:15 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 07:18 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 31 Dec 15 - 07:40 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 15 - 07:41 AM
Greg F. 31 Dec 15 - 09:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 10:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 10:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 10:41 AM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 11:08 AM
GUEST 31 Dec 15 - 11:09 AM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 15 - 11:31 AM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 11:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 12:20 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 12:23 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 12:38 PM
Keith A of Hertford 31 Dec 15 - 01:07 PM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM
Teribus 31 Dec 15 - 01:21 PM
GUEST,HiLo 31 Dec 15 - 01:25 PM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 02:07 PM
GUEST,Dave 31 Dec 15 - 02:08 PM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 15 - 03:15 PM
Jim Carroll 31 Dec 15 - 03:21 PM
The Sandman 31 Dec 15 - 04:43 PM
Donuel 31 Dec 15 - 07:51 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 03:21 AM
GUEST 01 Jan 16 - 04:08 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 04:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 04:27 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 16 - 04:44 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 16 - 05:00 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 05:07 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 05:11 AM
GUEST,Dave 01 Jan 16 - 05:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 06:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 06:18 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 16 - 06:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 07:35 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 16 - 07:58 AM
GUEST 01 Jan 16 - 08:19 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 16 - 09:12 AM
Teribus 01 Jan 16 - 09:24 AM
GUEST,Musket 01 Jan 16 - 09:36 AM
Jim Carroll 01 Jan 16 - 10:31 AM
GUEST,Dave 01 Jan 16 - 10:57 AM
GUEST,Dave 01 Jan 16 - 11:13 AM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 02:32 PM
Keith A of Hertford 01 Jan 16 - 02:46 PM
GUEST,Dave 01 Jan 16 - 04:31 PM
GUEST 02 Jan 16 - 03:34 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 04:16 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 04:43 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 04:53 AM
GUEST 02 Jan 16 - 05:19 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 05:55 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Jan 16 - 06:01 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 06:34 AM
GUEST,Dave 02 Jan 16 - 06:36 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 06:46 AM
GUEST 02 Jan 16 - 07:06 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Jan 16 - 07:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 07:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 07:33 AM
Steve Shaw 02 Jan 16 - 08:05 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 08:25 AM
GUEST,Dave 02 Jan 16 - 08:44 AM
Greg F. 02 Jan 16 - 09:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 09:40 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 10:18 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 10:23 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 10:46 AM
GUEST,Dave 02 Jan 16 - 11:01 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 11:02 AM
Teribus 02 Jan 16 - 11:11 AM
Teribus 02 Jan 16 - 11:16 AM
Teribus 02 Jan 16 - 11:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 11:36 AM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 11:48 AM
GUEST,Dave 02 Jan 16 - 12:04 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 12:08 PM
Jeri 02 Jan 16 - 12:13 PM
GUEST 02 Jan 16 - 12:40 PM
GUEST,Musket 02 Jan 16 - 01:17 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 01:33 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 01:41 PM
GUEST,Dave 02 Jan 16 - 01:49 PM
Dave the Gnome 02 Jan 16 - 01:51 PM
GUEST,Dave 02 Jan 16 - 01:53 PM
Keith A of Hertford 02 Jan 16 - 02:11 PM
GUEST,Dave 02 Jan 16 - 02:22 PM
GUEST 02 Jan 16 - 02:23 PM
akenaton 02 Jan 16 - 02:25 PM
Dave the Gnome 02 Jan 16 - 02:33 PM
Jim Carroll 02 Jan 16 - 02:55 PM
GUEST 02 Jan 16 - 02:58 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Jan 16 - 03:25 PM
Greg F. 02 Jan 16 - 03:32 PM
GUEST,Dave 02 Jan 16 - 03:38 PM
Dave the Gnome 02 Jan 16 - 04:08 PM
Greg F. 02 Jan 16 - 04:57 PM
GUEST 02 Jan 16 - 05:16 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 04:25 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 04:33 AM
GUEST,Dave 03 Jan 16 - 04:40 AM
GUEST,Dave 03 Jan 16 - 04:46 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 04:51 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 05:01 AM
GUEST 03 Jan 16 - 05:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 07:52 AM
GUEST,Dave 03 Jan 16 - 07:53 AM
GUEST,Dave 03 Jan 16 - 07:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 07:59 AM
GUEST 03 Jan 16 - 08:04 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 08:23 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 08:38 AM
GUEST,Dave 03 Jan 16 - 09:07 AM
Dave the Gnome 03 Jan 16 - 09:38 AM
GUEST 03 Jan 16 - 09:56 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 10:59 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 11:21 AM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 12:11 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 12:16 PM
Teribus 03 Jan 16 - 12:20 PM
GUEST,Musket 03 Jan 16 - 12:24 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 12:25 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 12:25 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 12:27 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 12:28 PM
GUEST 03 Jan 16 - 12:32 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 01:00 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 01:01 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 01:05 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 01:08 PM
Teribus 03 Jan 16 - 01:21 PM
Teribus 03 Jan 16 - 01:28 PM
GUEST,Dave 03 Jan 16 - 01:54 PM
GUEST,Musket 03 Jan 16 - 02:09 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 02:09 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 03:02 PM
Keith A of Hertford 03 Jan 16 - 03:06 PM
GUEST,Dave 03 Jan 16 - 03:23 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 03:25 PM
Dave the Gnome 03 Jan 16 - 03:43 PM
akenaton 03 Jan 16 - 04:07 PM
GUEST 03 Jan 16 - 04:41 PM
GUEST,Dave 03 Jan 16 - 04:47 PM
akenaton 03 Jan 16 - 04:54 PM
Dave the Gnome 03 Jan 16 - 05:07 PM
akenaton 03 Jan 16 - 05:32 PM
Jeri 03 Jan 16 - 05:39 PM
akenaton 03 Jan 16 - 05:41 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 16 - 05:58 PM
Dave the Gnome 03 Jan 16 - 06:00 PM
akenaton 03 Jan 16 - 06:09 PM
GUEST 03 Jan 16 - 06:20 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 16 - 06:53 PM
Jim Carroll 03 Jan 16 - 07:28 PM
GUEST,HiLo 03 Jan 16 - 08:59 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 16 - 09:11 PM
GUEST,HiLo 03 Jan 16 - 09:17 PM
Steve Shaw 03 Jan 16 - 09:32 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 16 - 01:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 16 - 01:49 AM
GUEST,HiLo 04 Jan 16 - 01:58 AM
Teribus 04 Jan 16 - 02:16 AM
Teribus 04 Jan 16 - 02:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 16 - 03:01 AM
GUEST 04 Jan 16 - 03:15 AM
Teribus 04 Jan 16 - 03:29 AM
GUEST,Musket 04 Jan 16 - 03:41 AM
GUEST,Dave 04 Jan 16 - 03:54 AM
Dave the Gnome 04 Jan 16 - 04:24 AM
GUEST,Dave 04 Jan 16 - 04:25 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 16 - 04:28 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 16 - 04:36 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 04:40 AM
Teribus 04 Jan 16 - 04:51 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 06:26 AM
Teribus 04 Jan 16 - 06:56 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 07:18 AM
GUEST 04 Jan 16 - 07:50 AM
GUEST,Dave 04 Jan 16 - 08:34 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 08:40 AM
GUEST,Dave 04 Jan 16 - 08:47 AM
GUEST 04 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM
Teribus 04 Jan 16 - 09:47 AM
GUEST,Dave 04 Jan 16 - 10:02 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 10:07 AM
Teribus 04 Jan 16 - 10:09 AM
Teribus 04 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM
GUEST 04 Jan 16 - 10:25 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 10:30 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 16 - 10:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 16 - 11:27 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 11:31 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 11:47 AM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 12:18 PM
Keith A of Hertford 04 Jan 16 - 02:23 PM
GUEST,DAve 04 Jan 16 - 02:46 PM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 02:48 PM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 02:56 PM
Teribus 04 Jan 16 - 07:12 PM
Jim Carroll 04 Jan 16 - 07:48 PM
GUEST,Musket 05 Jan 16 - 03:48 AM
Teribus 05 Jan 16 - 03:55 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 16 - 04:07 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Jan 16 - 04:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 16 - 04:47 AM
GUEST,Dave 05 Jan 16 - 05:32 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Jan 16 - 05:53 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Jan 16 - 06:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 16 - 06:29 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 16 - 06:45 AM
GUEST,Dave 05 Jan 16 - 07:19 AM
GUEST,Dave 05 Jan 16 - 07:23 AM
GUEST 05 Jan 16 - 07:27 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Jan 16 - 07:32 AM
Jim Carroll 05 Jan 16 - 07:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 16 - 08:14 AM
GUEST 05 Jan 16 - 08:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 16 - 09:11 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 16 - 09:18 AM
GUEST 05 Jan 16 - 09:44 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 16 - 10:01 AM
GUEST,Musket 05 Jan 16 - 10:43 AM
akenaton 05 Jan 16 - 10:45 AM
Dave the Gnome 05 Jan 16 - 11:05 AM
GUEST 05 Jan 16 - 11:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 05 Jan 16 - 12:26 PM
Greg F. 05 Jan 16 - 12:33 PM
GUEST 05 Jan 16 - 12:51 PM
Dave the Gnome 05 Jan 16 - 01:04 PM
GUEST 05 Jan 16 - 07:17 PM
GUEST,Musket 06 Jan 16 - 03:25 AM
GUEST,Dave 06 Jan 16 - 04:03 AM
GUEST,Dave 06 Jan 16 - 04:07 AM
GUEST,Dave 06 Jan 16 - 04:11 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Jan 16 - 04:52 AM
GUEST,Musket 06 Jan 16 - 05:07 AM
GUEST 06 Jan 16 - 05:37 AM
GUEST 06 Jan 16 - 05:56 AM
Teribus 06 Jan 16 - 06:20 AM
GUEST 06 Jan 16 - 06:33 AM
Steve Shaw 06 Jan 16 - 06:38 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 16 - 07:28 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 16 - 07:45 AM
Teribus 06 Jan 16 - 08:44 AM
GUEST 06 Jan 16 - 08:49 AM
Teribus 06 Jan 16 - 08:49 AM
Teribus 06 Jan 16 - 08:59 AM
GUEST,Musket 06 Jan 16 - 09:15 AM
Teribus 06 Jan 16 - 09:21 AM
GUEST,Musket 06 Jan 16 - 09:42 AM
Dave the Gnome 06 Jan 16 - 09:58 AM
GUEST 06 Jan 16 - 10:07 AM
GUEST,Musket 06 Jan 16 - 10:11 AM
Dave the Gnome 06 Jan 16 - 10:53 AM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 16 - 12:54 PM
GUEST,Musket 06 Jan 16 - 02:16 PM
Jim Carroll 06 Jan 16 - 02:34 PM
Teribus 07 Jan 16 - 07:10 AM
GUEST 07 Jan 16 - 07:22 AM
Lighter 07 Jan 16 - 07:27 AM
Teribus 07 Jan 16 - 07:30 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Jan 16 - 07:57 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 16 - 08:29 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 16 - 09:09 AM
Teribus 07 Jan 16 - 09:39 AM
Teribus 07 Jan 16 - 09:41 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Jan 16 - 10:01 AM
Lighter 07 Jan 16 - 10:26 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Jan 16 - 10:42 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 16 - 11:26 AM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 16 - 11:35 AM
GUEST,Triplane 07 Jan 16 - 11:54 AM
Dave the Gnome 07 Jan 16 - 12:19 PM
GUEST,Musket 07 Jan 16 - 12:53 PM
Dave the Gnome 07 Jan 16 - 01:09 PM
GUEST,Musket 07 Jan 16 - 01:20 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 07 Jan 16 - 02:44 PM
Jim Carroll 07 Jan 16 - 03:03 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 07 Jan 16 - 03:38 PM
Teribus 07 Jan 16 - 05:25 PM
Teribus 07 Jan 16 - 05:47 PM
GUEST,Musket 08 Jan 16 - 02:54 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Jan 16 - 03:00 AM
GUEST,Musket 08 Jan 16 - 04:02 AM
Teribus 08 Jan 16 - 04:03 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 16 - 04:31 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Jan 16 - 04:44 AM
GUEST,Colin 08 Jan 16 - 05:36 AM
Lighter 08 Jan 16 - 07:03 AM
GUEST,Colin 08 Jan 16 - 07:10 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 16 - 09:21 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 08 Jan 16 - 10:02 AM
Teribus 08 Jan 16 - 10:09 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Jan 16 - 10:34 AM
Teribus 08 Jan 16 - 10:35 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Jan 16 - 10:36 AM
Dave the Gnome 08 Jan 16 - 10:42 AM
GUEST,Musket 08 Jan 16 - 10:44 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 08 Jan 16 - 10:57 AM
Teribus 08 Jan 16 - 11:00 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 08 Jan 16 - 11:14 AM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 16 - 11:25 AM
Teribus 08 Jan 16 - 11:25 AM
GUEST,Musket 08 Jan 16 - 01:50 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 16 - 01:57 PM
akenaton 08 Jan 16 - 02:48 PM
Dave the Gnome 08 Jan 16 - 02:58 PM
GUEST,Musket of the team variety it appears 08 Jan 16 - 03:29 PM
GUEST 08 Jan 16 - 05:02 PM
GUEST,Musket 08 Jan 16 - 05:46 PM
Dave the Gnome 08 Jan 16 - 06:09 PM
GUEST 08 Jan 16 - 06:55 PM
GUEST 08 Jan 16 - 07:07 PM
Jim Carroll 08 Jan 16 - 08:03 PM
GUEST,Musket 09 Jan 16 - 03:37 AM
Dave the Gnome 09 Jan 16 - 04:47 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Jan 16 - 06:39 AM
GUEST 09 Jan 16 - 07:07 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 09 Jan 16 - 07:21 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Jan 16 - 07:50 AM
GUEST 09 Jan 16 - 08:08 AM
Jim Carroll 09 Jan 16 - 08:16 AM
GUEST 09 Jan 16 - 08:28 AM
GUEST,Musket 09 Jan 16 - 05:22 PM
akenaton 09 Jan 16 - 06:33 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 09 Jan 16 - 07:11 PM
GUEST,Musket 10 Jan 16 - 03:32 AM
GUEST,Dave 10 Jan 16 - 04:22 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Jan 16 - 04:53 AM
Jim Carroll 10 Jan 16 - 04:54 AM
akenaton 10 Jan 16 - 05:12 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Jan 16 - 05:20 AM
GUEST,Musket 10 Jan 16 - 06:02 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Jan 16 - 06:09 AM
Teribus 10 Jan 16 - 06:26 AM
GUEST,Musket 10 Jan 16 - 07:06 AM
GUEST,Musket 10 Jan 16 - 11:50 AM
Dave the Gnome 10 Jan 16 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,Dave 10 Jan 16 - 03:21 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Jan 16 - 03:55 PM
Teribus 10 Jan 16 - 05:35 PM
Teribus 10 Jan 16 - 06:08 PM
Greg F. 10 Jan 16 - 06:45 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Jan 16 - 07:31 PM
GUEST,SHTF 10 Jan 16 - 07:55 PM
Steve Shaw 10 Jan 16 - 08:18 PM
GUEST,SHTF 10 Jan 16 - 09:28 PM
GUEST,Musket 11 Jan 16 - 02:33 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Jan 16 - 02:53 AM
Teribus 11 Jan 16 - 04:19 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Jan 16 - 04:25 AM
GUEST 11 Jan 16 - 05:03 AM
Teribus 11 Jan 16 - 05:06 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Jan 16 - 08:51 AM
Dave the Gnome 11 Jan 16 - 10:37 AM
akenaton 11 Jan 16 - 12:16 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Jan 16 - 01:38 PM
GUEST,Musket 11 Jan 16 - 02:17 PM
Dave the Gnome 11 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM
GUEST,Musket 11 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM
GUEST,Musket 12 Jan 16 - 02:49 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 04:15 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Jan 16 - 05:01 AM
GUEST,Musket 12 Jan 16 - 05:31 AM
Teribus 12 Jan 16 - 06:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 06:35 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Jan 16 - 06:40 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 06:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 07:12 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 07:17 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Jan 16 - 07:37 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 07:44 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Jan 16 - 07:55 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Jan 16 - 08:32 AM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 09:59 AM
Dave the Gnome 12 Jan 16 - 10:23 AM
Jim Carroll 12 Jan 16 - 10:53 AM
GUEST,Musket 12 Jan 16 - 10:57 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Jan 16 - 12:53 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 12:55 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 12:59 PM
Greg F. 12 Jan 16 - 01:14 PM
GUEST,Musket 12 Jan 16 - 01:22 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Jan 16 - 01:22 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 01:25 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Jan 16 - 01:26 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 01:39 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Jan 16 - 01:48 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Jan 16 - 02:05 PM
Jim Carroll 12 Jan 16 - 02:31 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Jan 16 - 02:37 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Jan 16 - 02:39 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM
Dave the Gnome 12 Jan 16 - 03:12 PM
Keith A of Hertford 12 Jan 16 - 03:16 PM
Teribus 12 Jan 16 - 05:50 PM
Teribus 12 Jan 16 - 06:19 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 12 Jan 16 - 07:01 PM
GUEST,Musket 12 Jan 16 - 07:36 PM
Teribus 12 Jan 16 - 07:42 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Jan 16 - 01:59 AM
GUEST,Musket 13 Jan 16 - 02:45 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Jan 16 - 03:11 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 16 - 06:01 AM
Teribus 13 Jan 16 - 06:39 AM
GUEST,Dave 13 Jan 16 - 07:05 AM
GUEST,HiLo 13 Jan 16 - 07:24 AM
GUEST 13 Jan 16 - 08:07 AM
GUEST,HiLo 13 Jan 16 - 08:15 AM
Jim Carroll 13 Jan 16 - 08:20 AM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Jan 16 - 09:30 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 16 - 09:36 AM
GUEST,Dave 13 Jan 16 - 09:39 AM
GUEST,Fred 13 Jan 16 - 09:43 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 16 - 09:57 AM
Teribus 13 Jan 16 - 10:04 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 16 - 10:05 AM
GUEST,Teribus 13 Jan 16 - 10:29 AM
Dave the Gnome 13 Jan 16 - 10:32 AM
GUEST,HiLo 13 Jan 16 - 10:41 AM
GUEST,Dave 13 Jan 16 - 10:42 AM
GUEST 13 Jan 16 - 11:02 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 16 - 11:09 AM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 16 - 11:12 AM
GUEST,Musket 13 Jan 16 - 11:14 AM
Teribus 13 Jan 16 - 12:35 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Jan 16 - 01:03 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Jan 16 - 01:19 PM
Dave the Gnome 13 Jan 16 - 01:27 PM
GUEST,Dave 13 Jan 16 - 01:29 PM
GUEST,Dave 13 Jan 16 - 01:35 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Jan 16 - 02:08 PM
Dave the Gnome 13 Jan 16 - 02:19 PM
Teribus 13 Jan 16 - 02:22 PM
Dave the Gnome 13 Jan 16 - 02:49 PM
GUEST,Dave 13 Jan 16 - 03:08 PM
GUEST 13 Jan 16 - 03:58 PM
Greg F. 13 Jan 16 - 04:43 PM
GUEST,HiLo 13 Jan 16 - 06:30 PM
Teribus 13 Jan 16 - 06:33 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 16 - 07:02 PM
GUEST,HiLo 13 Jan 16 - 07:21 PM
Steve Shaw 13 Jan 16 - 08:08 PM
Jim Carroll 13 Jan 16 - 08:15 PM
GUEST,Musket 14 Jan 16 - 03:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 04:56 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 05:06 AM
GUEST 14 Jan 16 - 05:50 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 06:14 AM
GUEST,Fred 14 Jan 16 - 06:31 AM
GUEST,R Sole 14 Jan 16 - 07:36 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 07:52 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 07:57 AM
GUEST,Fred 14 Jan 16 - 08:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 08:29 AM
GUEST,Fred 14 Jan 16 - 08:33 AM
Teribus 14 Jan 16 - 10:07 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Jan 16 - 10:14 AM
Dave the Gnome 14 Jan 16 - 10:22 AM
GUEST,Fred 14 Jan 16 - 10:30 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 10:51 AM
GUEST,Dave 14 Jan 16 - 11:35 AM
GUEST 14 Jan 16 - 11:42 AM
GUEST,R Sole 14 Jan 16 - 11:51 AM
GUEST,Fred 14 Jan 16 - 12:18 PM
Teribus 14 Jan 16 - 12:20 PM
Greg F. 14 Jan 16 - 12:39 PM
Teribus 14 Jan 16 - 12:46 PM
Teribus 14 Jan 16 - 12:54 PM
GUEST,Dave 14 Jan 16 - 01:29 PM
GUEST,Dave 14 Jan 16 - 01:33 PM
Dave the Gnome 14 Jan 16 - 01:49 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Jan 16 - 01:53 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Jan 16 - 02:05 PM
Teribus 14 Jan 16 - 02:10 PM
GUEST,Dave 14 Jan 16 - 02:35 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 02:39 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 02:43 PM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Jan 16 - 02:55 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 14 Jan 16 - 03:09 PM
GUEST,Dave 14 Jan 16 - 03:33 PM
GUEST,Musket 15 Jan 16 - 03:04 AM
Keith A of Hertford 15 Jan 16 - 04:04 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Jan 16 - 05:49 AM
Teribus 15 Jan 16 - 07:44 AM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Jan 16 - 08:03 AM
Steve Shaw 15 Jan 16 - 08:20 AM
Teribus 15 Jan 16 - 09:46 AM
Teribus 15 Jan 16 - 10:00 AM
GUEST 15 Jan 16 - 10:01 AM
Teribus 15 Jan 16 - 12:50 PM
Steve Shaw 15 Jan 16 - 12:52 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Jan 16 - 12:54 PM
Teribus 15 Jan 16 - 01:02 PM
GUEST,Raggytash 15 Jan 16 - 01:08 PM
GUEST 15 Jan 16 - 04:30 PM
GUEST,R Sole 16 Jan 16 - 02:48 AM
GUEST,Dave 16 Jan 16 - 03:46 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Jan 16 - 03:49 AM
GUEST,Dave 16 Jan 16 - 03:54 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Jan 16 - 03:58 AM
Teribus 16 Jan 16 - 04:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Jan 16 - 05:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Jan 16 - 06:22 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Jan 16 - 06:24 AM
Teribus 16 Jan 16 - 08:37 AM
Teribus 16 Jan 16 - 09:06 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Jan 16 - 09:34 AM
Keith A of Hertford 16 Jan 16 - 11:10 AM
Dave the Gnome 16 Jan 16 - 12:24 PM
Teribus 16 Jan 16 - 02:39 PM
GUEST,R Sole 16 Jan 16 - 03:08 PM
Greg F. 16 Jan 16 - 03:30 PM
Dave the Gnome 16 Jan 16 - 06:56 PM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Jan 16 - 04:22 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jan 16 - 04:48 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Jan 16 - 05:14 AM
Teribus 17 Jan 16 - 05:50 AM
Jim Carroll 17 Jan 16 - 05:51 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jan 16 - 06:00 AM
GUEST,R Sole 17 Jan 16 - 06:02 AM
Teribus 17 Jan 16 - 06:09 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jan 16 - 06:15 AM
GUEST,R Sole 17 Jan 16 - 06:22 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jan 16 - 07:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Jan 16 - 08:40 AM
GUEST,Dave 17 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jan 16 - 09:26 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Jan 16 - 11:04 AM
Dave the Gnome 17 Jan 16 - 11:35 AM
Keith A of Hertford 17 Jan 16 - 01:59 PM
GUEST 17 Jan 16 - 02:07 PM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: Folklore: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 01:05 AM

Not wanting to continue a stale thread, but an unusual agreement had just taken place.
Raggytash ridiculed the idea of believing some unqualified folkie over an historian, which is a point I have been making for years.
(True he directed it at me, but I had not challenged anything by a current historian including the one he quoted.)

Jim, I do not lie. M's book was not relevant and I did not have a copy to quote anyway, but I started quoting her, as you said, when I found all her articles and essays on line (like the FT article you just quoted) which makes her position on what is history and what is myth very clear indeed.

I hope we can discuss this reasonably and stay open.
I am off to the hospital shortly. If this goes before I return later today could someone pm me how it went please?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 01:17 AM

Can't see how this fits into the music section, Keith. I moved it below the line.
-Joe-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 02:30 AM

I'd move it a bit further down than mere BS Joe.

The moderators, for their reasons I suppose, closed the thread Keith refers to.

His inability to debate, his ridiculous infantile stance of "everybody other than anybody I try to impress on Mudcat agrees with me" is either funny or disturbing, but not the foundation for mature debate.

No Keith. The world does not spin at the speed of The Daily Telegraph or recruiting sergeants. Come back when you grow up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 03:05 AM

Well, I will make one contribution and hope that will be the end of it from me. There is no point in continuing the argument ad nauseum. There are differing viewpoints on all aspects of history and they are all, in the main, valid. The facts are the facts and will never be altered but the interpretation of those facts will vary considerably depending upon many circumstances. I firmly believe that in the previous discussions everyone, with some very rare exceptions, was telling the truth and was right. This is the important bit as far as they were concerned. So, Keith, Jim, Teribus, Raggytash and anyone else involved. Your views are all valid. I have read them and taken them on board. I also have views and they agree with parts of what you all say but not all.

Good luck to all who decide to step once more into the breach...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 03:28 AM

Oh dear - it's not going to be all over by Christmas - again!
Bloody insane to infest the season of goodwill with yet more phantom historians.
Better luck with your shadow boxing this time.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 04:46 AM

I hope we can discuss this reasonably and stay open. LOL !!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 09:50 AM

Thanks Joe.
I was hoping people might be less abusive above the line, and it is folklore of a modern kind.

Rag,
Oh ! ! Dilemma ! ! Who should I believe the review of Gary Mead the noted Historian or the professor Keith A of Hertford.

If it is about history, believe the historian obviously, but I would never expose myself to ridicule by arguing against one.

How about, "Oh ! ! Dilemma ! ! Who should I believe, the findings of all the noted Historians, or any group of non-specialists on Mudcat?

Nothing new from any of you folk then.
Perhaps there is no point in continuing.

I have just said what all the historians say.
I do not believe that they falsify evidence and lie.
Why would they?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 09:56 AM

Perhaps there is no point in continuing.

Keith, with all due respect, you just said what I pointed out in my first post with the line "There is no point in continuing the argument ad nauseum"

Now we are both agreed perhaps we can just draw a line under it?

And, unless you want me to address any specifics, that really is my last post on this! Let me know if you do. Maybe by PM?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:10 AM

"Perhaps there is no point in continuing."
You said it Keith - we really are too much of a bunch of thick and ignorant "Muppet lefties" to be won over by the erudition of shining pair of intellects such as yours
For your own sake - let it be over by Christmas
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM

Oh no! Its déja vu all over again!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 10:50 AM

I know I said it was my last but I couldn't resist causing a groan on a Friday afternoon...

Have you said that before, Greg?

:D


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 11:05 AM

Well, a groan in tme saves nine, Dave. ;>)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 02:54 PM

Or we could try to find common ground.
We must agree on some things.

The war was a catastrophe in economic terms leaving Europe utterly impoverished, but above all it was a human catastrophe on an unprecedented scale of horror.
Agree?

WW2 was an equivalent disaster for Europe.
Agree?

Those views expressed by Jim on WW1 have been put forward by eminent historians and are still widely believed.
Agree?

Current historians do not accept those views, and none of us have found anything written in the last 20 years that does.
Agree?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 02:58 PM

Please note that NONE of the "usual suspects" are actually addressing any facet of either the history or the mythology of the First World War, I will however.

The first will be the the British Army

A force deserving nothing but contempt from their adversaries in 1914 - only 80,000 strong who were faced with holding off 180,000 to 200,000 men for the first five months of the war. Not only did they survive but they inflicted serious damage on their enemy but delayed them sufficiently to completely derail and destroy the German plan for an early victory in the west in 1914. They did not do it on their own the French and the Belgians played their part - but play their part they did - do not detract or diminish in any way the role that they played.

By 1918 the British, Commonwealth and Empire armies present in France were the ONLY formation capable and willing to take the fight to the enemy, only 21 days after the armies of the "Entente Power", primarily the British, had withstood five successive and prolonged offensives by a German Army reinforced and doubled in size with men transferred from the Eastern Front, the first citizens Army that Britain had ever raised (Ten times the size of the army that Great had in 1914) in 100 days defeated what was generally considered to be the best army in the world. This campaign is still considered to be the most successful offensive campaign ever mounted by the British Army in its entire history.

The expansion, training, deployment and development of tactics could not have been accomplished to achieve those results if the leadership of the British Army had been useless or incompetent.

Anyone wishing to respond to this post please address the points made - not the person posting them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 04:15 PM

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Agree that no one has found anything on here but that does not mean that there is not anything :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: MartinRyan
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 04:55 PM

I'd move it a bit further down than mere BS Joe.

That reminds me - it has struck me before that there is a definite need for a "Mudcat Lowest Level of Hell" layer in this forum. All threads condemned to it should self-destruct in three weeks - bit like Mission Impossible...

;>)>


Regards

p.s.
Happy Christmas!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:46 PM

Yup. Its season 26 of the Terabyte & Professor Show, god help us......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Kampervan
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 05:56 PM

What is this all about?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM

Oh no, PLEASE don't ask...... it'll only encourage The Dynamic Duo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 06:35 PM

Well, same old, same old.....plus guest!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 07:12 PM

Anyone wishing to respond to my first post on this thread please address the points made - not the person posting them.

I can instantly see that:

MartinRyan - 18 Dec 15 - 04:55 PM

Greg F. - 18 Dec 15 - 05:46 PM

Kampervan - 18 Dec 15 - 05:56 PM

Greg F. - 18 Dec 15 - 06:00 PM

Have no intention whatsoever in engaging in any form of discussion which sort of begs the question "Just what the fuck they are doing here". Perhaps its just an educational thing -like they actually need an education in something.

As to the rest of the crew of "usual suspects" lets hear your views with regard to the British Army of 440,000 men who started out in 1914 as that contemptible little army and ended up as Great Britains very first citizen Army of over 5 million strong who, in time of war, was created, equipped and trained, then took on and defeated the the greatest and best army in the world at that time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 07:13 PM

"We must agree on some things"
For crying out loud - we don't - leave it.
"All threads condemned to it should self-destruct in three weeks "
Now there's something to ask Santa to leave in your stocking.
" "usual suspects" "
You pair are on your own
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 07:17 PM

No Jom - you have been asked a specific question either answer it or keep out of it. If you cannot actually put a reasonable argument forward then please do not get involved.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Dec 15 - 09:10 PM

Have no intention whatsoever in engaging in any form of discussion

Absolutely correct (this once) Terabyte, as there would be no point whatsoever in so doing.

Now, with any luck, no one else will engage you & the Professor for the umpteenth time and thus save a great deal of futile effort, not to say bandwith and computer memory.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:07 AM

Joe Offer: "Can't see how this fits into the music section, Keith. I moved it below the line."

Au contraire.

Terribus: "If you cannot actually put a reasonable argument forward then please do not get involved."

[John McIlwraith voice] The ONLY reason the whole lot were of any use at ALL was the Scots and their bagpipes. Posted in the rear, the only viable escape route was to the front. Infantry being the lovers of fine music they are, it wasn't exactly the "all volunteer" affair some contemporary patriots make it out to be. And being no slackers at music themselves, the Germans were greatly disadvantaged by having to cover their ears with both hands and operate a weapon all at the same time. (w/apologies to the original – RIP)

I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeD9Nk8-tY0


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 03:54 AM

"No Jom - you have been asked a specific question either answer it or keep out of it."
You have been asked dozens of direct questions (morality of a war that sent so many young lads to their deaths for instance, or good leadership vs butchery, or a war for territory by Empires capable of slaughtering 10 million of its colonials, profiteering on ceramic poppies (now for sale on Ebay at around £200 a go.....) - you have refused to respond to each and every one of them.
Your technique is to bully and bluster your case as if they are indisputable facts, and when you are proven wrong, you do a runner.
You did the same with your fatuous arguments on the Famine - when presented with documented facts you clam up and refuse to respond.   
I have no intention of continuing with this farce - as far as I'm concerned enough facts have been given for those in any doubt to make up their mind and "two dissenters don't make a summer" as they nearly say, even if those two particular swallows consider themselves sparrowhawks in Supermen suits!
"Scots and their bagpipes"
Referred to as "the ladies from Hell" when they were seen coming up the D-Day Beaches.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: gillymor
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 04:09 AM

LOL, Phil.

In Winston Groom's Book on the Ypres salient "A Storm in Flanders" the author wrote that when they heard bagpipes German troops would retreat from the advanced lines of defense because they knew a unit of the Black Watch was coming thru and that the Scots would kill everything in sight and wouldn't back off but now I'm thinking it was the pipes that made them run.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 04:15 AM

"I'm thinking it was the pipes that made them run."
Brendan Behan once said of the highland pipes that the only thing in their favour was that they didn't smell!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Beverley Minster
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 04:58 AM

"Battle of the Standard: properly trained Norman knights - God has chosen them to punish the Scots. Arouse your spirits then, ye civilized warriors, and, firmly relying on the valour of your country, nay, rather on the presence of God, arise against these most unrighteous foes,and let not their rashness move you, besides your forefathers, when but few in number, have many a time conquered multitudes.

Any keenness of the Scots yielded to the will of the Galwegians:
casual slaughter of unsalable encumbrances - "For the sick on their couches, women pregnant and in childbed, infants in the womb, innocents at the breast, or on the mother's knee, with the mothers themselves, decrepit old men and worn-out old women, and persons debilitated from whatever cause, wherever they met with them, they put to the edge of the sword, and transfixed with their spears; and by how much more horrible a death they could dispatch them, so much the more did they rejoice."
The battle began horrible Galwegians


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 05:09 AM

As no-one would appear to have any comments relating to the British Army which started the war as a force of 440,000 men and ended it about ten times that size, then I would draw the attention of those who are of the opinion that its leadership was incompetent to the organisational skills required to expand, train, equip and deploy that number of men from scratch up to the point where in 1916 Great Britain's first citizen army saw off the best the Germans could throw at them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 06:37 AM

"The battle began horrible Galwegians"
Sounds like the only Celtic-Rangers match I ever attended.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Mr Red
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:27 AM

Please note that NONE of the "usual suspects" are actually addressing any facet of either the history or the mythology of the First World War - The angrynauts have the loudest voices!

However in the same "lets talk about the actual subject" spirit, I offer what I have found in one small town about peoples' family memories regarding WW1. stroudvoices.co.uk - audio relating to WW1 There is a panel of explanation, click on it and it will reveal a button that can display 5 more tracks at a time (of 29).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:32 AM

The army could have been 930,785 stronger but sadly they were the one's who were killed.

To say nothing of the millions of men like both my grandfathers who were gassed and maimed and had to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

However we won and that is all that matters to some people.

Before you go on a rant Teribums try to think how the majority of people benefitted from the war. The 20's and 30's saw mass unemployment, means testing, poor housing, poor living conditions, low wages etc etc.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 07:34 AM

And just to spread a bit of Christmas cheer Aldi (at least the one in Eccles) are selling Clontarf Single Malt at £19.99 a bottle. It is a very nice Whiskey.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 08:21 AM

"It is a very nice Whiskey"
Hmmmm??
Three whiskey salesmen met at a convention and later began to stand each other rounds in the bar
The Paddy's rep brought three glasses of his product, which they all downed.
The Bushmills man did the same - three Bushmills.
The Jameson rep went to the bar and brought back three Paddys
"Shouldn't you be promoting your own product?" they asked.
"Don't want to go back to work with the smell of whiskey on your breath", he replied.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM

Rag,
Before you go on a rant Teribums try to think how the majority of people benefitted from the war. The 20's and 30's saw mass unemployment, means testing, poor housing, poor living conditions, low wages etc etc.

Yes, the nation was impoverished, and WW2 made things worse.
In the lands occupied by the German armies during WW1 and WW2, civilians were taken away as slave labourers. Many people would say that is worse than austerity and grateful that they did not widen their empire any further.

You will find no expression of regret for making a stand from the people who lived through the 20s and 30s despite the cost.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 12:41 PM

Amazingly the propaganda of the time still exerts it's influence a hundred years later. I suppose the British use of "colonial" people was something else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 12:56 PM

Amazingly the propaganda of the time still exerts it's influence a hundred years later.

I would say that statement is nonsense and challenge you to justify it.
Paxman in his programmes, informed by the OU History Faculty, said Britain was a much better place after the war.
Have you compared social conditions before and after?
I have not.

I think that all the European armies in WW1 used colonial troops.
What is your point?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:04 PM

"How was post-war British society different from the society that had entered the First World War in August 1914? It was indubitably more democratic. Previously under-represented groups such as women and, in particular, the working class became better organised and more powerful during the war. This, in turn, encouraged the growth of less deferential attitudes, as did the cross-class experiences of the trenches. There had been a disproportionately high percentage of casualties among the landed classes, and the strict class hierarchy of Edwardian Britain disappeared for good in the immediate post-war years.

Yet, though the working class became a more powerful political force, it shrank numerically. Growing numbers of the working population in inter-war Britain were employed in 'white collar' jobs. The First World War thus marked an important staging post on the road to 'modern' British society."
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/aftermath/brit_after_war.htm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:15 PM

Working class people were able to get white collar jobs, because it became less acceptable to restrict these jobs to the middle class. In my view, the fact that a working class person has a middle class occupation does not detract from their working class credentials.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 01:42 PM

You seem to be agreeing that things were better after the war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 19 Dec 15 - 04:00 PM

Oh Keith, do try and educate yourself. The rest of us are tired of the attempt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 04:01 AM

Well Keith, it will surprise you that I agree that things were better after the war. Indeed also after WWII. Apart from for those that were killed or maimed in it that is. Just as, because it broke the economic power of the lords of the manor, things were better after the Black Death for those who survived. However, that doesn't make it a good thing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 04:47 AM

There is MYTH #2 - That the First World War was somehow a war of choice - Simply put it wasn't, not by a long shot.

It doesn't matter a toss what we think about it today, what mattered in relation to the situation that developed in Europe was how the Government of the day read the situation.

The ONLY country that could have stopped the war in the summer of 1914 was the German Military Autocracy, the elected German Government of the day had absolutely no say in matters relating to foreign policy or the military. The Kaiser had four days towards the end of July when he could have stopped the whole thing - he decided not to, because he thought that he could win - they very nearly did.

The choice as seen from Great Britain's perspective was fight Germany now as part of a powerful alliance, or risk having to fight Germany on our own later. They followed historical precedent and elected to fight as part of an alliance as Great Britain's army in 1914 could not possibly match that of Germany's on its own.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 08:33 AM

Yawn. We have seen in the other thread that we could have negotiated peace at least twice, at the end of 1914 and most definitely at the end of 1916. The second was after the Somme, but a negotiated peace then would have avoided the horrors of Passchendaele.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 08:39 AM

We have seen in the other thread that we could have negotiated peace at least twice,

Not from any historian.
Please give us the relevant quote.

Meanwhile please read this Daily Mirror piece by Paxman, who has never been accused of "political expediency."
"WW1 changed Britain forever"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-paxman-ww1-changed-britain-3973087


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 08:55 AM

Keith, are you seriously saying that all modern historians deny the the Germans offered peace negotiations in December 1916? Deny that Woodrow Wilson was trying to push the British towards peace negotiations? Deny the existence of the Lansdowne Letter? Some of this stuff is even on the website of the National Archives.

Instead we get from you a Daily Mirror article by Paxman, not an historian of any note but a political interviewer. With a degree in English not History. And a self-confessed tory.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 09:07 AM

An American historian's view,
"Peace initiatives during World War I never had much chance of success."

" Secondly, the character of the German government, especially after Ludendorff and Hindenburg consolidated their power after July 1917, made a peace based upon the status quo ante bellum – the terms most likely to end the fighting – almost impossible. Germany's military leaders consistently opposed even the indirect forms of German expansion advocated by Bethmann and Kühlmann as inadequate for Germany's security, were completely convinced that only the most extensive gains possible could fend of revolution at home, and, at crucial turning points in the war, always advocated high-risk gambles for victory rather than seriously explore peace possibilities. "
http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/peace_initiatives


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 11:41 AM

Interesting Keith that you quote that paragraph from the linked article, rather then the one immediately before, which says:

"Peace initiatives during World War I never had much chance of success. Three reasons stand out for why this was so. First, both sides suffered from a profound sense of insecurity. They were trapped in an anarchic international system long characterized by uncertainty, arms races, warfare, and constant intrigue. Both sides tended to assume the worst in their enemies; both trusted in the reduction of their opponents' power, more than anything else, to keep them safe. So long as they could believe that they had a plausible chance to prevail on the battlefield, they would not abandon their quest to achieve that goal."

These attitudes were ingrained in the ruling classes on all sides. They derived particularly from the imperialist mindset of the 19th century, shared by the leaders of all of the major European powers.

So Keith is right to say that peace never had a chance. But our rulers share equally with those of the Central Powers in the blame for this. .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 12:32 PM

Guest Dave, once the war started Great Britain found itself in an alliance with France, Belgium and with Russia.

As Keith A has introduced the fact that peace would have had to have been bought on the premise that the Germans retained all the territory they had captured - while NO British territory had been taken you sitting in your armchair now in 2015 might think that that might have been a good deal it was always going to be totally unacceptable to the French and the Belgians - Our Allies.

The entire country was at war it was not just the ruling classes and the attitude at the time was perfectly correct - we are involved in a war against those who would do us harm - we have to win this war, we will win this war and do anything we have to do to accomplish that goal.

The German Kaiser was the person who pushed for this war, he was the only person who could have prevented it from happening and he didn't. It was the German Kaiser who would have had to have agreed any overture of peace and the entire world and his dog must have known that the terms submitted would have been instantly rejected by the countries whose territorial integrity had been violated and whose civil populations had suffered.

Because of the losses suffered by the German Armies on the western front at Verdun and on the Somme in 1916 - the German High Command knew that they could not defeat either the British or the French - hence the peace proposal.


It was the rulers of the Central Powers who set out THEIR terms so please tell me how on earth we must share the blame for something that we had no part in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 03:38 PM

YAWN.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 04:37 PM

Negotiation usually involves each side setting out a position, and then compromises being made. Sure the Central Powers set out their position, and the British and French a different one. If the imperative of the ruling classes had been to avoid the huge suffering of the people they were sending to fight, rather than territory and ego, then those compromises could have been found. As it was they were happier, on both sides, to send more of their working classes to die.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 05:31 PM

You are entitled to your view Dave, but I must point out that no historian agrees with it.
You said on the previous thread that there were "many" such but then failed to produce anything written less than fifty years ago!

My view is that if all the historians disagree with your view of history, it is probably wrong.

I formed my views by reading the history books.
They all agree on the issues I have defended.
None of you have found anything written in recent decades that challenge them.
Unless and until you do, we can not progress this discussion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 07:30 PM

"If the imperative of the ruling classes had been to avoid the huge suffering of the people they were sending to fight, rather than territory and ego, then those compromises could have been found. As it was they were happier, on both sides, to send more of their working classes to die."

And IF my Aunt had Balls she'd be my Uncle - What is being discussed is History versus Mythology - you have signed up to the mythology which has led you to come out with what you have said above.

The First World War (HINT: Take a look at the title) was a fairly classless affair - and it wasn't only the working class who died - another of your more dearly held MYTHS.

Tell me GUEST Dave these compromises you prattle on about - as a Frenchman, or a Belgian, just exactly how much of your sovereignty would you have been willing to compromise away, and what would you have said to your former citizens who you were throwing on the mercy of their new rulers?

British Army - Great Britain's first citizen army, roughly half were volunteers whereas the armies of France, Belgium and Germany were all conscripts raised through a system of universal conscription - they had no choice or say in the matter whatsoever.

What territory and ego are you talking about from Great Britain's perspective? Both Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were fighting in the hope of territorial gain - Great Britain certainly wasn't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Dec 15 - 09:49 PM

My view is that if all the historians disagree with your view of history, it is probably wrong.

Not quite, Professor. Your view is that if any historians disagree with you, ipso facto, they must be wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 03:45 AM

Teribus:

"Tell me GUEST Dave these compromises you prattle on about - as a Frenchman, or a Belgian, just exactly how much of your sovereignty would you have been willing to compromise away, and what would you have said to your former citizens who you were throwing on the mercy of their new rulers?"

What evidence have you that the new rulers would have been any different from the old rulers? The ruling classes of the time were much the same, and in many cases were closely related to each other. WWII was different, as I have said many times.

"British Army - Great Britain's first citizen army, roughly half were volunteers "

Which means that the other half weren't. It seems that a greater proportion of British were persuaded that fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class was worthwhile, it doesn't mean it was true.

"What territory and ego are you talking about from Great Britain's perspective?"

They certainly acquired German East Africa after the war, not that the views of the people who lived there had any bearing upon the matter. And quite a bit of territory from the Ottoman empire, which they then proceeded to make a total mess of ruling. But thats the British ruling class for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 03:48 AM

Keith,

"You are entitled to your view Dave, but I must point out that no historian agrees with it."

This after Teribus posted a quote from one of his favourite historians, unfortunately for him he also posted a link, which shows that the rest of the article provides actually a much more balanced view, and does not support your (plural) extreme position at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 04:01 AM

I disagree with Keith and I'm a historian.

Next.

Teribus is quoting straight from the Michael Gove book of putting empire worship on the school curriculum.

Next

The first time some idiot of a general was supported for saying "Sending men over the top seems to get them all killed, let's send some more and see what happens" was the time that military incompetence entered the war and managed to survive.

Next

War itself is an admission of failure.

Next

Each and every person arguing on here for glorification of a public service society should be looking to make irrelevant has never been to war, has never been subjected to the idiots from Sandhurst and have obviously never read accounts from those actually there.

Next


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 04:17 AM

"The First World War (HINT: Take a look at the title) was a fairly classless affair "
Nice to sneer hasn't gone away from your contributions shipmate.
From the British Library site.
   
"To us, with modern social attitudes and communications technology, Turner's world might seem rigidly hierarchical. But to men like him it would have seemed much less strange. Born in a more deferential age, the soldiers of the First World War were accustomed to everyone having their place and knowing it, too. The British army of 1914-18 was structured very well, not only to accomplish its military mission, but also for a society of such men."
CLASS DIVIDED WW1
World War One was rigidly class divided
"There had been a disproportionately high percentage of casualties among the landed classes,"
Another crass argument - the overwhelming majority of those involved came from the "lower" (a term very popular in those days) classes, so comparing percentages of larger numbers of working men with vastly smaller numbers of smaller men is totally misleading - those who went over the top were the drones - those who sent them over or stayed back at headquarters in relative safety were the queen bees.
Not were any social changes brought about following the war due to the sacrifice made by the workers who fought and gave their lives.
British workers became more militant having become concious oof the contempt they were held in - soldiers protested to the point of rioting during and after the war, Trades Unions began to fight for better conditions, against tiff and sometimes brutal opposition from their "betters" (still very much part of the British vocabulary) - workers during The General Strike faced both the police and the army in their attempts to get a better way of life... and then of course, thanks to the total breakdown of the system, we had the great depression, where families starved and workers took to the streets to feed them.
The same happened, of course, happened at the end of World War Two, a progressive (those were the days) Labour Government introduced improvements in workers lives - social housing, the strongly opposed (by the right) National Health Service and nationalisation of industry
All these were strongly opposed by the right, run down when they took power and eventually either neutred by privatisation or done away altogether.
We've already had the 'patriotic' right extremist 'voice of reason' telling us that British industry was crap (ie "unprofitable") and that British people never manufactured anything worth buying and I have no doubt we'll get more - ah well, that's patriotism for you.
What are you pair of eejits on?
As you were cookie and Corporal Pike.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 05:44 AM

What quote was that GUEST Dave, or are you resorting to "Made Up Shit"?

Jom you missed the point re-classless - GUEST Dave was wittering on about working classes being sent to their deaths - unfortunately the facts don't suit Dave's MYTH, representatives from all social classes died:

1: The bulk of the volunteers in 1914/1915 came from the middle-classes

2: The school that suffered the highest mortality rate among its former pupils was ETON

3: When the "working classes" arrived for training the Army were appalled at their general physical condition. During basic training after a regime of proper diet, fresh air and exercise the recruits gained in height and in weight - for most it was the first time they ate meat on a regular basis.

"What evidence have you that the new rulers would have been any different from the old rulers?"
Ehmmm Dave you are the French or Belgian politician that is going to negotiate away the rights of your former fellow citizens in your "negotiations" with the Germans – You appear to be missing the point – the new rulers in Belgium and in large chunks of the North of France would have been their German conquerors – always amazed to see how those who claim to be "socialist", pacifist and anti-war are always so keen to reward military aggression by others when it doesn't affect them – how noble of you.
What benefit the people saw from the war? The people of Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine regained their freedom and liberty – that good enough for you – or has the gain got to be material?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM

The vast majority of casualties throughout the war were from the working classes
Those are the facts - not your made up and as usual unsubstantiated ones.
The crap that the War was a "relatively classless one is risible - you have, again, as usual, ignored the fact that you've once more put your foot in it (quick enough to gloat about the mistakes made by others through)
Nor will you respond to the fat that any social gains made post war were bitterly fought for against "Get on your bike" twots like you.
You are a pair of establishment suck-holes (don't know if that phras made it out of Liverpool)
You really are hooray Henry caricatures
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:25 AM

Missed a bit
" The school that suffered the highest mortality rate among its former pupils was ETON"
Once more you are presenting distorted "facts"
The ages of pupils of schools like Eton far exceeded those attending working class schools - who left at as low as 12 and 13 years of age.
Toffee nosed school tended to make a thing about "fallen pupil" where working class schools didn't go in for that sort of thing.
" The bulk of the volunteers in 1914/1915 came from the middle-classes"
You have always claimed that the British people flocked to join up as a patriotic duty - now you are claiming that it was mainly the midle classes who did so - presumably the working classses, who formd the majority of the population had the good sense to stay away!!!
Are you ****** mad - be consistent in your stupidity - that's the secret
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:33 AM

Terribulus's confusion is rather funny. If we didn't have idiots to laugh at we'd probably question ourselves more.

Call it a civic duty. Every village has one, but Mudcat does seem to host their conventions.

🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴

🐮💩


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:35 AM

As a class the middle class made up about 40% of volunteers at the start of the war. Industry made up about 27% and Agriculture about 22%. So it is reasonable to say at the start of the war the middle classes made up a significant proportion of the total but not the bulk.

(27+22 being greater than 40, thus the working class made up the majority)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:51 AM

"Terribulus's confusion is rather funny. "
Absolutely hilarious
Two of his unsubstantiated "facts" are made up bollocks and prrovably so and the third demonstrates the appalling condition workers lived in and also, contrary to their claims one of the main reasons for people volunteering in the first place - a roof, a bed and thre square meals - that they could not get at home
I do balieve hes come over to our side!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 06:59 AM

Teribus says:

"The people of Belgium and Alsace-Lorraine regained their freedom and liberty"

No they didn't. They regained the right to be subject to a Belgian or French ruling class, instead of a German ruling class. Freedom and liberty were, as always, not on the agenda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM

I read the figures quite recently on a history website. I'll try and find it again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 08:28 AM

I suppose some people poke fun at Teribus on the basis you can't have a conversation with someone who twists and corrupts the sources of his so called facts in order to suit his rather extreme and old fashioned take on society.

You can't educate pork, so just get the crackling roasting.
🐷


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 10:18 AM

someone who twists and corrupts the sources of his so called facts

It would be helpful if you could provide examples of this so that we can all point and sneer at him together.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 10:26 AM

I have to admit, Terribulus's methods of what he calls debate are tiresome and have the disadvantage of defending a view that is reactionary.

That said, the answer is always somewhere in the middle. His Rottweiler approach merely leads to any points he makes being hidden in the diatribe.

I suppose that puts me in the pointing and laughing camp. It has the advantage of, wait for it... history being on our side 😂😂😂


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 11:26 AM

"someone who twists" Plenty of examples here
"The bulk of the volunteers in 1914/1915 came from the middle-classes"
In fact the the overwhelming majority of those who enlisted came from the labouring classes
"The school that suffered the highest mortality rate among its former pupils was ETON"
Responded to already and ignored, by you too, it would seem.
'Liverpudlians were living off the pig's back at the outbreak of WW1' (to paraphrase)
Again, responded to at length and described as "badly written" (the official document containing the facts and figures presumably) and so, unworthy of a reply!!
Plenty more examples were those came from - unfortunately, pretending that his feet are not regularly lodged firmly in his mouth, as he always does, doesn't make his delivery anymore clear and intelligible.
Captain Pugwash here has an amusing habit of putting his somewhat quaintly out-of-date opinions up as indisputable facts and in such a sneery manner to make it extremely satisfying when his case falls around his ears, and it mainly does.
Trying to talk down to people from holes you persistently dig yourself into is not good practice for a bear with so little brain.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 11:32 AM

"Apparently you don't understand the difference between being governed by a democratically elected Government and being part of a class system where which side of the blanket you are born carries far more weight than who you vote for."

So basically we have been ruled by a democratically elected Government since 1832 - I know that neither Maths, History or General Knowledge are your strong suit Jom but did 1832 come before or after 1914.

As to the last bit of about birth and blankets, etc I suppose that that is just another example of your tooth-sucking, envy riven, hatred of everything British that you nurture with such zeal - what a truly ugly and discontented person you must be.

"I take it we are in agreement about your crass "facts"?"

What "crass facts" Jom? You and the "emoji" king have yet to point any of them out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 12:11 PM

😇


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 12:37 PM

"British Army - Great Britain's first citizen army, roughly half were volunteers "

"Which means that the other half weren't. It seems that a greater proportion of British were persuaded that fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class was worthwhile, it doesn't mean it was true."

Nope GUEST Dave it does not mean that - Great Britain introduced a system of universal conscription and fell in line with what all the other combatant nations had had in place in order to prosecute the war.

Please provide some substantive evidence for your claim that the war was about "fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class" - I can certainly see nothing to support that point of view.

"What territory and ego are you talking about from Great Britain's perspective?"

"They certainly acquired German East Africa after the war, not that the views of the people who lived there had any bearing upon the matter. And quite a bit of territory from the Ottoman empire, which they then proceeded to make a total mess of ruling. But thats the British ruling class for you."

Could you show us where and when before the war that Great Britain viewed the prospect of taking over German colonies? Good luck with that as there is no evidence of it.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but neither Great Britain or France gained any territory from the Ottoman Empire, THEY DID HOWEVER take on administrative responsibility for territorial mandates handed them by the League of Nations and nothing could be done in those territories by the mandatory powers without the knowledge, consent and approval of the League of Nations. Those mandates were time limited from the outset, so to present that as either country "acquiring territory" is simply incorrect. As to who has made a complete and utter mess of the middle-east? My money would go on the people of the area who have had over 67 years to sort things out and yet haven't - they now falsely claim to be fighting to achieve the "Two State Solution" that they rejected 67 years ago - no wonder the Israelis are more than just slightly sceptical about that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 01:15 PM

"So basically we have been ruled by a democratically elected Government since 1832"
Really?
Women got the vote when exactly - or doesn't democracy include that particular section of the population?
"I know that neither Maths, History or General Knowledge are your strong suit Jom"
Certainly isn't yours.
The fact remains - and as yet responded to is that our particular versions is like Orwell's equality - some have more democracy than others - depending on which particular rung on the ladder you occupy.
Our democracy is based on the idea that at election time - they promise, once the elections are over, they forget those promises until the next election, when they promise again - and so ad infinitum.   
Expecting an equal share of the benefits wrought from my labour and those like me and an equal right for my voice to be heard and my childdren to be educated has SFA to do with "envy" - it's called "democracy"
You really are a cliché ridden, dyed-in-the-wool establishment arse-licker
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 01:19 PM

"British Army - Great Britain's first citizen army, roughly half were volunteers "

"Which means that the other half weren't. It seems that a greater proportion of British were persuaded that fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class was worthwhile, it doesn't mean it was true."

Nope GUEST Dave it does not mean that - Great Britain introduced a system of universal conscription and fell in line with what all the other combatant nations had had in place in order to prosecute the war.

Please provide some substantive evidence for your claim that the war was about "fighting in defence of the privileges of their ruling class" - I can certainly see nothing to support that point of view.

"What territory and ego are you talking about from Great Britain's perspective?"

"They certainly acquired German East Africa after the war, not that the views of the people who lived there had any bearing upon the matter. And quite a bit of territory from the Ottoman empire, which they then proceeded to make a total mess of ruling. But thats the British ruling class for you."

Could you show us where and when before the war that Great Britain viewed the prospect of taking over German colonies? Good luck with that as there is no evidence of it.

Now correct me if I am wrong here but neither Great Britain or France gained any territory from the Ottoman Empire, THEY DID HOWEVER take on administrative responsibility for territorial mandates handed them by the League of Nations and nothing could be done in those territories by the mandatory powers without the knowledge, consent and approval of the League of Nations. Those mandates were time limited from the outset, so to present that as either country "acquiring territory" is simply incorrect. As to who has made a complete and utter mess of the middle-east? My money would go on the people of the area who have had over 67 years to sort things out and yet haven't - they now falsely claim to be fighting to achieve the "Two State Solution" that they rejected 67 years ago - no wonder the Israelis are more than just slightly sceptical about that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM

On balance I believe the poor sods who were there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 02:57 PM

"Now correct me if I am wrong here"
You really do survive on maling bulling pronouncements then doing a runner when your impregnable ego crumbles around your ears.
You'll never understand what a berk your pomposity makes you look.
You appear to b fairly permanently wrong
At last we'v seen the last of your gloating at other people's mistakes (tell me again how well of the people of Liverpool were prior to WW1
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 03:11 PM

"During the first part of the 20th century Liverpool continued to expand, pulling in immigrants from Europe. In 1903 an International Exhibition took place in Edge Lane. In 1904, the building of the Anglican Cathedral began, and by 1916 the three Pier Head buildings, including the Liver Building, were complete. This period marked the pinnacle of Liverpool's economic success, when it regarded itself as the "second city" of the British Empire." - Source: John Belchem, ed. (2006). Liverpool 800: Culture, Character & History. ISBN 1-84631-035-0.

Note that Jom - The plain facts as presented plus the source - if you disagree with what is written above take it up with John Belchem.

GUEST - 21 Dec 15 - 02:15 PM

On balance I believe the poor sods who were there."


And by and large so do I GUEST I believe what thousands have written - the thousands who never saw, or never heard of military police forcing men over the top at gun-point, never saw the summary executions of British soldiers by either Special Military Police Squads or by their own officers. I believe the men of my grandfather's generation and guess what GUEST - Not one of them said it was a waste of time, not one of them said it was pointless, not one of them said it was futile - they were all firmly of the opinion that Germany was an enemy that had to be stopped.

Oh and Jom none of them volunteered on the promise that they would be given anything. If Bevan could see what has been made of his welfare state he would be horrified.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 15 - 04:43 PM

It was Beveridge's welfare state, you ignorant fool.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 03:51 AM

Teribus, that says nothing about conditions of the working people in Liverpool at the time, sure lots of big buildings were being built, but its like saying that all of the south asian immigrant workers in Qatar working on world cup stadia are really well off. As usual, a selective quote taken out of context, with no indication even of who the author is (Belcham is the editor of that volume, and could have written that paragraph, but may not).

Beveridge wrote a report, on which the welfare state was founded, but he did not implement anything. Support for his recommendations was cross-party. Bevan can take much credit for the foundation of the NHS (the crowning achievement of 20th century Britain), but less so for the Welfare State.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM

"Note that Jom - The plain facts as presented plus the source "
You were given a comprehensive report on the conditions being experience in Liverpool which you refused to read out of hand as being "badly written - get somebody to read it for you.
'yr 'ti again
LIVERPOOL 1915
Note that me little grease disher upper. - The plain facts as presented plus the source - in great length, not a Keith cut-'n-pastealike
"Oh and Jom none of them volunteered on the promise that they would be given anything."
It was a basic part of Paxman's programme that they were.
You are doing your old usual of ignoring what is put up Democracy came when - women got the vote when?
"So basically we have been ruled by a democratically elected Government since 1832"
Five years after your "democracy" was introduced to Britain, six Dorset farm labourers, The Tolpuddle Martyrs, were sentenced to seven years' penal transportation for attempting to form a Trades Union.
No women, no farm labourers - some democracy!!
Want any more examples of British democracy?
On your Planet Zog maybe!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM

It was a basic part of Paxman's programme that they were.

No it was not.

Dave, are you suggesting that any Belgian or French people welcomed the vicious invaders?
They resisted to the end.

Do you defend all such imperialism on the grounds that who rules does not matter?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:15 AM

"It was a basic part of Paxman's programme that they were."

Please provide the quotes Jom - There was no promise or inference given at any time from the British Government or by any of the Armed Forces that:

1: "It'll all be over by Christmas"

2: "We are fighting the War to End War"

3: "We are fighting for a home fit for heroes" - (First mention of that was made by Llyod George after the end of the war)

Thanks for the correction on Bevan/Beveridge I knew that the 1942 Report was by Beveridge but incorrectly thought that it was Bevan who was responsible for implimenting it.

I'll take notice of the "ignorant fool" but not from someone who can't tell the difference between a Mute Swan and a Flamingo.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM

When you are at the bottom of the pile whether you have a German Oligarchy or a British Oligarchy matters not one jot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:28 AM

About 9 minutes in, Paxman to camera.(prog1)

"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."

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."


43 minutes in. Paxman to camera.prog2
"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."

Programme 1 Paxman to camera.
"But it seems to me remarkable that a country which considered itself in the grips of a struggle for national survival, none the less allowed individual citizens to decide whether they could reconcile that struggle with their personal conscience. It didn't happen elsewhere in Europe."

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, final prog
"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 (Open University History Faculty) 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: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:35 AM

More 19th century democracy
"The final and most contentious wave of land enclosures in England occurred between about 1750 and 1850. Whereas the purpose of most previous enclosures had been to turn productive arable land into less productive (though more privately lucrative) sheep pasture, the colonization of Scotland for wool, and India and the Southern US states for cotton now prompted the advocates of enclosure to play a different set of cards: their aim was to turn open fields, pastures and wastelands — everything in fact — into more productive arable and mixed farm land. Their byword was "improvement". Their express aim was to increase efficiency and production and so both create and feed an increasingly large proletariat who would work either as wage labourers in the improved fields, or as machine minders in the factories."
You really are going to try and walk away from this nonsense, arent you?
The Liverpool myth appears to have been exploded fully - no comment on the grounds it might incriminate you.
"Please provide the quotes Jom "
I watched the programme, as did many her, no doubt
How do you provide a quote on a programme that's been and gone?
A promise of a job and security has always been a ploy for the army - top well known to be disputed, even by you - turn your tel on.
When we used to visit the borders in the 80s and 90s we drank in pubs with beer mats saying "out of a job - join the Army; they didn't mention Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, The Falklands, Iraq... and all those other exotic places where you were expected to go and fly the flag and slaughter the residents.
From an article on Irish recruitment to the army.
"To the question of why Irishmen joined the British Army, Peter Karsten in his research paper, "Irish Soldiers in the British Army, 1792-1922," presents many readily understandable reasons. Foremost was economic opportunity since most volunteers were of minimal means. Regular pay, daily sustenance, medical services, pension benefits, and post-service government jobs were strong inducements."
Had enough yet - plenty mote?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:46 AM

So a television programme now becomes a reliable source of history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:57 AM

Guest, the programme was made by BBC in conjunction with the Open University History Faculty, and Jim brought it up.

I have also quoted a large number of historians all of whom have independently reached the same research based conclusions.

None of us have been able to find anything to contradict written in recent decades.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM

It was me who called Teribus an ignorant fool. I have never mentioned flamingos in a post. Or aardvarks.

Ignorant fool


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:16 AM

People have found numerous works that do not follow your thinking, you have dismissed them all. Dave the Gnome has even offered you a way to phrase your claim so that it could be true, i.e. all the histories I have read, you have ignored that too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:17 AM

It is not ignorance that prevents people distinguishing between an unknown number of anonymous Guests.

You can lie with impunity.
Your last post might be such a lie.
No way of knowing who you are or what you have previously said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM


People have found numerous works that do not follow your thinking, you have dismissed them all.


Not true.
Produce some of these "numerous" historians, perhaps with their credentials and bibliographies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:20 AM

"So a television programme"
Not without backing evidence, but far more reliable as out of context cut-'n-pastes
The main adviser on these particular programmes was Superman Sheffield, the establishment spokesman on the war
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:24 AM

Jim, Sheffield was not involved in any of that series of programmes.
You made that up.
They were made by the BBC in conjunction with the Open University.
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/greatwar


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM

"Jim, Sheffield was not involved in any of that series of programmes."
Sheffield's name appeared in the credits at the end - I made nothing up, I don't make things up, you are the only one who makes things up, habitually.
Do not call me or anybody a liar - certainly not with your long-running reputation
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:31 AM

Superman Sheffield, the establishment spokesman on the war

Canadian Margaret Macmillan is in complete agreement with him on these issues.
Likewise US historian Max Boot.
Also Catriona Pennel, and every other historian who has written on it.

There is no "establishment" view of these century old events.
People learn their history from historians.
Suggesting that historians lie for "political expediency" or collude in
falsifying research (and somehow hiding that from their students) is ludicrous and shows that you have nothing whatsoever to support your deluded, political version of history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:52 AM

"Jim, Sheffield was not involved in any of that series of programmes."
As I said - his name appeared in the credits.
With your idiotic behaviour nobody needs to make anything up.
If I am mistaken, then it calls into question your claim of him being the leading authority on the war.
These were extremely well, no-expenses-spared, researched programmes by the BBC - it is inconceivable that they should overlook Britain's leading authority on the War.
"Canadian Margaret Macmillan is in complete agreement with him on these issues."
Whan will you gety it into your head that nobody gives a tuppenny **** about your claims of which historian said what.
If you are not prepared to back your claims with personal knowledge by responding to the points made, nobody should give a tuppenny **** about what you say either - hiding behind unread historians is uninformative, unedifying and downright boring.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:57 AM

I have always acknowledged Ferguson.
He does not dispute that the army was competently led, or that British people supported the war.
He tries to make a case that Britain could have kept its Empire if it had allowed Europe to fall to the Germans. He is an imperialist and a far right Thatcherite.
No other historian agrees.

On another matter he expressed the view that Keynes had no stake in Britain's future because he was gay and childless.
That is your only man, and he only disagrees one of the three issues.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:02 AM

"I have always acknowledged Ferguson."
Bet he sleeps easier in his bed at night after that
You are every bit as pompous as your mate and just as ignorant
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:05 AM

so there is not, as you claim, 100% agreement is there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:13 AM

Jim,
As I said - his name appeared in the credits.
No it was not.

If I am mistaken, then it calls into question your claim of him being the leading authority on the war.
It does not.
He is among their "Ten leading WW1 historians" and has written extensively for their history site.

These were extremely well, no-expenses-spared, researched programmes by the BBC - it is inconceivable that they should overlook Britain's leading authority on the War.

No. They all agree on these things anyway.
The resources of The Open University" were more than adequate.

Whan will you gety it into your head that nobody gives a tuppenny **** about your claims of which historian said what.

If you were interested in the truth you would care about the findings of the historians.

If you are not prepared to back your claims with personal knowledge by responding to the points made,

I am and I have.

hiding behind unread historians is uninformative, unedifying and downright boring.

Normal, intelligent people learn their history from the history books.
You reject them in favour of discredited political dogma.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:14 AM

so there is not, as you claim, 100% agreement is there.

I have always acknowledged that Furguson, alone, challenges one of my three points.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM

So stop saying ALL for ***** sake !!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:27 AM

Is that all you have Guest?
Not much is it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 08:36 AM

"He is among their "Ten leading WW1 historians" and has written extensively for their history site."
You've relagated him - he was "the leading" at one time - that's fame for you - here today, gone tomorrow
"No. They all agree on these things anyway."
Wat the **** does that mean?
"If you were interested in the truth you would care about the findings of the historians.
If you were interested you would be able respond to the list of questions put to you - you haven't and you won't.
I am interested in what they say which is very different from your carefully selected and edited cut-'n-pastes.
"I am and I have."
Now you are lying
Try again - how was a war attrition which consisted of sending men to their deaths until one sidee gave up "well led" and not simple butchery?
How can sending so many millions of young man to their deaths for territorial gain be justified, especially when one of the protagonists has slaughtered ten million of their colonials?
Will dig up the rest of them when you have answered them - not your mythical "historians"
Won't hold my breath
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM

You've relagated him - he was "the leading" at one time

No. I said that Hastings headed the list (of BBC's leading WW1 historians.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

"No. They all agree on these things anyway."
Wat the **** does that mean?

They all agree on those 3 issues we disagree on.

If you were interested you would be able respond to the list of questions put to you - you haven't and you won't.

I thought I had, but your long rambling posts make it possible I have missed something.
Just put up clearly what you want answering. Just one or two at a time please.

I am interested in what they say which is very different from your carefully selected and edited cut-'n-pastes.
You can not find any, and my quotes are representative and in context, as can be seen by clicking the links.

Try again - how was a war attrition which consisted of sending men to their deaths until one sidee gave up "well led" and not simple butchery?

It did become such a war.
Military historians are quite clear that nothing else was possible.
Britain was not in it for "territorial gains."
That was just the Germans.
The other allies were just trying to liberate the German "territorial gains" stolen from them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:18 AM

Keith says:

"Military historians are quite clear that nothing else was possible."

Hang on, I thought before it was all historians, not just military historians. How about social historians? I would take their views rather more seriously, military historians after all have a vested interest in their being more wars for them to be historians about.

"The other allies were just trying to liberate the German "territorial gains" stolen from them."

Weasel words again, all territory has been "stolen" time and time again. Including by our own ruling classes from us. If German ruling classes had been trying to "steal" land from our ruling classes, which they had before stolen from us, why should we take sides, especially when to do so means the deaths of millions of us.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:20 AM

Not that our own ruling classes are just another type of German, or anything like that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:35 AM

How about social historians?

Hell, how about all the historians in the world besides BRITISH historians, which are all the Professor quotes?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:44 AM

GUEST - 22 Dec 15 - 06:17 AM Then that shows you how much you know then - perhaps you should do some reading - I'd suggest actual history not the scripts from a television series or a film.

Jim Carroll - 22 Dec 15 - 06:35 AM All over the place again Jom. Your piece on Liverpool was all about setting up a basic welfare system, Liverpool being only one of the cities where different approaches were compared - That being the subject of the paper - who would be entitled and who would not - OF COURSE IT BLOODY WELL FOCUSES ON THOSE REQUIRING ASSISTANCE AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY LIVED - Belcham merely points to the rapid expansion of the city, the projects underway and the fact that there was work to be had for those that wanted it.

Care to to tell me how Keith A can provide quotes from Paxman to camera yet you cannot Jom?

August to December 1914 1.2 million VOLUNTEERS - none needed to be tricked into joining - none were made false promises regarding what they would get out of it - They VOLUNTEERED in time of war to do their duty to their country, they VOLUNTEERED knowing that they would not only be expanding the Army to face the Germans but also to make good the numbers lost at Mons, Le Cateaux and on the Marne.

"When we used to visit the borders in the 80s and 90s we drank in pubs with beer mats saying "out of a job - join the Army; they didn't mention Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, The Falklands, Iraq... and all those other exotic places where you were expected to go and fly the flag and slaughter the residents."

Quite frankly couldn't care less, but:

1: In Northern Ireland it was Irishmen killing the residents as I recall - check the Sutton Index of deaths for details

2: Afghanistan - What?? In the 1980s and 1990s?? - Don't think so - try 2001 Jom - what were the beer mats saying then? I prefer my information from better and fuller sources.

3: The Falklands?? I am absolutely dying to hear Jom the infallible tell us all about the residents our Task Force slaughtered. I am interested you see as I was under the distinct impression that that Task Force sailed in response to an act of aggression perpetrated by the ruling military Junta in Argentina, who at the time were involved in the disappearance of tens of thousands of their own citizens and who could possibly come up with a similar solution for the British Subjects of the Falkland Islands.

4: Iraq - UN Operation that one Jom again in response to the naked aggression of a despotic ruler who was killing his own countrymen at a rate of somewhere between 154 and 282 per day

None of the above has got anything to do with the subject in hand, neither does your book about why Irishmen joined the British Army. If you can't stick to the point don't waste my time - it's hard enough wading through your appallingly presented meandering rants.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:55 AM

And the only serious name he seems to come up with is Catriona Pennell, of the University of Exeter. Unfortunately her work, is nit very accessible apart from in an academic library, so I have not checked whether she really does say what Keith claims, or whether its more cherry picked quotes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM

Both have quoted Margaret MacMillan who is Not a British Historian


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:00 AM

Ooops.

her work, is not very accessible apart from in an academic library,

Thus you can be sure that the Professor has not actually read any of her work.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:06 AM

GUEST - 22 Dec 15 - 06:46 AM

So a television programme now becomes a reliable source of history."


It would certainly appear to when it suits yours or Jom the infallible's purposes.

Certainly a factual historical documentary beats television drama, comedy, and a horrendously misrepresented film script.

GUEST - 22 Dec 15 - 07:05 AM

It was me who called Teribus an ignorant fool. I have never mentioned flamingos in a post. Or aardvarks."


Prove it - Ignorant fool

Ferguson thinks that Great Britain would have been better off economically had it stayed out of the war - In that he is remarkably at odds with the Foreign Secretary at the time Sir Edward Grey. Ferguson is also in error as his conclusion is based on the assumption that things would have gone back to the way they were before, as happened by and large after the end of the Franco-Prussian War - then the Prussians stole Alsace-Lorraine from the French - with a Belgian and French defeat in 1914 Belgium would be annexed, their colonies along with those of the French would have become German and the ports of Ostende, Zeebrugge and Antwerp would provide bases for a powerful German High Seas Fleet only four hours steaming from London.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:11 AM

Margaret MacMillans work is very accesable. She has written a number of books, two of which have been best sellers. She has also published a book of essays on people in history. She is a widely known and respected historian..and not british.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:14 AM

Ian F W Beckett, who is a British military historian, doesn't deem to agree with the Keith/Teribus narrative either.

Actually I find that a book, possibly based on Pennell's PhD thesis, is available on Amazon if you are prepared to shell out for it. There are good reviews of both Pennell's book and one by Beckett, written by the same person on the Amazon website.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 11:18 AM

"Your piece on Liverpool was all about setting up a basic welfare system,"
It covers the poverty that made that welfare city necessary, the conditions of employment, including the 'pen' system which made it necessary for men to queue for work each day, then go home when there was none and try again the following day (still alive and kicking in New York when Budd Schulberg wrote On the Waterfront in 1954) - the docks - the Pen system lasted until the end of WW2 in Liverpool with the establishment of the National Dock Labour Board.
The document also deals with th deliberate driving down of wages by employers.
Conditions were appalling in pre-war Liverpool, among the worst in Britain
Have you any actual evidence on how well they were living - no - thought not?
"Belcham merely points to the rapid expansion of the city,"
Not how the people lived then - what's your point in putting it up as a claim that people like Kenny didn't join up out of necessity?
"Quite frankly couldn't care less, but:"
Isn't that obvious - SFA to do with the fact that the Army were recruiting on the basis of offering the unemployed a steady secure job, which you denied - whose fault Northern Ireland, The Falklands, Iraq, and Afghanistan were is nothing more than a smokescreen - though interesting you should defend all of them - oil wars and searched for non existent WMD ad all
A caricature Blimp
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 12:02 PM

Dave,
Ian F W Beckett, who is a British military historian, doesn't deem to agree with the Keith/Teribus narrative either.

On what grounds do you make that assertion?
None of the reviews of his work suggest any such thing.
Evidence please.

Greg and Dave,
her work, is not very accessible apart from in an academic library,
Thus you can be sure that the Professor has not actually read any of her work.


Many of her articles and essays are available on line, and I have quoted them extensively with links.

Dave,
Hang on, I thought before it was all historians, not just military historians.

That was specifically about the strategy and tactics of the Western front, which is the domain of military historians.

Weasel words again, all territory has been "stolen" time and time again.

So no country is entitled to resist any imperialist army that violates its borders and enslaves and kills its people?
You believe such shit?!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 12:23 PM

Is Prince Philip racist?was he appaled at the possibilty of a muslim impregnating Diana? was she killed unlawfully?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 12:27 PM

Dick. I don't want you take this the wrong way like.. But you are one fucked up lunatic.

How about a Muslim or a ginger man or a man with one arm longer than the other "impregnating" your lover? Sick puppy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 12:41 PM

Here Terribulus!

You can tell the difference between Beveridge and Bevan. One wears a red top and the other a red cap 😆😆😆 eehh stoppit. A little bit of wee might escape.

Bloody hell. He can't even pop out an insult without getting his facts confused, then expects people to take his twaddle seriously.

Mind you, just shows how the analogy of an infinite number of monkeys typing can be compared to Terribulus's random key strokes. The best example of Beveridge's welfare state is Bevan's NHS. Anyway, the fools Terribulus doffs his cap to opposed any idea of rights for "the lower orders" and decided shooting them for shell shock was good leadership in 14-18.


🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴🐴


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM

Seem to lost him on Liverpool living in the lap of luxury prior to WW1 (don't need any mythical historians for this - it's my family history)
Never had him for any of the other points
True patriots all
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 06:15 PM

K the A says (of Ferguson) "He is an imperialist and a far right Thatcherite". But the funny thing is that that is so of both KtheA and Terribilis his main ally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:14 PM

Richard, with all "due" respect, you don,t know enough history to make that assessment.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:27 PM

"Bloody hell. He can't even pop out an insult without getting his facts confused, then expects people to take his twaddle seriously"

Come to that he can't even read a compass.

Just a reminder Terribums


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:37 PM

"Richard, with all "due" respect, you don,t know enough history to make that assessment."
With not a lot of respect, trolls who dodge in and out of discussions without making contributions themselves and allowing others to do thir arguments for them not only know nothing but don't even have the balls even to hang around and learn something - hit-and-run is hit-and-run, o the road and on the page.
C'mon Lilo - throw them a lifebelt
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 22 Dec 15 - 07:59 PM

Jim, it's HiLo. No one argues for me. I have stated my case many times here and I do know a great deal about history and have, on a number occasions, pointed some factual errors made by you. I need no help in recognizing misinformation when I see it.
Whenever I have disagreed with you on matters of factual accuracy you have accused me of being a troll or , God forbid, a Thatcherite! I do contribute facts , you just choose to ignore them . Not my problem, yours Jim!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:28 AM

Funny how lilo dives in supporting any reactionary establishment shit but gets offended when, and Jim above is on the button, he finds his superfluous contribution well and truly sussed.

Teribus meanwhile seems to have packed his satchel and gone back to school.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:38 AM

Guest, which of the acolytes might you be?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 03:50 AM

"No one argues for me."
Nobody should have to argue for anybody, but if you are going to intervene in these hit-'n-run postings you should be prepared to argue for yourself and not snipe away from the undergrowth.
If you don't mind, Lilo seems to suit your behaviour better - an inflatable rubber bed full of air, #rather than Hilo - a large Hawaiian city - or a cappella quartet from my youth.
I seem to remember the times our paths have crossed, you have posted in the same trollish, hit and run manner you have here.
You are entitled to act the way you do, just as I am entitled to respond to you the way I do.
I YOU have anything to say, please say in and stop sniping it from th safety of distance.
At least Keith's and Cap'n Pugwash's inanities are occasionally afoored some entertainment and occasionally require a little checking (when they are not delivered from a position of imagined superiority) - yours do not.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM

Im the one deflating a lilo, getting the wind and piss out of it.

What is an acolyte then? I notice that those defending shallow revision to suit a view get all agitated and fidgety when they have to read a post rather than prejudge the person writing it.

Reality doesn't need acolytes. Just less fools impressed by jingoism.

Funny that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM

Jim, why not just respond to the actual issues expressed by Hilo and others instead of trying to make it personal?

You have your views on WW1 but they are contradicted the history books.
Anyone who reads history will tell you you have got it wrong.
Get used to it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:08 AM

Jim, Captain Pugwash was one of my favourite programmes when I was young. Very good analogy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:11 AM

shallow revision

There was a period of partial revisionism after Haig's death, but that is all swept away now.

Nothing written for at least twenty years supports those shallow revisionist views any more.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:19 AM

Err.. Set your rudder for a 180 deg turn and you might have a point Keith.

Revision has certainly become popular in the last twenty years. Sanitising military blunder and incompetence has been necessary according to the recruiting sergeants.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:21 AM

Dave, disappointed you are also resorting the personal instead of the actual issues.

Are you comfortable arguing against so many historians?
Have you found anything recent that supports you?
No.
Ask yourself why. You can't really believe they are lying for political expediency.
Americans, Canadians,..
Pennel. Read her bio.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM

"Jim, why not just respond to the actual issues expressed by"
I've responded to everything here - you have responded to none
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 07:32 AM

What exactly has Lilo said that needs response - examples please
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 07:38 AM

I simply pointed out that Margaret Macmillan is not a British historian and you accused me of trolling


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 07:39 AM

Yes Keith, I have given them before I will not give them again. Including of course one historian whose work you linked to yourself.

Actual issues:

1) WWI was an unnecessary war except from the viewpoint of the ruling classes on all sides, who were prepared to sacrifice the lives of millions of those they were supposed to represent in defence of their own territory and ego.

2) Millions joined up either out of desperation at the lack of alternative, or because they were taken in by the propoganda spread about how awful the other side were and would be if the war was lost.

3) The war could have been ended on at least two occasions, at the end of 1914 and at the end of 1916 if the ruling classes on both sides had been prepared to make territorial compromises.

4) Military commanders, if not actually incompetent on which there are differing views, were prepared to place the interests of the national governments above the welfare of those under their command.

Now, those are the issues, address them please.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:10 AM

`"I simply pointed out that Margaret Macmillan is not a British historian and you accused me of trolling"
No - you arrogantly accused another poster of being ignorant because he didn't agree with Keith - that was clear from my posting:
"Richard, with all "due" respect, you don,t know enough history to make that assessment.""
Who on earth do you think you are to know what Richard, or anybody knows about history - everybody here seems to have a greater grasp of the subject than Keith, who makes a feature of quoting unread historians.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:18 AM

Mr. Bridge has shown no knowledge of history that I can see but feels free to be critical of others. I did not accuse him of being ignorant because he did not agree with Keith.
Who are these "unread" historians ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:44 AM

In Keith's case most of them. Cut and paste's for sure, book reviews by the dozen, critiques certainly, a whole book. Not a chance.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:45 AM

"Mr. Bridge has shown no knowledge of history that I can see but feels free to be critical of others"
Neither has Keith (cut-'n-pasts don't constitute knowledge) but you appear to support him uncritically
I don't recall your ever displaying a knowledge of the subject, but you appear to have appointed yourself to judge others.
In the end, grabbing examples from the net, or pretending to have read books then refusing to respond to problems and contradictions that the cut-'n-pastes raise when put in context, don't amount to a hill of beans - knowledge is acquired over a lifetime - not by scrabbling for quotes to back up preconceived prejudices - and then drawing up a set of rules as to which historian is valid and which is not - "living"- "dead"- "real" -"qualified"- "over the last twenty years", "well-known" - "selling in real bookshops"...... and all the other excuses Keith has used to score points, debases the whole thing.
That type of behaviour destroys decent discussion and makes a fool of the people who resort to such tactics.
None of us are historians as far as know, we all could do with expanding our knowledge, and discussions like these are ideal places to learn something new when they aren't sabotaged by agenda-driven competitors.
Someone who had developed a technique for scoring points by hiding behind unread historians (or "experts" as in other cases), spoils both the pleasure and the value of taking part in these discussions for the rest of it.
If I wanted to try and win competitions I'd enter for the X-Factor or Comhaltas Ceoltoiri Eireann.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:47 AM

Why is it when you try sitting on a lilo it makes a farting sound?

There is nothing to debate here surely? Those who see UK society through a mixture of Ealing comedies, The Daily Mail and Pathe news are pissed off with us seeing WW1 as it was so have been embarking on a propaganda revision exercise. Gongs available for tame historians.

Of course, it helps to have waited till those present were ga ga first and to ramp it up once Harry had snuffed it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:49 AM

"Gongs available for tame historians!"
Beautiful - must remember that
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:50 AM

Who are these unread historians , I am very curious!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 09:16 AM

Dave,
Yes Keith, I have given them before I will not give them again.

You have not. Now you are being dishonest.
You have produced two historians who have written nothing on WW1 for fifty years.

Nothing written for at least 30 years agrees with your views except for one far right renegade who supports just one of the three.

That should shake your confidence in your dogma.
No-one with actual knowledge believes that stuff any more.
That is why you can't find anything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM

Keith, I am not going to trawl back for the names since you have already said that any who do not agree with your reactionary views are of no value. You havn't answered on Beckett though, no doubt you will find a reason that he does not pass muster. To be honest, the Amazon reviewer of both Beckett and Pennell shows a lot more knowledge than you, and you can get a flavour of the differing perspectives from reading just the reviews. You still have not answered my points.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM

"Who are these unread historians , I am very curious!"
Take your pick
Keith claims to have read both Issac Deuscher and Robert Conquest on Stalin.
They contain basic contradictions totally unmissable to anybody who has read them, yet he refuses to commit himself on what that is.
He claims to have made a life's study of World War One yet was totally unaware that it led to nationwide revolution in Germany which was almost successful - he dismissed it as "made-up shit".
He used Max Hastings, a non-qualified tabloid journalist (he insisted on qualified, living, published-in-real-bookshops historians for the rest of us) as a source - having being given a review of Hastings book which shows him somewhat critical of the war and its leaders, he first dismissed it as a rubbish review, then claims the writer wasn't a historian, then claims that Hastings praise of the review was not genuine and finally settles on "Hastings doesn't contradicts my three points" - a sort of fumbling around until he finds an excuse.
That sort of behaviour does not inspire confidence that he has any real knowledge on the subject.
I don't claim to have read these people, but I stumbled on a copy of Margaret McMillan's book a few weeks ago and was able to spot thay as she said herself - the aspects of the war (the ones we are discussion) are incredibly complex and cannot be dealt with in soundbite-sizes responses - much of what I was able to read of her showed her to contradict or at least, only partially back up what Keith is claiming.
It stands to sense that relying on quick trawls of the net is stupid and simply dishonest.
It it utterly ludicrous to suggest that history has a sell-by date and all information has to come from living historians.
No new information of any significance has been discovered over that last twenty years - what has happened is that, at the centenary of the war a group of historians have decided to rehabilitate WW1 as well led and acceptable, and have adopted the extremely insulting tactic of suggesting that the British people's knowledge of that war is based on a television sit-com.
Keith and Terrytoon have both taken to that tactic like ducks to water.
And that's the case for the defense - yer 'onour
"All lies", no doubt!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 10:20 AM

Jim, you have not named "unread" histotians..those you mention are widely known. As for Margaret MacMillan, you claim not to have read her but have decided that she does not agree with Keith.
Why would a group of historians make such a desiscion, who are they. I am a bit confused by your logic here.
   Do you really think a bunch of historians got to gether to rewrite the past?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM

Keith's claim to have made a lifelong study of WW1was shown to be complete nonsense when he asked me who Lieutenant General Kiggell was, he said he'd never heard of him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:03 AM

Dave, are you seriously basing your judgement of historians on Amazon reviews. Have you read these historians at all ? How can you judge based on these reviews ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:08 AM

Thats what Keith does and you seem to find that acceptable


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:12 AM

"Jim, you have not named "unread" histotians."
"Unread" by Keith - sorry, probably should have made that clearer.
" Do you really think a bunch of historians got to gether to rewrite the past"
No - of course I don't - in the interim period the world moved on from the old excuses as to why so many millions of young men perished in defence of Empire and the world began to question (a) Whether the Empire was worth such a sacrifice and (b) whether a war based on throwing young man at one another until somebody gave up was a correct way to treat human beings.
The Empire died a few decades after WW1 ended and a war of attrition in the way WW1 was fought is no longer a consideration.
Defence of both of these is not a matter of historical fact, it is one of opinion.
We've always known how the war was fought - in the class-divided past it was accepted as the way things were - in retrospect it was as barbaric as it was burning Catholics in Henry VIII's time.
Defending either as "of it's time" is to defend barbarism.
The pomp of the last two years is a political defence of the indefensable (and a chance to profiteer from ceramic poppies, of course).
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:18 AM

Jim, or indeed burning Protestants in the time of Mary I.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:25 AM

As far as being left behind Jom - It was you wasn't it who tried to tell us all that in 1914 there was no work in Liverpool and that the only alternative was to join the Army and that the men available were all stupid enough, gullible enough to be hood-winked by lies told to them by the Government on the following promises:

1: That it would be over by Christmas
2: That they would be fighting the war to end war
3: That they would return to a land fit for heroes with everything they could possibly want provided for them

Only trouble was that in 1914 Liverpool was in the middle of a building boom so there was no shortage of jobs for unskilled labour. After War was declared there was no need for anybody to go out recruiting as the recruiting offices were overwhelmed by volunteers. Also no promises of any such kind as those detailed above were ever made to anyone during the entire course of the war.

As far as Jom's personal family history goes as far as his life in the UK goes he manages to take "victimhood" to new and never to be surpassed levels - The family motto being - "It always somebody else's fault".

"No new information of any significance has been discovered over that last twenty years - what has happened is that, at the centenary of the war a group of historians have decided to rehabilitate WW1 as well led and acceptable, and have adopted the extremely insulting tactic of suggesting that the British people's knowledge of that war is based on a television sit-com."

So no new information of any significance in the last 20 years:
- Hitherto unknown information from the Russians, Germans, French, Belgians
- Material released and declassified by the British Government
- Foreign material previously untranslated
- The personal records of former WW1 veterans who have died and their diaries have been donated to various museums
- Archeological work carried out across the former battlefields in advance of major infrastructure projects in Belgium and Northern France (Hey Jom it was on one of those within the last two years when it was discovered how it was that the Germans could pop up behind our guys on the first day of the Battle of the Somme - hitherto unknown, is that significant?)
- Major work related to the hundreds of thousands of letters and diaries held by the Imperial War Museum (Guess what Jom? - No mention of Summary Executions, Special Groups of Military Police and no mention at all about being forced over the top at gun point)

Now why would those Historians do that Jom? They would open themselves to ridicule by their peers and lose whatever reputation they had - they would be committing professional suicide. But there has been no ridicule, not a single thing that they have said has been challenged, most certainly nothing such as the disapprobation heaped on the works of the "revisionists" A.J.P. Taylor or Alan Clark when they wrote on the subject of the First World War.

(Note: Just for GUEST & GUEST Dave's benefit:

Those who wrote about the First World War from 1918 to 1929 were generally those who took part in it.

Those who wrote about it between 1929 and 1969 were "The Revisionists" as they disagreed with those who actually fought the War.

Those who wrote about it from 1970 onward armed with far more detailed information than the "Revisionists" generally agree with those who wrote in the period 1918 to 1929 and have discredited and disproved work done by the Revisionists.)

Lastly Jom I do not think at any time discussing this subject have I ever introduced as evidence that something happened the script of a televised drama - YOU HAVE, on more than one occasion - I do not rely on the drama department of either the BBC or ITV to support any statement I make. And Dr Gary Sheffield is not the only historian to lament the fact that most people's perceptions of the Great War far from being based on actual historical fact are based on shows such as "Blackadder Goes Forth" and "Oh What A Lovely War".

I see that the emoji-king still has got absolutely S.F.A. to say - so no surprises there.

Guest Dave - Ian Beckett, any chance of you actually highlighting where he takes the diametrically opposite view from the likes of Dr. Gary Sheffield on anything relating to the First World War? Don't worry I won't hold my breath - Reviews of Beckett's work are hardly recommendations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:30 AM

GUEST,Dave - 23 Dec 15 - 07:39 AM

YOUR four points, until I read them I had had no idea that anybody could be so naive, so misinformed or so bloody stupid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 11:56 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 23 Dec 15 - 10:27 AM

Keith's claim to have made a lifelong study of WW1 was shown to be complete nonsense when he asked me who Lieutenant General Kiggell was, he said he'd never heard of him."


Hardly surprising that Keith A had never heard of him - apparently you haven't a clue about the man either.

What Lt-General Kiggell?

The one who in 1918 was a Divisional GSO1 in one of the many Divisions making up the British Army in France in 1918? If he was as someone stated a GSO1 attached to some Division in France in 1918 he would be numbered among the thousands of tiny cogs that allowed the machine to function.

Was he the Lt-General Kiggell who acted as a Liaison Office with the French, who was sacked by them in 1917 with the assistance of David Lloyd George?

Or as you claimed him to be the Chief of the General Staff in 1918 in which case Haig would have been working for him - hardly likely either as in the British Army of 1918 there was no such thing as the Chief of the General Staff the title was Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the man holding that rank was Haig's boss a man called Robertson - I can also assure you Raggy that no man by the name of Kiggell has ever held the post of Chief of the General Staff (CGS) or Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS).

You see some clarification is required, you introduced us to the man, he's your pigeon - but he is nowhere near as influential as you seem to think.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 12:01 PM

Ok, Teribus, I will take that as an admission that you cannot answer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 12:16 PM

Take it whatever way you like, they are laden so much with a twee brand of "Class Warrior" crap that they are so risible they damn near beggar description particularly #4:

"4) Military commanders, if not actually incompetent on which there are differing views, were prepared to place the interests of the national governments above the welfare of those under their command."

Of course in time of war political leaders and military commanders put the interests of the NATION ahead of the welfare of those under their command - those who are under their command have either volunteered or been conscripted to be deliberately put in harms way you bloody idiot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 12:25 PM

Teribus, the nation has no function other than the welfare of its population. Which is something our current politicians seem not to remember.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 12:43 PM

Ah Dave, you have opened the door much wider now. You have stepped beyond history and into the world of political philosophy, a complicated maze of a place and a much more turbulent issue than can be discussed briefly, but intriguing none the less.
"The nation has no other function other than the welfare of its population" . That seems simple enough on the surface but I believe that this is where there be dragons...in the actual definitions of things like , nation, welfare and indeed, function.
How does the "nation" ensure the "welfare" and so on.
What do you mean by this, I am truly interested to know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 01:11 PM

"As far as being left behind Jom - It was you wasn't it who tried to tell us all that in 1914 there was no work in Liverpool"
Correction - it was me that showed you there was no work in Liverpool - I already knew this - as I said, family history; both of my parents were alive and living in a fair degree of poverty at the outbreak of WW1 - don't need one of Keith's historians to tell m otherwise - SWF to do with "victimhood (a typical Tory smear, like "class jealousy - that's the way it was for working people at the time - nothing unique about my family - it's th way the other half lived.
Lloyd George was still attempting to adapt the Poor Laws at the outbreak of war - look it up, it's in the books.
In most of the North of England there was little work and the tactic of getting men to join the army as an alternative dates back at last to the 18th century.
You really are a nasty, right-wing piece of work, aren't you?
You have yet to even refer to the facts you were given, let alone disprove them, despite your somewhat dishonest attempt to claim you have - nor have you acknowledged all your other foot-in-mouths (democratic war my arse)
"land fit for heroes with everything they could possibly want provided for them"
That is a downright distortion of anything anybody has claimed - if you can't score points, make it up eh?
You have failed to address one single point made about the morality of how and why the war was fought - nor will you - your sort never do.
You have persuaded nobody here and you have humiliated yourselves with you outdated jingoism, your ignorance of how people lived and your grasp of the facts of a war that was fought by first persuading, then forcing young men to slaughter each other for territorial gain.
Your "new facts" change nothing - the soldier's diaries have largely not been published, some are available to researchers and those that have been given the light of day show what a barbaric exercise it all was.
if new evidence has been forthcoming, tell us what we kow now that we haven't always known instead of alluding to it as if you have studied it minutely - WHAT MAKES IT ANYTHING BUT BUTCHER FOR EMPIRE WILL DO FOR A START AND TELLING US WHAT WE GAINED OUT OF IT AS ORDINARY CITIZENS MIGHT HOW THAT IT WAS ALL WORTH WHILE - DON'T BE COY - GIVE IT A GO!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:45 PM

"You have stepped beyond history and into the world of political philosophy, "
That's really what this is all about and far from being complicated (as our betters would, have us believe) it really is as simple as right and wrong.
Nobody here has responded to the suggestion that the present system we live under has outlived its purpose and is no longer fit for purpose - go and look at the rapidly growing poverty, homelessness, unemployment..... and the wanton destruction of the planet for profit.
We know how our couple of Tory Boys would react if they had the balls - everything is fine and those who wish to change things only feel that way out of "jealousy" - we've already had that from Pugwash 'ere, who also told us we should all get on our bikes, despite the cost to our families, if there's no work in our area - Tebbitt rides again.
No wonder the Tory Party are having such problems over bullying at the moment - these people are political thugs - Blackshirts writ small.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:50 PM

Not complicated HiLo, and you don't need political science or history or anything like that, just current experience, to know that the state which doesn't function primarily for the welfare of its own citizens is a failed state.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 02:55 PM

As I have said earlier Teritowelling I can only restate the things I have read (I wasn't there)

However Gary Mead in this biography of Douglas Haig states the rank of Launcelot Kiggell as does Wikipedia (not the best source I acknowledge)

Both sources state his rank as being Chief of General Staff under Haig from late 1915 until 1917 when, as you rightly state, he was dismissed after pressure from Lloyd George.

Keith, fount of all knowledge regarding WW1, stated CATEGORICALLY that he had not ever heard of him. So much for Keith's lifelong study.

Perhaps you would like to read the final line of his inclusion in the attached tome which also states his rank a being Chief of General Staff.

Now, either all these august sources are incorrect or you are.

Kiggell

Just how much do you actually know about the subject I ask myself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 03:09 PM

Jim, I have a problem with you referring to Teritowelling as Pugwash.


Many years ago I had (was staff to) a huge black and white cat who I named Pugwash. That cat was an absolute star whom I loved dearly. To have him in any way mentioned in the same sentence as Terribums touches my sensibilities.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 04:37 PM

Dave, I do think you have raised a very interesting point. a discussion of thee issue you raised could take us away from that tedious and fruitless discussion of various views of history and get people on to a good debate on what the concept of the roll of the nation is. We seem, on some of these threads to get bogged down on historical interpretation. I was not meaning to dismiss or put aside your question. I just found it an interesting question about which we might have a really good question. I did not mean it to be an argy Barry response. It seems to me to cut to the heart of things and I feel it would make for a fruitful discussion. A whole different thread perhaps!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 04:59 PM

Guest Dave I though made four good points which have not been the subject of rational dispute, only insult.

I made no point on history, merely that KtheA and Terribilis appear to be rabid Thatcherites. I remember that bitch all too well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 05:16 PM

Well,Richarrd I don,t think they are Thatcherites( whatever that means). They raise good points and provide facts. But it all gets heated and out of controlling that we all miss each other's points. butDaves question may get us to a far more important discussion. That is all I meant say. That issue is the essence of history, am I wrong?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 15 - 08:00 PM

"Jim, I have a problem with you referring to Teritowelling as Pugwash."
Think of the pirate hat, the cutlass and the stupid grin.
I quite like the feel of territoweling - having this bollix hanging round your neck does't bear thinking about!
"don,t think they are Thatcherites"
Why not - Terrytoon (if you insist Raggy) has defended Thatcher, he has told us that when the Government adopts policies that create mass unemployment w should "Get on our bikes" (classic statement from arch-Thatcherite, Deaths Head Danny Tebbitt), he thinks British industry (before Thatcher closed it down) was shit and it was more profitable to buy abroad, both of them remain silent when her support for mass-murderer Pinochet is mentioned, Keith says what Thatcher believed but didn't dare to say out loud, let alone put into practice.......
If it quacks and waddles, it's almost certainly a duck.
" They raise good points and provide facts"
Only if you take what they say as being true and ignore the fact that they consistently refuse to respond to challenges.
Terrytoon just makes statements and talks down to people (always the sign of a bullshitter)
As far as things getting heated and out of control, both of them can be as insulting as anybody (to us poor "Leftie Muppets" and "ignoramouses". "gullible", "moron") - I have become extremely bored at being called a "liar" by Keith and actually counted a dozen times when he wrote "I win" or "you lose" on one thread - enough to make Mother Theresa spit feathers.
Their habit of claiming they have actually "won" and argument when it has been demolished (classless army, well off pre-war Liverpudlians, democratic in Britain in the 1830s....) used to be amusing, now it's just irritating.
If you believe their arguments, you are on your own - they are a couple of Lone Rangers here (still "winning", of course)
None of this makes for decent discussion - it would be nice to have an intelligent right-winger to argue with... not o far.
Best to all - off to spend Christmas where we don't have to cook or make beds for a few days - and drink a lorra - lorra Guinness..
Happy humbug.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 04:28 AM

Dave,
Keith, I am not going to trawl back for the names since you have already said that any who do not agree with your reactionary views are of no value. You havn't answered on Beckett though, no doubt you will find a reason that he does not pass muster.

You have given two names who have written nothing in 50 years, and Becket who you failed to show disagreed with anything I have claimed.
Nothing in his reviews suggests he does.
You are being dishonest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 04:53 AM

If any of you think my reading inadequate, please suggest something written in recent decades that might change my views.

Nothing any of us has found so far does so.
The obvious explanation for that is that there is nothing recent that does.
Boot and Macmillan actually say that.

You arguments are based on myths and versions of history discredited by more recently available original sources.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM

It really isn't going to be over by Christmas - again
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 05:07 AM

Dave, the first duty of government is usually given as the defence of the state.

I have been rereading Macmillan's book. As I remembered it has little to say on what we have been arguing.

"When the news of the rejection of the ultimatum (to Belgium) was leaked,... the Belgian public showed its approval."
"The Socialist Party issued a statement to say that their members were defending themselves against 'militarist barbarism' and fighting for liberty and democracy." (p586-587)

No solidarity with those comrades?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM

Rag, I have indeed taken a life long interest in WW1 and have read the histories extensively since my teens.
That does not mean I have committed to memory the names and careers of every General!

This is a Wiki page on "British Army during WW1"
There is a chapter "The Commanders" that lists about 70 generals, but no single mention of Kiggell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_World_War_I#Commanders


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM

The first duty of government is the defence of the people, not the state. Without the people, the state has no meaning.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM

Hope this helps - Sir Launcelot Kiggell

Have a peaceful and happy Christmas everyone.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM

Defence of the people seems to have meant sending them over the top in waves followed by rounding up those traumatised by the experience and sentencing them to death.

Teribus stated in some of his random keystrokes that those who wrote about the war first off were the revisionists and his Johnny Come Lately establishment apologists aren't revisionists, but err.. are revising....

This war will never end by Xmas if educating pork is the aim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 11:26 AM

Teribus stated in some of his random keystrokes that those who wrote about the war first off were the revisionists and his Johnny Come Lately establishment apologists aren't revisionists, but err.. are revising....

I think you misread the post to which you are referring, I suggest you reread it for comprehension.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Dec 15 - 12:22 PM

Chief of General Staff, oh yes just any General who was part of Haigs High Command. Give your head a shake.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 01:15 AM

I hope you are all playing football together


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 04:53 AM

In re Irishmen volunteering for the British Army, there were two largely separate groups:

1) The one more remembered now, the Irish Volunteer dupes of John Redmond who joined en masse after Redmond's September 1914 speech at Woodenbridge, thinking that Redmond's Irish Parliamentary Party had gained a promise of Home Rule (a rather watered-down version of what's now called devolution) if they joined up to support Britain in the war that was to be over by Christmas 1914;
2) The workingmen put out of work by a series of brutally suppressed strikes and management lockouts between 1911 and 1913 and unable to get work to support themselves and their families because they were blacklisted by employers. The 'separation allowance' paid to these men's wives or mothers or children and the pay to soldiers was the largest transfer of wealth to the poor of its era. All good? Not quite: 67% of those killed from the Royal Dublin Fusiliers (which was devastated in Gallipoli and Flanders) came from between the two canals of Dublin.
The better-off Irish were also slaughtered; the rugby and cricket sides joined as 'Old Pals' and were virtually wiped out in Gallipoli.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 05:38 AM

GUEST - 24 Dec 15 - 10:49 AM

Defence of the people seems to have meant sending them over the top in waves followed by rounding up those traumatised by the experience and sentencing them to death.

Teribus stated in some of his random keystrokes that those who wrote about the war first off were the revisionists and his Johnny Come Lately establishment apologists aren't revisionists, but err.. are revising....


Ehmmm GUEST - Do you have problems with reading and understanding the English language? As you certainly appear to I will say it again as clearly as I possibly can.

Three "sets" of writers have written about the "Great War":

1: Those who fought and/or lived through it, who because of the timing could only really write about their own personal experiences, as in 1918 a whole host of documents were still classified. They would also have no knowledge at all of the war from "foreign" perspectives.

2: Those who wrote about the war after the death of Earl Haig - these writers followed their own agendas to besmirch the name of the man who when all said and done took over a tiny army in 1915 which had suffered terribly incorporated into it Britain's first ever citizen army and with it took on and defeated what was considered to be the best army in the world at that time. He did so by introducing new tactics made possible by innovation and a readiness to accept new and revolutionary ideas and put them into practice. His main detractors waited until after his death so that he would be unable to defend his name and reputation and to blow a smokescreen over their culpability in mistakes that they had made. Those who wrote about the Great War between 1929 and 1969 "revised" what had been written by those described in 1 above so they were referred to as "The Revisionists", they too wrote without the benefit of classified government documents and a lack of access to foreign material which only started to become available in the 1970s - So are we perfectly clear who I am referring to as "The Revisionists"? - one of them nameless GUEST, Alan Clark, even admitted years after the publication of his book "The Donkeys" that he just simply made stuff up to ensure that the book was controversial so that it would make him money.

3: Those who wrote about the Great War in the period 1970 to the present day who have had access to documentation both foreign and domestic that neither of the other groups has had, and guess what nameless GUEST they, with the aid of all that material had disproved and discredited much of what was written by The Revisionists and Keith A is perfectly correct when he states that so far on this forum in discussions relating to the First World War nobody has been able to come up with any historian who can counter what todays historians have said on the subject.

Out of an army of ~5,300,000 around 266 were executed for desertion care to work out what they represent as a percentage? Pretty minimal I would say, but there again up until know you have never let FACT, KNOWLEDGE OR PERSPECTIVE interfere with you "revisionist" drivel.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM

Merry Christmas Teribus


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 07:36 AM

As someone who started off with the perspective that WW1 was a crime against humanity perpetrated by power hungry combatants, tempered by the opinions of my paternal grandfather who deeply respected General Haig as a man of principle, this and the other thread has convinced me that my perspective was wrong and my grandfather who served with the Black Watch in France, was correct
Access to new information from abroad has shown the work of the pre 1970s "revisionists" outdated and badly ideologically skewed.

In common with many of the "soft lefts" social ideas it appears to be based on mythology.....a mythology written and espoused by fellow travellers with a political agenda.
This mythology is extremely insidious and has now enveloped all facets of society....Perhaps the time has come for a large injection of reality into our social system we have been sleepwalking into a "neverland" where responsibility for EVERYTHING can simply be passed down the line until it disappears.

Our grandparents were faced with the choice of defeat or victory, a choice that we will never make because we will always find someone to blame whilst they measure us for our shackles.

Nothing of any substance has ever been accomplished without sacrifice...ask the Russian people who survived WW2......and at some point there is nothing left to do but fight or die.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 09:34 AM

Merry Christmas Akenaton


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Dec 15 - 09:39 AM

Merry Christmas to all


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM

Interesting Article

Nice bit about firing a machine gun on our own troops, but he will no doubt be called a liar


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:02 AM

Rag, it is well known that both sides took steps to prevent fraternisations after the 1914 Christmas Truces.

Dave,
The first duty of government is the defence of the people,

The invading German armies massacred Belgian and French civilians, including children.
Slave labourers were taken from the conquered lands they occupied.

You take the side of the imperialist aggressor, denying their victims the right to defend their homes and families from tyrannical invasion.
Why should they not resist?

Were the Belgian Socialists wrong to be "defending themselves against 'militarist barbarism' and fighting for liberty and democracy?"

Should we have let Hitler have his way too?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:10 AM

"Rag, it is well known that both sides took steps to prevent fraternisations after the 1914 Christmas Truces"

Yes it is and in this case turning their own machine gun on them !!

Truce's occurred ALL through the war despite order from above.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:23 AM

Yes rag. Well known.

JTT, no-one with any knowledge at the time believed the war would end by Christmas, and Pennel contradicts your view of people being "dupes.


" 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: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:28 AM

At least one historical note turns out to be accurate in this latterday reenactment.

It isn't over by bloody Xmas.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:45 AM

"Yes rag. Well known."

Wish you guys would make your mind up. You say it's well known Teritowelling has stated categorically that we did NOT shoot our own men.

Although Robert Keating's diary does state that no one was killed he does state this was fortunate.

You seem to consider it acceptable to turn a machine gun (up to 600 .303 rounds per minute) on our own troops.

Amazing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:46 AM

At least one historical note turns out to be accurate in this latterday reenactment.

It isn't over by bloody Xmas.


Ho, ho, ho!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:59 AM

Rag, to prevent fraternisation there was firing into the opposing lines and no man's land. It happened in many places and by both sides. Your article said no-one was killed.

Do not try to confuse the issue with summary execution which never happened in the British Army.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 08:13 AM

The diary states unequivocally "So we went on till the early hours of the morning and the only thing that brought us down was one of our machine guns being turned on us - fortunately, no one was killed."

Read the bit that says "TURNED ON US" not opposing lines not no-mans land "TURNED ON US" ......... "FORTUNATELY, NO ONE WAS KILLED"

For ****'s sake.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 09:40 AM

Ehmmm GUEST,Raggytash - 26 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM - What bit "about firing a machine gun on our own troops". I believe the article mentions something about turning (training) a machine gun on the troops out in "no man's land" - nothing whatsoever about it being fired.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:05 AM

If the machine gun was merely pointed at them but not fired why would Private Keating write "fortunately, no one was killed"

You, as always, are putting your particular spin on it and not reading what is actually written.

In the early hours in December do you think they could clearly see it was just being pointed and not actually fired.

Do you really think one of the officers shouted Coooeeeeee !!! Come on boys, back to your trenches. No doubt he made them tea and crumpets and told them they were naughty boys.

As it happens Captain Ian Colquhoun a Company Commander and the Commanding Officer of the 1st Scots Guards, Miles Barnes, were taken before a Court of Enquiry and were later Court Martialled. Barnes was acquitted and Colquhoun received a reprimand which wasn't followed up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:43 AM

No Raggy - you assumed the gun was fired, but there is no evidence, or clear statement that it was. I have no idea if an officer did shout, "Coooeeeeee !!! Come on boys, back to your trenches" but there is a clear statement that an officer did shout to tell the men to come down from the parapet.

"As it happens Captain Ian Colquhoun a Company Commander and the Commanding Officer of the 1st Scots Guards, Miles Barnes, were taken before a Court of Enquiry and were later Court Martialled. Barnes was acquitted and Colquhoun received a reprimand which wasn't followed up."

Care to tell us what the charges were?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:53 AM

"fortunately, no one was killed" Is a bit of give-away


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 12:24 PM

I know little of warfare, but from what I have read, "fraternisation with the enemy" has always been regarded as a serious crime; for very good reasons, one being security and the safety of the regiment.

The officers had their standing orders and to disobey these orders would be construed as mutiny.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 12:30 PM

What you people don't seem to grasp is that we were engaged in a bloody war of attrition and neither fraternisation nor refusal to fight could be seen to be allowed.

Warfare has always been conducted thus. Primitive, bloody, pitiless, but once embarked upon, there are no choices.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:12 PM

I have a copy of Christmas Truce by Malcolm Brown and Shirley Seaton.
It is about Xmas 14 but the final chapter is about Xmas 15 and there is a postscripts chapter about later events not always at Xmas.

In 1915 strict orders were issued on both sides against fraternisation, and harassing fire was used by both sides to deter it.
All the incidents described are of artillery fire on opposite lines and no man's land. There were casualties on both sides.

The incident mentioned is unusual and probably unique. The machine gun fire would have been indirect and fired from well back, but anyone exposed in NML would have felt fired on. A machine gun firing at close range directly at exposed troops would have killed people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:17 PM

""fortunately, no one was killed" Is a bit of give-away"

Only indicates that the gun did not have to be fired.

After the 1914 Christmas Truce orders were given that there should be no reccurrence, trench raids and actions were deliberately planned and timed so that it could not happen again they also gave orders that artillery and the machine gunners were to fire off salvoes every few hours over the Christmas Period including throughout Christmas Eve and Day. Appparently this isolated instance in 1915 didn't in anything like the scale and form of what happened in 1914 - the account in the link basically says so.

Captain Ian Colquhoun and Captain Miles Barne of the Scots Guards were Court Martialled under what charge Raggy? You forgot to mention it, so I will - Both men were charged with:

"Conduct to the prejudice of good order of military discipline in that on 25th Dec he (1) Approved of a truce with the enemy (2) Permitted a cessation of hostilities".

He did that for one reason and one reason alone - so that the Germans could collect and bury their dead who were lying in "no mans land".

Oh by the way Raggy Sir Ian Colquhoun in his diary entry for the 25th December 1915 specifically states that during the 45 minute "Truce" period Not a shot was fired The only shots actually fired that day were fired later on at night when the Germans put "fairy lights" up and the machine gunners fired at them from the British Trenches, this resulted in the lights being taken down.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:31 PM

The book actually contains accounts of the same incident at Lavantie, including from other 15RWF Privates, Bertie Felstaed and Harold Diffey.

They both report artillery fire ending the incident.
Very early on a British sergeant was shot and killed standing on the parapet, but this was taken as an accident.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 01:38 PM

One of the officers was aquitted, the other sentenced to a reprimand but Haig remitted that sentence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 02:27 PM

Still no evidence to substantiate summary executions by either Officers or by "Special Squads of Military Police" - remembering of course that to date the only people who have mentioned this have admitted that they never actually witnessed any such executions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 02:30 PM

Teribus, Initially I had you down as a reasonably intelligent man. Over the past few months you have shown yourself to be far less than that. More's the pity.

Could I suggest that you and your monkey try reading "Meetings in No Man's Land" by Marc Ferro.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 04:07 PM

And reading about the Christmas Truce of 1914 would tell me what about the absolutely scurrilous allegations that you along with your fellow travelers have tried to promote on these WW1 threads? All Keith A and I have tried to do is to get you to provide evidence to support your dearly held myths - and you have failed at every turn.

NOT A SHOT WAS FIRED - it was you that put the spin on that and gleefully stated about British troops firing at fellow British Soldiers, even although the link you supplied said nothing of the sort.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 07:14 PM

Keep on dreaming children


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Dec 15 - 10:24 PM

Only problem for you Raggy is that both Keith A and I can prove that we are not dreaming. Same cannot be said for you.

From a multi-coloured screaming rant from Jom the infallible we got this:

"WHAT MAKES IT ANYTHING BUT BUTCHER FOR EMPIRE WILL DO FOR A START AND TELLING US WHAT WE GAINED OUT OF IT AS ORDINARY CITIZENS MIGHT HOW THAT IT WAS ALL WORTH WHILE - DON'T BE COY - GIVE IT A GO!!"

A former US President who died in office put it brilliantly - ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Now then Jom the people who were of a certain age back there in 1914 they had absolutely no problem with that - The baby-boomers who came after their grandfathers and their fathers fought and died for the freedoms and liberty that we all take for granted don't and you prove that by your incessant carping about nothing:

But by way of explanation just for you Jom:
- That Empire gave people jobs
- The people of France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc, etc, did not fight that war in the expectation of GAINING ANYTHING - they regarded it as being their patriotic duty.
- You see Jom the people of those days were not you, they were not professional tooth-sucking victims, "always somebody else's fault" isn't it Jom. In those days Jom people still stood on their own two feet and took responsibility for their own lives and that Jom included fighting for their countries when necessity demanded it - just as their forefathers had done (Pssst Jom - and they didn't expect anything for it either)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 04:00 AM

Ahem, You and the professor have managed to disabuse Jim's old soldier, Harry Patch, Robert Keating ......... the only old soldier who you have not called a liar yet is my old soldier who wrote:

"I served on the western front during the 1914/18 war as a platoon commander in 914 rising to GSO1 of a division by 1918. I never once saw Haig, nor did I ever see him after the war …. I can never forgive a General who intrigues, as Haig did – against his C-in-C, and against his political chief …....... There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front …....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 04:49 AM

Teribus says:

"A former US President who died in office put it brilliantly - ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Very easy to say when you are the guy at the top who stands to benefit from the things that other people are being asked to do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 05:37 AM

Err.. There was summary execution, as most historians have established.

The terms and procedures of some Court Martial trials did not follow the law prevailing at the time. Study of court documents and correspondence between Generals in the field and the War Office, and between The War Office and the judiciary make it quite clear that there were political decisions for expediency. By definition, summary "justice."

Another piece of intrigue was that officers were afforded post mortem to begin with where their bodies were available, but not other ranks. This was quietly dropped when it was established that some killed going over the top had bullet entries in their back.

I do wish the jingoistic fools on here would read rather quote titbits.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 06:51 AM

GUEST,Raggytash - 27 Dec 15 - 04:00 AM

Just for clarity and just for you, in an attempt to prevent you from repeating this by now very tired line of argument:

1: What old soldier of Jom's? Jom has got no proof that the man was ever in the Army (He didn't check) - This old man's story has changed quite dramatically since the day first introduced us to Tommy Kenny, that story has altered by Jom to cover all the glaring anomalies that have been pointed out to him - Now we have the admission by Jom that Tommy Kenny NEVER, EVER, actually saw anyone being shot by the military police in the situations and circumstances he first described.

2: Harry Patch was interviewed by the BBC over 80 years after he had fought in France for three months in 1917, he had never spoken about the war in all that time. The link put up was what the BBC decided to print and in all probability does not reflect the entire interview. In that interview Harry Patch contradicts himself and if he was telling the truth then he could not have possibly witnessed any summary execution carried out by an officer as described. Later in the interview he describes what did occur when an officer drew a weapon on a platoon of men and tried to order them out of barracks for bayonet practice - the men, who were carrying their rifles chambered rounds and threatened to shoot the officer - THAT Raggy would have been exactly what those same men would have done in a trench in France if ANYBODY Officer or Military Policeman had indeed shot any of their number.

3: Robert Keating - In no way have I ever stated that he was in any way lying - you on the other hand have completely misrepresented what he did in fact say:

He did not mention any gun being fired - he did mention a gun being turned on the men on top of the parapet - YOU assumed that to mean that the gun was fired - the Diary evidence supplied by Sir Ian Colquohoun indicates that no shots were fired - now who is lying about what happened Keati, Colquohoun OR YOU (My money's on you)

4: YOUR old soldier? No idea who he was, perhaps you could tell us, but ALL he is doing is stating his opinion, he is perfectly entitled to that but it does not make his opinion FACT.

(a) I do not believe that every soldier in the Army saw Haig - so nothing too unique or damning in that.

(b) Had French not been replaced then the BEF would have been defeated by the Germans in 1916.

(c) Haig's refusal to follow orders of French Generals placed over him at the insistence of British politicians saved thousands of British lives. Both the Somme and Passchendaele were battles forced on Haig against Haig's own better judgement which he clearly voiced at the time.

(d) "There was a tremendous gulf between the staff and the fighting army; the former lived in a large chateaux miles behind the front"

Yes there was up until this point no-one had ever fought a war on this scale - another big difference the "Staff" visited "The Front" every single day whereas the "fighting Army" spent only three weeks in the front lines before being sent to the rear areas for two months.





…....... Kiggell who was in my Regiment, had no idea of the conditions under which the soldiers lived and fought"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 07:21 AM

From Teribus "4: YOUR old soldier? No idea who he was, perhaps you could tell us, but ALL he is doing is stating his opinion, he is perfectly entitled to that but it does not make his opinion FACT.

(a) I do not believe that every soldier in the Army saw Haig - so nothing too unique or damning in that.

Interesting Teriblossom, my old soldier is none other than










FIELD MARSHALL BERNARD LAW MONTGOMERY, 1ST VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEIN KG, GCB, DSO


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 07:29 AM

The last post of course was I.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 08:01 AM

Well thank you for that Raggy - probably the first time that you have answered a direct question with a direct and straightforward answer.

Now toddle off and compare how long it took Montgomery to learn the lessons Haig had to learn - you will find that Haig was a far quicker learner and a far greater innovator, especially when you take into consideration that Haig faced the best the German Army could throw against him for his entire time as Commander. The BEF in 1914 survived as an effective fighting unit, the BEF in 1940 was thrown out of France and ceased to exist. The most successful offensive campaign ever carried out by the British Army in its entire existence? Haig's 100 days campaign in 1918 NOT Montgomery either in North Africa or in Northern Europe.

Montgomery fought two battles where manoeuvre wasn't an option at Alamein and in the Normandy Landings he chose attrition as his weapon of choice through necessity, Haig on the western front between 1915 and 1918 never had any other choice, and it was Haig who developed the tactics that enabled armies to break the stalemate NOT Montgomery. Kiggell apart from being sacked from his Liaison job with the French appears to have been of no significance whatsoever.

During the course of the First World War 9 out of every 10 men who joined up survived.

During the course of the Second World War 9 out of every 10 men who joined up survived.

And for Nameless GUEST:

"The terms and procedures of some Court Martial trials did not follow the law prevailing at the time. Study of court documents and correspondence between Generals in the field and the War Office, and between The War Office and the judiciary make it quite clear that there were political decisions for expediency. By definition" They were carried out with procedures agreed to and in force at the time.

Over two years to come up with one single instance of a summary execution as described by the likes of Jom the infallible, i.e. a British Soldier being executed on the spot for not getting out of a trench quick enough or on returning to that trench - NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF IT.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 08:15 AM

Whatever Teritowelling,

If you want to believe that a second rate soldier was the best thing before sliced bread you carry on. I've just read Gary Mead biography of Haig. He starts by saying he wants to portray Haig as you do.

All I can say it's just as well he didn't try to do a hatchet job because if what he has written is correct Haig wasn't even the best of a bad bunch.

Without his connection and sycophancy to royalty he would have been sacked near the outset of the war. In fact without his sycophancy to royalty he would never have got near a command of any description.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 09:09 AM

Well then Raggy just one of those accidents of history that we were lucky enough that the right man was in the right place at the right time, others have been, Marlborough, Clive, Wolfe, Wellesley, Churchill - None of whom were considered to have been "the best of the bunch" by their peers but when the challenge arose they all proved to be more than equal to it and their record and actions proved it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM

"their record and actions proved it."

We know Haig's record and actions too well, and for all the wrong reasons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Les from Hull
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 09:30 AM

Fortunately Churchill was never in a position that the others you mention of being a general organising a battle. He would have been chap. Couldn't even catch Peter the Painter!

Actually Churchill didn't get to much opportunity to run the Second World War, and when he did he usually made a mess of it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 11:52 AM

Err.. There was summary execution, as most historians have established.

Name? Quote? No. Not a single historian has ever said any such thing. Entirely false.

Rag, you dishonestly pick out only the negative from a balanced account to give a false impression of the work.

Look at the front cover for a clue.
"The GOOD SOLDIER. The Biography of Douglas Haig. Gary Mead."
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/391349179074?adgroupid=13936810266&hlpht=true&hlpv=2&rlsatarget=pla-124296488226&adtype=pla&ff3=1


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:08 PM

Les - Churchill "ran it" at the only time it mattered to rob the Germans of the victory they wanted 22nd June 1940 until coincidentally 22nd June 1941.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:13 PM

Rag, you suggest we read Marc Ferro's book.
Why?
Have you read anything relevant in it, or are you just trying to give the impression that you read something.

Did you read the translation or the original French?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:19 PM

GUEST,Raggytash - 27 Dec 15 - 09:24 AM

All the wrong reasons Raggy?

Gave the Germans such a fright on two occasions in 1915 that they specifically ordered that defences had to be prepared and and manned at at least double strength if German troops found themselves facing sections of the line manned by British Troops.

In 1916 it was Haig with Britain's first ever citizen army that forced the German Army commanded by Falkenhayn to retreat, Falkenhayn was dismissed as a result and the Germans sued for peace - unfortunately their terms were not and never, ever would be acceptable to either the Belgians, the French or the British.

In 1917 he introduced the bit and hold raids on German positions, whilst doing so the system of all arms integrated warfare was further developed. By and large still used to this day.

In 1918 even after the German Army doubled it's size on the western front and threw it against Haig's Army within 21 days of the five German offensives reaching their high water mark Haig attacked and 100 days later the war was over.

I would say he did rather well and a damned sight better than anyone he opposed. But of course being a complete and utter buffoon you would have to disagree.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:40 PM

Did I really there see Keith accuse Raggy of cherrypicking quotes!? My mind is well and truly boggled!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 12:57 PM

Dave, if you are suggesting I have ever done that, I challenge you to give an example.

I quote historians, and provide links so that the quote can be seen in the context of the whole article.
What have you ever put up Dave?
Nothing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM

"This old man's story has changed quite dramatically since the day first introduced us to Tommy Kenny, that story has altered by Jom to cover all the glaring anomalies that have been pointed out to him - Now we have the admission by Jom that Tommy Kenny NEVER, EVER, actually saw anyone being shot by the military police in the situations and circumstances he first described."
Once again you are reduced to simply lying
At no time have I claimed Tommy witnessed and execution – courts martials were not public events, nor were executions
Tommy's account – which you have been given several times, said that men were picked up for walking away from the noise, were tried and sentenced to death.
What you were told was that Tommy was fighting next to someone one minute, then shortly afterwards reading a notice saying their earlier sentence had been carried out.
If there was a push on thy were taken from where they were being held, placed in the front line and if they survived, were then taken out and executed.
That is the account Tommy gave which was recorded by four of us, and is housed in the British Library along with the rest of our collection (and in The Traditional Music Archive in Dublin)
If you can come up with an alternative account – do so – otherwise you have bee4n proved once again the liar you are.
You will find no other "version" of this story – on the contrary – in order to prove Tommy never served you claim to have researched his name and could only come up with four other Tommy Kennys – none from Liverpool.
When I gave you my uncle's name (a medal winner) – you came up with no information and said that it was not possible to research soldiers names how the **** did you come up with four Tommy Kennys if you aren't a liar?
Similarly, you have tried to denigrate Harry Patch as a liar or gullible because he only "served for three months"
The time Patch served was on The Western Front – he was wounded out at Passchendaele
The average life expectancy in action was six weeks – Patch served sixteen – I would have thought that would have elicited a little respect from even wee jobbies like you pair – obviously not.
At least it was enough time to pick up the information that has got up your nose enough to lie like a politician.
Why on earth do you sink to such depths – more than a little sick, don't you think?
There is no reason for us not to believe Tommy Kenny served ; we met some of his old mates at his funeral, we saw his photo in uniform – both his and Harry Patch's experiences makes shit of your defence of this squalid bloodbath.
Now
You have yet to explain how you found four Tommy Kennys while you couldn't find one Jerry Carroll
You have to produce another version of Tommys Story
You have to explain how this war of attrition – sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths – was not efficient butchery but good leadership
You have to explain how "good leadership" led to the defeat at Loos – The Dardanelles, the massive loss of life at the beginning of the Somme, the wrong ammunition fiasco and the internecine in-fighting that was taking place between the wartime Government and the Military...... and all the other sit that happened, can possibly be described as "good leadership"
No hurry – we've waited this long
And please stop lying so stupidly – it's become embarrassing to watch you humiliate yourself.
Keith remains the joke he always was      
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 07:55 PM

" Rag, you suggest we read Marc Ferro's book. Why? Have you read anything relevant in it, or are you just trying to give the impression that you read something"

No professor I suggest you read because it might, just might, give you an insight into the various truces that happened throughout WW1 not just Christmas 1914 but Christmas 1915, 1916 and 1917. Easter at times, Holy days and perhaps (and this is purely conjecture)the men were simply tired of killing each other.

" Rag, you dishonestly pick out only the negative from a balanced account to give a false impression of the work"

Professor, how the **** you can make such a statement when you haven't actually read the book should amaze me, but it doesn't.

Unlike you I actually went beyond the front cover and read the book. When you actually read a WHOLE book on the subject it might help.

Do try Gary Mead's book it's quite interesting.

Oh and while your about it try reading a little about Launcelot Kiggell.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 10:28 PM

Ehmm No Raggy you tell us all about Launcelot Kiggell and how he was so instrumental in us "winning" the war despite not knowing how the chaps were doing up at the front. You see despite the opinions at the time of some junior Divisional General Staff Officer, Haig's Staff dealing and directing the activities of the entire British, Commonwealth and Empire Armies in France from 1916 until November 1918 did rather well - a damned sight better that the Generals and the nsataff's of the German armies opposing them - this evidenced by the fact that the Germans did actually lose the First World War - any problem disputing that fact Raggy?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 10:35 PM

" it might, just might, give you an insight into the various truces that happened throughout WW1 not just Christmas 1914 but Christmas 1915, 1916 and 1917. Easter at times, Holy days and perhaps (and this is purely conjecture)the men were simply tired of killing each other."

And ALL OF IT Raggy completely inconsequential as the nation states invoiled at the time were engaged in a global conflict - you seem to lack not only knowledge but a sense of logic and more importantly perspective - but there again Raggy old chap I get the distinct impression that you have never had to fight for anything in your life - there have always been others prepared to do your fighting for you to enjoy your freedom of speech and your freedom from persecution.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Dec 15 - 11:37 PM

Ahh Jom - Jim Carroll - 27 Dec 15 - 03:02 PM

1: "This old man's story has changed quite dramatically since the day first introduced us to Tommy Kenny, that story has altered by Jom to cover all the glaring anomalies that have been pointed out to him - Now we have the admission by Jom that Tommy Kenny NEVER, EVER, actually saw anyone being shot by the military police in the situations and circumstances he first described."
Once again you are reduced to simply lying
At no time have I claimed Tommy witnessed and execution – courts martials were not public events, nor were executions
Tommy's account – which you have been given several times, said that men were picked up for walking away from the noise, were tried and sentenced to death."


So all those posts of yours SCREAMING about Military Police and then latterly "Special Squads of Military Policemen" lined up behind our gallant chaps about to "Go Over The Top" with specific instructions to shoot them if they didn't get out of the trenches are just a load of bollocks are they Jom?

Your Tommy Kenny didn't say anything at all about witnessing any Summary executions? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE NOW SAYING? A simple yes or no would suffice.

You did not check whether or not anyone called Thomas Kenny served in the British Army and that is the truth. I FOUND SIX possible candidates - none of whom fitted the profile of the man you described.

Hey Jom your next load of complete and utter bollocks
If there was a push on thy were taken from where they were being held, placed in the front line and if they survived, were then taken out and executed.

Jom NO MAN under arrest OR punishment can bear arms in the British Army - HAVE YOU GOT THAT ? THAT IS A FACT - So what your Tommy described could not have possibly happened - My own Paternal Grandfather survived just because of that fact - that is why I know that what Tommy told you was complete and utter bollocks.

I have been proved a Liar? I don t think so.

Now this one really puzzles me Jom because it only seems to have existed inside your own imagination>

When did you give me your Uncles name.    Please provide the deatils of the post, date and time. First mention of Jerry Carroll if that is indeed his name has been on this thread, in this post – Please prove me wrong – I won't hold my breath.

Harry Patch only did serve three months in France that is a well documented fact. No denigration at all just simply a matter of FACT. Do you have any problem with that?

The average life expectancy was six weeks was it / tell me Jom if that was the case how come only 1 in 10 died?

There is no reason for us not to believe Tommy Kenny served ; we met some of his old mates at his funeral, we saw his photo in uniform – both his and Harry Patch's experiences makes shit of your defence of this squalid bloodbath.

Only thing is Jom you told us that they saw men summarily executed by military policemen when they very clearly and patently didn't.

"You have to explain how this war of attrition – sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths – was not efficient butchery but good leadership"
Jom it is you who believe incorrectly that wave after wave of young men were sent to their deaths our fatalities were less than any other of the 1914 combatant armies how do you think we did did that if we we sent wave after wave of young men to die??
Now we are discussing the leadership of the British Army under Douglas Haig:
The defeat at Loos – F**K All to do with Haig
The Dardanelles – F**k All to do with Douglas Haig
The massive loss of life at the beginning of the Somme – Haig was opposed to the attack on the Somme in 1916 (Matter of record) The British Government and the French High Command insisted on it against Haig's best advice.

"The wrong ammunition fiasco" – 1915 absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Haig

" the internecine in-fighting that was taking place between the wartime Government and the Military...... and all the other sit that happened, can possibly be described as "good leadership"
No hurry – we've waited this long

Jom do you mean reasonable argument against decisions by the British Government, primarily David Lloyd George to place British troops under French command so that French Generals could order British troops to march to their own destruction? As they tried to do on the Somme in July 1916 as they insisted on doing at Passchendaele in 1917?
You've been given the answers many at time and oft Jom – you just ain't prepared to accept them. Just before you forget in November 1918 the victory celebrations were held in Paris and in London – NOT in Vienna or Berlin. If you are involved in a war there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE. Our "good leadership" guaranteed that – simple matter of record Jom.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:06 AM

"So all those posts of yours SCREAMING about Military Police and then latterly "Special Squads of Military Policemen" lined up behind our gallant chaps about to "Go Over The Top" with specific instructions to shoot them if they didn't get out of the trenches are just a load of bollocks are they Jom?"
No - the only bollocks here is your lying claims that I have altered my Tommy Kenny story at any time - which you have not acknowledged, nor will you.
Are you now claiming that what I have put up is based on my experience of spending three days recording an old man talking of his experiences as a soldier.
"Jom NO MAN under arrest OR punishment can bear arms in the British Army - HAVE YOU GOT THAT ? THAT IS A FACT "
Another "fact" for which you provide no evidence!!
I believe that it is against regulations for an officer to strike a man under his authority, yet it was common for officers to use their sticks to beat men out of the trenches and into the field
The story of the special squads and summary executions had nothing to do with Tommy - you appear to have linked to thee story put up by a man who recorded the facts from his grandfather, just as we recorded Tommy's story - it seems you have lumped them all into one to make it easier for you to denigrate one old soldier. .   
You have attempted to denigrate Tommy's story - you have claimed his war record doesn't exist, you said he lied to take the piss out of us (including his grandson), in front of his mates in the pub.
You do the same with Harry Patch - only served four months on the Western Front.
You are a real pieces of low-life - true patriots all .
"The defeat at Loos – F**K All to do with Haig"
Who the **** said it had - stop making things up
I have not commented on Haig's leadership, or any individuals - that would have meant only one bad apple instead of the ****** shambles of sending inexperienced young men to their deaths instead of the ****** bloody shambles of an incompetent higher command who couldn't agree fighting with the politicians back home that it was - you couldn't hope to organise a works outing on that basis, never mind a war.
You refuse to respond to the cock-ups, you refuse to refuse to respond to the morality of sending so many young men to their deaths, you refuse to respond to the fact that this was done in order to continue a system which exploited the people of the world - a system that was due to collapse a few decades later anyway (when another equally rapacious method was found to Carry on Exploiting (I think the 'Carry On' team dipped out by not making that one)
Your entire argument is made up of deliberate lies on your part and Establishment makkie-ups: a "classless" army, pre-Tolpuddle democracy, a Liverpool flowing with Milk and Honey, soldiers ignoring the massive recruiting campaigns and going to their deaths willingly, like lemmings - Barbara Cartland couldn't have made it up in her long career - you are a couple of jokes, the pair of you.
You couple of Tory-Boys really are going above and beyond the call of duty.
One more try- without the smokescreens and the bullshit:
You have yet to explain how you found four Tommy Kennys while you couldn't find one Jerry Carroll
You have to produce another version of Tommy's Story
You have to explain how this war of attrition – sending wave after wave of young men to their deaths – was not efficient butchery but good leadership
You have to explain how "good leadership" led to the defeat at Loos – The Dardanelles, the massive loss of life at the beginning of the Somme, the wrong ammunition fiasco and the internecine in-fighting that was taking place between the wartime Government and the Military...... and all the other sit that happened, can possibly be described as "good leadership"
No hurry – we've waited this long
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:27 AM

"When did you give me your Uncles name."
There - you can stop holding your breath
Will you stop implying that people are lying while at the same time lying through their teeth - it makes you look stupid
Jim Carroll

"Subject: RE: BS: Jingoism or Commemoration
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 09:14 AM
Terrytoon - if you're still there
You claim you can find the record of all servicemen with ease, and on that basis, you have denied the service record of Tommy Kenny
My family includes several with service records - would be grateful for your assistance in confirming them
My Uncle Gerry (Carroll) served in Europe during WW2, and was decorated for exceptional bravery under fire.
He was later tried and convicted by the army for refusing to go to Greece to train fascists during the Civil War there.
Who was he, where did he serve, what was he awarded his medal for and what regiment was he in?
There - you have three times the amount of information than you had on Tommy - should be a piece of cake for someone with your super-human skills.
More to come, when you reel off that one."
Your reply was that you never claimed to be able to do such things - another lie
Jim Carroll"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:39 AM

Keith, re: cherrypicking

On 20th December at 09:07 you quote one sentence, and one paragraph from one of your favourite historians, unfortunately for you also a link where you can read the paragraph in between which you conveniently left out, and which rather damages your argument.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:15 AM

Rag,
No professor I suggest you read because it might, just might, give you an insight into the various truces that happened throughout WW1 not just Christmas 1914 but Christmas 1915, 1916 and 1917.

So you have not read any book on the subject!
I have.

Professor, how the **** you can make such a statement when you haven't actually read the book should amaze me, but it doesn't.

It would be a rubbish biography if it gave a one sided view of the man.
I have read Sheffield's biography which concludes he was a competent general, but gives a balanced account. If you just picked out the negatives you could give the same false impression.

I have no doubt that Mead's book is the same. The title is very positive about Haig which gives a clue to the overall view. You have been deceitfully and dishonestly giving a false impression of the work.

Jim, millions of British men served as soldiers.
Individual anecdotes do not give a balanced view, and may be wholly unrepresentative.
Historians study the accounts of thousands to give a balanced and representative view.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:27 AM

Dave, that was a very minor point.
In the all the years we have been discussing this, I have never before or since referred to peace initiatives during the war.
I gave the quote making my point, but also gave the link to that the whole thing could be seen.
I did not pretend, as Rag does, that it was the only point.

My only case in all this has been that the army was generally well and competently led, that Britain had little choice but to fight and that the people supported the war.

I have quoted the historians on that with links to their articles.
That proves that it is indeed the view of the historians, and not just me.
None of you have been able to do that in support of your views because no historian holds them.
They are discredited and debunked myths.

You have still found nothing written in recent decades in contradiction.
I have.
Lots.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:40 AM

Professor please stop showing your utter ignorance. I have read Marc Ferro's book from cover to cover, and Gary Mead's book cover to cover, two of numerous books I have read on the subject.

Unlike you I do go beyond the title when reading a book, I do go beyond reviews that are found on the internet. I do not rely on cut and pastes hastily sought to back up a jingoistic viewpoint.

I doubt if you have read a WHOLE book in your life, with the possible exception of Janet & John which frankly seems to be about the summit your mental capacity.

Try reading both books and come back to me when you have. I won't hold my breath.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:56 AM

"Individual anecdotes do not give a balanced view, and may be wholly unrepresentative.
Not a case of giving a "!balanced view"! Keiuth - this twot says again and again that what these soldiers say happened never happened - therefore the men who fought an
d risked their lives were liars.
That is about on par with both of your positions - that everyone who gives evidence contrary to your claims is telling lies - sewer-level debate.   
Your carefully edited century-later less than half dozen 'historians' certainly don't give a "balanced view" - you even dismiss what they say when it doesn't suit.
I'm grateful for Terrytoon's magnificent summing up of Military mentality
"there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE" military brain-dead thuggery at its very worst -
8.5million - Killed:
21 million Wounded:
7.7 million POW's + missing:                
37 million Total casualties
57% casualties in % of men mobilised                 
Doesn't matter a flying ****, as long as you ended up on the winning side.
And for what? - the settling of a family squabble over who gets to sit on the throne and run the estate.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:57 AM

Keith,

The minor point being that peace could have been negotiated on at least two occasions with goodwill from the rulers on all sides. And that had they done so, millions of lives could have been saved. Very minor point according to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:06 AM

"I do not rely on cut and pastes hastily sought to back up a jingoistic viewpoint."

No you don't Raggy you rely on cut-n-pastes hastily sought to back up your own rather feeble arguments and fail on every single occasion to achieve your aim - the Keating example is one such instance, and your Montgomery example another. The former where YOU deliberately misrepresented what actually occurred and the second which was just so much waffle about nothing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM

Jim, I think you sum up the difference here, which is that you think, and I agree, that nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth that sacrifice of life and health. And that Keith and Teribus will not even understand that point of view. I have said that peace could have been negotiated at least twice, and maybe before hostilities even started. And that I at least will go further, if Britain had surrendered to Germany in July 1914, that would have been a better outcome than what actually happened. But I don't think it need have come to that, if the rulers were not so pig headed and egotistical it could have been a peace with honour.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:22 AM

The quote I provided from Montgomery came from Gary Meads book The Good Soldier, do you really expect me to type out the entire book? Try going down to your local library and borrowing the book yourself, if they don't have I am sure they will source it for you.

The quote from Keating came from an article that I provided a link to, if you cannot even be bothered to follow a simple link why on earth should I be bothered to type out the entire article.

Of course the information from both might upset your preconceived adherence to the glory of war and the fact that you keep banging on about "that we won"

We know "we won" but some of us are concerned not only about the cost of "winning" but the manner in which many men died in futile circumstances.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 07:56 AM

"No you don't Raggy you rely on cut-n-pastes hastily sought to back up your own rather feeble arguments"
Are we to assume you are just going to walk away from your proven lies and refuse to respond to the point which leave your arguments in tatters
Hardly grounds for claiming the arguments of others "feeble"
It would appear that for you - the war is over
""there is only one thing of any importance – THAT YOU END UP ON THE WINNING SIDE""
Classic!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 08:24 AM

"refuse to respond to the point"
"points" of course - good things al;ways come in dozeens
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 09:32 AM

Rag,
I have read Marc Ferro's book from cover to cover,

Please tell us what it says about the Lavantie truce 1915 then Rag.

and Gary Mead's book cover to cover,

That is the one titled "The GOOD SOLDIER" but you have only produced negative quotes from it.
You are being dishonest about it.

The quote I provided from Montgomery came from Gary Meads book The Good Soldier, do you really expect me to type out the entire book?

No, but I would expect a balanced view of the work. You have exclusively quoted only the negative.

Try going down to your local library and borrowing the book yourself, if they don't have I am sure they will source it for you.
The library will have a copy for me in the next day or two.
Then we will see Rag,

Dave,
The minor point being that peace could have been negotiated on at least two occasions with goodwill from the rulers on all sides. And that had they done so, millions of lives could have been saved. Very minor point according to you.

It was never part of the argument. You raised it.
I have said that peace could have been negotiated at least twice,
Can you find a single historian who agrees?
No.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 09:48 AM

Recent...

Ernie Wise wrote the "plays what he written" far more recently than Shakespeare wrote his.

I fail to see the logic of Keith A of Hertford's claims.

As for Teribus, why bother arguing with him? He comes out with distorted bullshit and lies. He seems to have a bit of a problem. The sort who, if we were in a pub you'd throw a packet of peanuts to in order to keep him quiet whilst normal people are talking.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 09:55 AM

"As for Teribus, why bother arguing with him?"
Why bother arguing with either of them - they both claim they have "won" something, and totally refuse to take responsibility for whaty they claim or to respond to what others say - like the system that WW1 was fought to defend - they are both well past their sell-by date.
Lying tossers - the pair of them
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 09:56 AM

"Jim, I think you sum up the difference here, which is that you think, and I agree, that nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth that sacrifice of life and health"

What absolute nonsense!......So the Nazis or ISIS should be allowed to take over the world unhindered.
Do you think the Russian people believe the defence of Stalingrad was a mistake?.......typical "liberal" fairyland!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:03 AM

The Nazis or ISIS were not involved in 1914 though, were they.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:14 AM

They weren't? Jeez - better check with ALL of the Profesors live, bookshop historians before making a blanket statemant like that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:15 AM

Of course they were. Akenaton gets his facts from having American newspapers read to him.

Hey Alex! Tell us all again how Donald Trump and Putin are ok guys eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:19 AM

"What absolute nonsense!.."
The Nazis could have been stopped had that been the reason in the first place - the persecution of the Jews was well underway by the time WW2 broke out - Britain didn't lift a finger - on the contrary, it appeased Fascism and criminalised those who took up arms to oppose as "premature anti-fascists.
I have never at any time claimed there are no just wars - there are - but the butchery of WW1 certainly doesn't fall under this description.
Isis - by the way - was the result of the world doing nothing about the massacres in Syria - one clown described any attempt to stop Assad as "fascism" (wonder who that was - oh yes - I remember!!)
Now we're up too our arses in wars on other countries (presumably no longer fascism Keith?)
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 10:51 AM

Incidentally
"typical "liberal" fairyland!"
Every human being should be given the choice of not taking life if that is their belief - pacifism is something to be admired and not sneered at.
The more liberals there are in the world the less chance there would be of obscenities like World Wars.
'Thou shalt not kill" is supposed to be a basic Christian tenet, though most Christian churches appear to have given themselves a 'get out of jail free' escape clause on that one.
I have little doubt that you will have as little problem with that one as you have with your claimed "socialist!!!" principles when you finally take the plunge and join the god-botherers Ake.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 01:22 PM

He tried.

Even they wouldn't have him. They said, "We may be misogynist homophobic bigots but even we have standards..

He isn't a socialist Jim. He reckons he is but it is a word he learned to spell. He reckons he is in The SNP, a liberal leaning all embracing party that introduced equality into the sectarian sewer we call Scotland. He reckons he is a communist but waffles on in other threads about how lucky The USA are to have the likes of Trump to vote for.

The only message that specimen is consistent with is his insistence that his whole sorry life is someone else's fault.

Sorry, thread drift, I know. But it's bad enough Teribus trying to rewrite history and Keith seeming impressed with him, without the stench of hatred pervading the thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 01:27 PM

And then there's the stench of hubris from both TeraByte and the Professor......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 01:48 PM

Some Christian churches though, the Quakers being a notable example, have been firmly pacifist in outlook, and in WWI I know of examples of people in my wife's family history who declined to fight, but served in ambulance units instead, because of their Christian beliefs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 01:55 PM

All Christians are pacifist.

Or hypocrites.

Take your choice. They do, changing it often..


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 02:39 PM

GUEST,Dave - 28 Dec 15 - 06:07 AM

Utter hogwash Dave

"nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth that sacrifice of life and health. And that Keith and Teribus will not even understand that point of view."

Damn right I disagree with that point of view


"I have said that peace could have been negotiated at least twice, and maybe before hostilities even started."

You might think that but no-one else believes it (Interesting concept that though Dave negotiating for peace even before hostilities beak out) - You have failed to tell us how French and Belgian Leaders were going to negotiate their fellow citizens rights, liberties and lives away to their conquerors. The German terms in 1914 and in 1916 were totally unacceptable.


"And that I at least will go further, if Britain had surrendered to Germany in July 1914, that would have been a better outcome than what actually happened."

Now that intrigues me just exactly how could Great Britain have surrendered to Germany in July 1914 - War wasn't declared until August of that year. It is as I said an interesting idea I am absolutely dying to hear how it would have been "better", certainly better for the Germans for sure, but I do not see how anyone else would have benefited.

Are you really such a blithering idiot?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 02:42 PM

"He isn't a socialist Jim."
I knoooooowwww (Liverpool pronunciation if you go up at the end).
I asked him what he thought of equality of opportunity and public ownership - and answer, came there none - he'd have pleaded the Fifth if he didn't live in Scotland.
"He reckons he is in The SNP"
Though he has declared support for Ukip policies and calls Farrago "Mr" - (not "sir" yet, but give us a few more immigrants....!)
"Some Christian churches though, the Quakers"
Would go along with that - always had a soft spot for them since they gave us the use of their floor on the Aldermaston marches
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 02:43 PM

I love how Teribus, who has never seen action can, like all idiots who pontificate from the comfort of their armchairs, speak of death and destruction, genocide, loss of a generation and carnage with such authority.

Please go away. Please?

You make decent peoples' skin crawl


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 02:51 PM

I see the Terribulus and Worm fan clubs are out in force 😹😹😹

I can't be arsed to read too many posts. Are they still claiming those who were there know less than twenty first century "historians?"

When people bow their heads at war memorials, I reckon it's because the likes of Terribulus make the dead wonder why they bothered being butchered if fools never learn. Lest we forget, not lest we marvel at what a spiffing good show it was, you bloody maniac.

Happy New Year

Luv&hugs


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 03:50 PM

"but I do not see how anyone else would have benefited."

How about the 17 million who died, who would otherwise have been alive?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 04:05 PM

I see "Team Musket" have regrouped and are attempting guerrilla tactics :0).....abuse stalking and bullshit will never beat logic and hard facts.

They really are
sad people, I have never encountered such blind hatred.

Of course all wars could be prevented from happening in an ideal world, but this world is far from ideal; and when the guy with the machete comes for your throat you kill him before he kills you.
Just like the defenders of Stalingrad did and just like Assad and Putin are doing.
If Assad had fallen to our bombs three years ago, Syria would be in the hands of ISIS today.

We have finally come round to what I have been suggesting for years, an international coalition to contain the madmen.
This means a complete reversal of policy for the West, but it can work to make the world a safer place.....some people don't deserve liberty or "equality"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 05:49 PM

"Though he has declared support for Ukip policies and calls Farrago "Mr" - (not "sir" yet, but give us a few more immigrants....!) "    Is there anyone left, of sound mind, who does NOT agree with the UKIP policy of regulating immigration?

And if you think that supporting unregulated immigration makes one a socialist, then its no wonder that you are such a mixed up political train wreck.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 06:08 PM

On the one hand we have logic and hard facts and on the other la la ideology, personal attacks and puerile name calling. Guess which side has credibility?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Dec 15 - 08:42 PM

" Is there anyone left, of sound mind, who does NOT agree with the UKIP policy of regulating immigration?"
Certainly not anybody who describes themselves a socialist
Ukip is a racist party and anybody who supports their policy is supporting racism.
Maybe of sound mind to you, for me it is the policy that created South African Apartheid and herded six million Jews into extermination.
Nice to see you've stepped out of your closet at last though.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 03:32 AM

I'll go along with team Musket. Jim appears to be in the team to what I can make out. It means anyone who feels Mudcat deserves better than being a haven for views that Terribulus and Keith thought their well led eager men fought against. 🐴🐴🐴

Fully agree with the anonymous member of the team when they say, if I read it right, that it is bad enough this thread being about war loving armchair jockeys trying to sanitise a shameful event of history without the confused hate exhibited by Akenhateon on any subject he sees "liberals" debating.

Sad, I know. For me, he's welcome to post his irrational weird attacks on people and concepts he confuses, contradicting himself as he goes. In some ways, it is about as insightful and accurate as the inane wittering Terribulus excels in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 03:32 AM

Immigration is regulated, and every party has a policy to regulate it. Personally I agree with Labour's policy of regulating immigration.

Free movement within the EU and is a different issue. It has great benefits, for instance allowing our talented young people access to the job markets in the strong economies of mainstream Europe. Cutting off this free movement would damage the prospects of an entire generation.

As far as job creation goes, unrestricted free trade is a much greater problem than restricted immigration. Many more people lose their jobs to imports than do so to immigrants.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 04:30 AM

"Personally I agree with Labour's policy of regulating immigration"
Immigration should not be an issue - not while THIS is going on.
Labour's immigration policy is little different than the Tories (just like its political policy in one-party Britain)
The war these people are fleeing from is one we helped to bring about and it is totally immoral and inhuman that we should send these people back, many of them to their certain deaths, until it is settled.
Is that really what Britain has become?
THESE images should be on display in every city in Britain - that is what our policy of trade and appeasement has helped create.
Nigel the Farrago and his like have fed on the Xenophobia my generation took in during our daily post-Empire lessons and has created a strutting little one-policy party which now commands a magnificent %1.00 of the British vote - one seat - so by Ake's reckoning, the rest of Britain is not "of sound mind".
Nige the beer swilling No-brain has gone and stars of the political scene like Tory cast-off-crooks IAN AND CHRIS have stepped in to make up the numbers.
Sorry Ake - the last "Socialist" to have played the race card in the political game in Britain was THIS ONE
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 04:37 AM

"Keith A, Ake, HiLo and myself have been accused of much and called all sorts of things by you lot "
You have certainly deliberately lied, particularly what people have actually said - it's become instinctive with you - and your silence on the issues that have been pointed out to you have compounded those lies.
I have no doubt that your silence will continue
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 04:52 AM

You have certainly deliberately lied, particularly what people have actually said

That is itself a lie Jim.
I have quoted the historians and only the historians.
You were given links to see the quotes in their original context.

The fact and the truth is that they all rubbished your version of the history.
You have failed to find even one single quote of recent times that supports you, because nothing does anymore.

- it's become instinctive with you - and your silence on the issues that have been pointed out to you have compounded those lies.

If you really think that, just put something up now and you will have it answered at once.
You will not.
You know it is not true.
You can only lie.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 05:56 AM

"You have certainly deliberately lied, particularly what people have actually said"
Terrytoon claimed I changed my story on Tommy Kenny - that was a deliberate lie - my statement was directed to his claim of having unjust things said about him.
He also said "yet when asked for examples the accusers go awfully quiet"
That is a lie - he has had the facts pointed out to him and refuss to respond.
Your own 'honesty' on what your less-than-half-a-dozen historians have said, your claims that nobody has challenged your statements, your cxlaim to have read books yet have refused to respond to contradictions, your whittling down your entire support for every single aspect of the war to 'I have only ever claimed three points, your manipulation of what is acceptable from you and what is acceptable from the rest of us, your constant claims of "all" or "the majority" of historians backing your archaic attitude to this bloodbath, your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war - and then claiming you already have...... amply bears out your veracity in these discussions.
You persistently lie and distort and put stuff out of context.
You have never made your case on any of these threads yet you persistently claim to have "won"
You ignore what people say then claim they haven't said anything.
You spoil these discussions with your obsessively dishonest behaviour and your desire to "win" something.
Now you are about to tell me I am a liar - which is yet another lie.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:13 AM

"The library will have a copy for me in the next day or two"


Must be a bloody good library if they opened specially over Christmas just for you to order the book.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:22 AM

Your own 'honesty' on what your less-than-half-a-dozen historians have said,

More than that but about six who are very well known.
Reminder, you can not find a single one who believes your version!

your claims that nobody has challenged your statements,

No historian has. The statements are those of historians!

your cxlaim to have read books yet have refused to respond to contradictions,
What contradictions?
I have been reading books about this all my life!

your whittling down your entire support for every single aspect of the war to 'I have only ever claimed three points,

The war is a huge subject. I have only ever defended those three points which you have utterly failed to refute!

your manipulation of what is acceptable from you and what is acceptable from the rest of us,

I have no idea what you are talking about! Have you?

your constant claims of "all" or "the majority" of historians backing your archaic attitude to this bloodbath,

ARCHAIC!!!! Theses are the considered and researched findings of all the historians!
Remember, you have failed to find a single one outside the consensus!

your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war

Who cares what random know-nothings might believe?
Just political whims from empty heads!
Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle!
I read history books to learn my history!
Normal people do!!

- and then claiming you already have...... amply bears out your veracity in these discussions.

Thank you at least for acknowledging my veracity.
I believe I have responded to all your points but again, if I have missed one, put it up and I will again.

You persistently lie and distort and put stuff out of context.

Blatant lie! Each quote came with a link to PROVE it was in context.
You produced no quotes at all. You couldn't.

You have never made your case on any of these threads yet you persistently claim to have "won"
I just said that if you argue about history against the history books, you lose.

You ignore what people say then claim they haven't said anything.

You have found no single historian for me to ignore!
You have not said anything except from inside your own empty head.
No scholarship from you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:24 AM

Rag, I ordered it when you first started quoting it.
It is a little late, but any day now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:46 AM

Never been one for "belonging" to groups but I could make an exception if I could join the "Muskets", if only to add further upset to the usual suspects.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM

There you go Keith - you are not going to respondy honestly to anything and are going to cotinue to nause up these discussions
Do not accuse us of lying while you behave the way you do
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 07:07 AM

Missed a bit:
"Who cares what random know-nothings might believe?
Just political whims from empty heads!
Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle!
I read history books to learn my history!
Normal people do!!"
This is a perfect example of why you should ot contribute to this forum
If yoiu know so much more about these subjects what's in it for you other than a peacock display of your obviously vast knowledge.
As well as being the most dishonest and inhuman person I have ever encountered you are also the most arrogant if you believe this
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 07:25 AM

"Thank you at least for acknowledging my veracity."
Obviously lack a sense of irony as well
Jim Caroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 08:45 AM

"deliberately lied" - Come on Jom give us an example of that (I mean to say according to you our lies as so abundant you should be able to come with such an example fairly quickly)

"he has had the facts pointed out to him and refuss to respond"
- What facts Jom? - you would not know a fact if it jumped up and bit you. One of your facts for example Kitchener was forced to resign" according to Jom the infallible yet the record shows that Lord Kitchener was made Secretary of State for War on the 5th August 1914 and died in that post on the 6th June 1916. And who was that historian and former World War 1 Stretcher Bearer according to Jom the infallible who is still alive and thus managed to outlive the last known veteran of the First World War.

Don't you dare to tell me of lies Carroll your posts are riddled with them. Perhaps you actually should take some time out and practice setting out posts that are lucid and coherent instead of the poorly written garbled nonsense you usually produce.

Another atrocious and baseless allegation made against men who can no longer defend themselves without one shred of substantive evidence to back it up was the utter nonsense about men being forced over the top at gun-point, about summary executions (And yes YOUR STORY DID CHANGE first Military Police were responsible then it became special groups assigned to the task - then you latched onto the Harry Patch interview [edited no doubt by the BBC] supplied by Raggy) And the "evidence" you put forward for this is hearsay from someone who didn't even bother to check if they had ever served in the Army, and a story you heard at third hand - In some ways Jim I really do wish they still had the death penalty where you live and I would then like to see you condemned solely on the basis of what you say constitutes evidence - thankfully to establish proof of anything you need a damn sight better evidence than seems to suit you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 09:25 AM

" Come on Jom give us an example of that"
You said I had altered Tommy Kenny's story "considerably" - in fact, you deliberately distorted what I had written about Tommy and claimed it was my doing - downright **** manipulation what others have had to say- the fact that you refuse to respond when requested to do so is indicative that it was deliberate.
Your claim that you have answered points when in fact you haven't
your persistent claims that Tommy Kenny was the only soldier to make such statements, yous smokscreen in putting up French as a good leader when he had nothing whatever to do with what was being said.
"What facts Jom?"
Liverpool conditions, democracy since the early part of the 19th century, a classless army..... your crassly stupid claims have all been answered with documented facts yet to refuse to respond to them.
You are quick enough to leap on the mistakes of others yet totally ignore your own trail of wreckage that passes for argument.
"first Military Police were responsible then it became special groups assigned to the task "
That was never part of Tommy Kenny's statement - if you are not lying - put it up - it's still around - I've given you exactly what Tommy said about deserters.
That was a statement by the grandfather of a veteran who included it on his website.
You claim to b able to produce soldiers records - six Tommy Kennys, was it? yet you withdrew that claim when I tried to put it to the test - the fact that you did this to cast doubts on Tommy's war record makes you what you are.
For ***** sake - can't either of you make a statement without lying?
You continue to denigrate the last WW1 veteran - now adding the nice touch that it was edited by the BBC - what are you people on???
Your contempt for those people who fought (now it spreads to Harry's "hearsay" peddling comrades), seems to know no bounds - all in support of the official version that has come down to us from the Military and the politiciansd who brught this bloodbath about.
You pair are the sole defenders of this war - proof enough of what a murderous debacle it really was.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 10:08 AM

"grandfather of a veteran"
Should read grandson" before you make a meal of it
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 11:52 AM

Jim,
If yoiu know so much more about these subjects what's in it for you other than a peacock display of your obviously vast knowledge.

I just know what is in the history books.
Anyone who takes that interest and reads knows every bit as much as I do.

You Jim, have read no history written for at least twenty years.
If you had you would know that it all rubbishes what you believe!

If that is not true, name one such historian who does not rubbish your old myths.
Sheffield, Macmillan, Boot, Pennel, Todman, Snow, Stevenson, Brown, etc.
(More than six already!)

So Jim, you believe what you believe, while informed folk believe the history books.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:08 PM

"I just know what is in the history books."
You don't even know what you've cut-'n-pasted
You have fully declared yourself an arrogant know-all fully paid up meglo.
Once more for old time,s sake (now filed next to your implant theory, for future use)
"Who cares what random know-nothings might believe?
Just political whims from empty heads!
Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle!
I read history books to learn my history!
Normal people do!!"
As you no longer deny your untruthfulness I assume we're agreed on that one.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:13 PM

Jom you said that Tommy Kenny was a soldier, yet you could not state where he served, what Regiment or Corps he served in and when he was in France or wherever. I resorted to IWM records and found the service records of six Tommy Kenny's who served in the Army during the Great War. You put me to the test? What by asking about your Uncle who served in the Second World War?? WTF would I spend good money doing that you PRAT, what possible relevance would that have.

YOU accused the Military Police of forcing men over the top at gunpoint and pointed to Tommy Kenny and your third hand hearsay source as proof. When WE pointed out that it is physically impossible to to that (Given the dimensions of a frontline trench - Hey Jom that is the one nearest to the enemy) YOUR story changed to Special Groups of Military Policemen gunning down troops who didn't move quick enough and who returned to British Lines - all without one shred of evidence - I take it that you do know what does constitute evidence don't you (It isn't uncorroborated hearsay for a start Jom)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:29 PM

My Grandfather served in WW1. No idea what regiment, rank or even where. I suppose that puts me with the vast majority. Could I look it up? Maybe I could but would I be any the wiser? I doubt it. He died fifteen years before I was born. He was the subject of stories that were funny till my Dad's generation came back from the second war apparently. All of a sudden, his deafness, shakes and inability to sleep had an explanation.

What point is Teribus making? Is his stance so utterly without foundation that he spends his sad life looking up irrelevancies in order to question the main points?

You don't need War Office bollocks, Google Maps are all you need to see the extent of the war graves. Tell me again it was well planned, tell me again the poor cunts were well led. Tell the poor cunts they knew what they were doing and it was a good idea.

Pathetic stupidity from someone with no sense of shame. "War by definition is an acceptance of failure". Kitchener said that about the politicians. A bit of lucid insight amongst his failings.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 12:29 PM

"yous smokscreen in putting up French as a good leader when he had nothing whatever to do with what was being said."

Jom could you please give us that again in English.

In 1914 French (That is General Sir John French) handled the minute BEF very well as they were attacked by the extreme right of the German offensive through Belgium. At times outnumbered 3:1 he delayed the German advance, causing them considerable casualties and succeeded in over stretching them to such an extent that a gap opened up that the French Army took advantage of and that resulted in the Battle of the Marne which was a victory for the Entente Powers -it also signaled the end to any prospect of a rapid victory in the west for the Germans and the death of the Schlieffen Plan. In doing all this French kept the BEF intact and in the field as a fighting unit.

In 1915 however in offensive operations he proved to be too timid and on at least two occasions his handling of the reserve prevented a breakthrough occurring - As a consequence of this he was replaced in December 1915 and Haig took over.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 02:09 PM

"Jom could you please give us that again in English."
Typos again shipmate - perfectly understandable and you know it
You deliberately launched into a defence of French to avoid responding to all the other cock ups - which you have yet to respond to.
There - that'll save you having to ask the nearest five year old to explain it to you.
"Jom you said that Tommy Kenny was a soldier, yet you could not state where he served,"
Wasn't what we were there for - all in his documents (I've told you this several times - even when you sneered at our poor collecting technique)
"I resorted to IWM records and found the service records of six Tommy Kenny's who served in the Army during the Great War"
And you said none were from Liverpool
"What by asking about your Uncle who served in the Second World War??"
You had as much information as you did on Tommy Kenny - more in fact yet you drew a blank, having said it was relatively easy.
You said you were unable to - the "spending good money" is an addition to the equation - is it any wonder that nobody believe a word you say - you make it up as you go along?
"YOU accused the Military Police of forcing men over the top at gunpoint and pointed to Tommy Kenny and your third hand hearsay source as proof"
More misrepresented distortions - I said Tommy Kenny told us that men were forced over the top - by being beaten and sometimes at gunpoint - didn't use it to justify anything - I reported the contents of our recordings.
At no time did mention the military police having done so - will you please stop making things up as you go along - it's now getting very silly.
"YOUR story changed to Special Groups of Military Policemen gunning down troops who didn't move quick enough and who returned to British Lines"
Sighhhh - for the umpteenth time, Isaid no such thing.
The report of military police summarily executing those who didn't go over the top quickly enough came from the website you were linked to by the grandson of a veteran - he even gave the squad a name (which escapes me at present)
You went though somersaults trying to claim this wasn't true so it's hard to believe you have forgotten - once again - stop making things up.
Corroborated by whom - the word of somebody who was there suits me far better than a whitewash of century old events which the nation has every reason to be deeply ashamed of.
You are obviously ot going to respond to any other of the points made (other than to claim that you already have), so unless you learn to sort out fact from fiction, I suggest we're done here.
If you weren't so struttingly and unpleasantly arrogant in trying to pass over your bullshit, perhaps you wouldn't look so stupid when it all collapses around your ears - that goes for the pair of you - though I have to admit that your contrasting styles are amusing - your Bill Sykes to Keith's Uriah Heep.
Have a nice evening not - of to listen to some superb singing
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 03:40 PM

Teribus has claimed that he has found the records of 6 Tommy Kerrys. What he has failed to say is that a huge proportion of WW1 records were destroyed during the blitz of WW2.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 05:19 PM

Cast not your pearls before swine comes to mind, Teribus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Dec 15 - 06:56 PM

Quotations from famous Scots.

"Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall, and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."

Field Marshall Earl Haig, Order of the Day, 12 April 1918. Douglas Haig was born in Edinburgh in 1861.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:13 AM

To those who doubt Haig's capability as a leader take a look at the date given in the quotation supplied by Akenaton then consider that having had the best that the Germans could throw at them in their last gasp effort to win the war Haig on the 8th August 1918 went over onto the attack - it was to be and is still considered to be the most successful offensive campaign ever fought by the British Army - and by 11th November 1918 the war on the western front was all over.

GUEST - 29 Dec 15 - 05:19 PM Couldn't agree more.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:44 AM

If the war graves represent his success, it's a good fucking job he didn't fail then...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:52 AM

"Jom could you please give us that again in English."
Typos again shipmate - perfectly understandable and you know it
You deliberately launched into a defence of French, who was never an issue, to avoid responding to all the other cock ups - which you have yet to respond to.
There - that'll save you having to ask the nearest five year old to explain it to you.
"Jom you said that Tommy Kenny was a soldier, yet you could not state where he served,"
Wasn't what we were there for - all in his documents (I've told you this several times - even when you sneered at our poor collecting technique)
"I resorted to IWM records and found the service records of six Tommy Kenny's who served in the Army during the Great War"
And you said none were from Liverpool, suggesting that Tmmy lied about his having served.
"What by asking about your Uncle who served in the Second World War??"
You had as much information as you did on Tommy Kenny - more in fact yet you drew a blank, having said it was relatively easy.
You said you were unable to - the "spending good money" is an addition to the equation - is it any wonder that nobody believe a word you say - you make it up as you go along?
"YOU accused the Military Police of forcing men over the top at gunpoint and pointed to Tommy Kenny and your third hand hearsay source as proof"
More misrepresented distortions - I said Tommy Kenny told us that men were forced over the top - by being beaten and sometimes at gunpoint - I didn't suggest it was the Military police who did it to justify anything - I reported the contents of our recordings.
At no time did mention the military police having done so – the only time they got a mention was in their rounding up 'deserters' (shellshocked young man walking away from the noise) and bring them back to stand trial - will you please stop making things up as you go along - it's now getting very silly.
"YOUR story changed to Special Groups of Military Policemen gunning down troops who didn't move quick enough and who returned to British Lines"
Sighhhh - for the umpteenth time, I said no such thing.
The report of military police summarily executing those who didn't go over the top quickly enough came from the website you were linked to by the grandson of a veteran - he even gave the squad a name (which escapes me at present)
You went though somersaults trying to claim this wasn't true so it's hard to believe you have forgotten - once again, stop making things up.
My accounts of what the soldiers had to say about these things came from numerous sources, Tommy Kenny, somebody's Grandfather, Harry Patch, and earlir on, Irish author, Patrick McGill, who fought in the Loos debacle.
What corroboration do you want - the word of somebody who was there suits me far better than a whitewash of century old events which the nation has every reason to be deeply ashamed of.
You have described the men who fought and gave their lives as "liars" as gullible, and now as rumourmongers.
You are obviously not going to respond to any other of the points made (other than to claim that you already have), so unless you learn to sort out fact from fiction, I suggest we're done here.
If you weren't so struttingly and unpleasantly arrogant in trying to pass over your bullshit, perhaps you wouldn't look so stupid when it all collapses around your ears - that goes for the pair of you - though I have to admit that your contrasting styles are amusing - your Bill Sykes to Keith's Uriah Heep.
Keith has had the arrogance to claim that nothing we have to say is worth consideration, yet on every topic where the British establishment comes under criticism – Ireland, unemployment, Israel and now an Imperial War, you both have knee-jerked in defence of the extreme right – get on our bikes when we can't find a job, British industry was shit and not worth saving, the Trades Unions ruined Britain, the miners were thuggish greedy scum.... your arguments are ultra-right in their nature, whatever the topic – that is the political motivation Keith has accused us as having – you are a pair of lone ultra-right voices defending a system that is greedy, corruptly dishonest, wealth and privilege driven and still happy to sacrifice the lives of our youth for the benefit of our "betters" and well past its sell by date – that is as politically biased as it gets.   
Jim Carroll
And to repeat - if you still claim I changed Tommy's story - say where I did


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 05:32 AM

Success!!

I no longer have to type anything at all in order to rattle Terribulus. It appears anybody who can string sentences together, weigh idiots up and post anonymously is labelled "Muskrat" presumably in my honour. I'm humbled 😎

Let's see now

In the red corner! Weighing in at the combined weight of the fallen, all the poor sods who were actually there!

In the blue corner! Weighing in at the burden of his ego and his armchair, Terribulus!

The crowd are eager for this, grapple fans. One side of the town hall is packed, the other side has Michael Gove and Keith A of Hertford, although his head appears to be in a book. Bouncers confirmed that a third member of the Terribulus Fan Club was barred access to the town hall by order of the council's strict policy on equality.

Round one hundred and forty three!!!

🛎


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 07:43 AM

Jim,
You have fully declared yourself an arrogant know-all fully paid up meglo.

No.
I have only claimed to know three things about this, which you and your supporters denied and ridiculed me for.

You were wrong to do that because I learned those things from history.
I have quoted you all those historians saying the same, while you have not found a single one to support you.

What is the basis for your argument?
No historian agrees with you.
You can only be right if all the history books are wrong. Is that your claim?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 08:42 AM

"You can only be right if all the history books are wrong. Is that your claim?"
Sighhhhh again - you haven't read all the history books - I strongly doubt if you have read any
No historian has ever denied the fact that the war was fought by mindlessly sending young men to their deaths until the other side gave up - if that is the case, that is simple butchry - show it isn't?
It is not the job of historians to say whether the War was worthwhile.
The war was fought in defence of a rapaciously exploitative system - if that is not the case - prove it - if it is - justify it.
"I have only claimed to know three things about this, which you and your supporters denied and ridiculed me for."
Everybody ridicules you for your ruthlessly dishonest use of historians - you are now a legend in your own time.
Justify your claim that all historians agree with you - you have given less than six and you haven't read them.
Nobody other than you is interested in "my historian is bigger than your historian" games (especially when you set rules excluding the ones you don't like) - if you knew the first thing about history you'd know that that is not how history works.
History is the sum total od accumulated knowledge, not the century later justification of a bloodbath because everybody recognises now that it was a ruthless waste of life to defend inbred Empires and exploitative big-business.
Answer that ad you might hase a point - until you do, you will continue to display yourself as the clown you are.
You might start by telling us how sending young men to they almost certain deaths in wave after wave constitutes "good leadership"
You won't of course.
You are using 'historians to defend your jingoism (even through people like Hastings, McMillan and even Sheffield have specifically condemned that same jingoism).
It was simply a war of attrition - with your vast superio#rity of knowledge show it was not - or show us who says it was not.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 08:42 AM

"I have quoted you all those historians saying the same, while you have not found a single one to support you"

Just how many times do you need to be told that not ALL historians agree with you.

How many times do you need to be reminded of those who don't. Are you really THAT stupid.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:05 AM

Keith
One step at a time, dear Jesus
Do you disagree that it was a wart of attrition based on forcing/tricking/persuading young men to go to their deaths?
If not - how was it fought - and who says it was not fought the way I have just described - a simple yes or no will do for the first part, a name, a quote and a source will suffice for the second?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:41 AM

Rag,
Just how many times do you need to be told that not ALL historians agree with you.

Telling me is no good.
I want to see a quote.
I have given you many quotes of many historians
You can find nothing.

Are you claiming that all the historians I have quoted are wrong but you are right?
That is an unbelievable claim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:44 AM

Q: Are you really THAT stupid.

A: Yes


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:49 AM

Jim,
"You can only be right if all the history books are wrong. Is that your claim?"
Sighhhhh again - you haven't read all the history books - I strongly doubt if you have read any


I have read the books Jim, and quoted you the historians.
Do you claim they are wrong and you right?

You can not claim to have read anything recent that agrees with you because nothing does.

Justify your claim that all historians agree with you - you have given less than six and you haven't read them

I listed about eight just yesterday that I have quoted.
You have failed to find any!

Do you disagree that it was a wart of attrition

Yes.

based on forcing/tricking/persuading young men to go to their deaths?

No. They were not tricked or duped.
That is what Macmillan, Pennel and the others told you.
Are you saying they are all wrong but you are right?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:51 AM

Do you disagree that it was a wart of attrition

Yes it was.

based on forcing/tricking/persuading young men to go to their deaths?

No. They were not tricked or duped.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 09:56 AM

Are you going to respond to my questions Keith?
If not - Game set and match -using your own criteria
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 02:05 PM

Here AGAIN are the answers to your questions Jim.

It did become a war of attrition, like most wars (including the jingoistically named "Great Patriotic War).

It did not start or finish as one.
Neither side were likely to surrender because it became one.

The people were not duped.
Macmillan said they believed in it and were right to.
So did Pennel.
So did the OU through Paxman.

Do you claim they are all wrong and you right?
Why can you find no single historian who agrees.
I could produce many more as you know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 02:52 PM

Macmillan, Pennel, and Paxman are far too young to have spoken first hand top those directly affected. And the are quite the wrong people to make the judgement as to whether the war was necessary or justified. People who were there, and historians writing in a closer time frame are better placed to make that judgement. Because it is a judgement not an issue with a clear yes or no answer. If the war had not been fought, maybe the British state in its form of the time would not have survived. You can argue whether that would have been a good or a bad thing. But I would argue very strongly that the survival of the British state was not worth 18 million lives, a million of those British.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 02:58 PM

"It did become a war of attrition, like most wars (including the jingoistically named "Great Patriotic War)."
Sorry - what the **** does that mean?]
Attrition is the wearing out of one side by rubbing it against the other - in this case, hurling one groups of human beings against another until one of them gave in - no tactics, just simple brute force.
It ever "became" that - it was that from the beginning - the man were never anything but expendable.
"Macmillan said they believed in it and were right to."
She said no such thing - she covered the recruiting campaigns fully in her book.
Give your quotes - in full and with their evidence for making such stupid statements.
If they had "believed in it" - there would have been no need for such tactics as emotional blackmail, inducement from employers at the threat of dismissal, no pantomimes, no recruiting campaigns, no white feathers and certainly no compulsory conscription.
Your bullying mate claimed the vast majority of volunteers came from the middle classes - if that is true - why didn't those who believed in ithe cause join up?
Paxman devoted a half programme to the techniques used to inveigle young men into joining up (want me to put up "The Man Wh Was John Bull again?
Do I claim they ware wrong - I am claiming that you are making things up again - just as you have never put up this shit before
"Here AGAIN are the answers to your questions Jim."
Utter bollocks.
And no - it doesn't answer my question -
If it was a war of attrition how can throwing one group of soldiers to their deaths against another group of soldiers possibly be described as anything but simple butchery - how was it "well led" THAT WAS MY QUESTION
And please stick your unread historians up your hole - you haven'rt read them, you don't understand them and you most certainly do not understand how history works.
History is accumulated knowledge gathered constantly between the event in quesion to the present day - no "modern historians only", no half dozen selected superstars, and certainly no eejit who can't tell the difference between historical fact and opinion - THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD.
The selecting of out-of-context sentences from a minute handful of carefully chose, like-minded people
Fuck your historians - I haven't read them through, but what I have read from a couple of yours, what they say bears no relation to what you claim they say - your deliberate misrepresentation of Hastings proves that beyond a shadow of doubt.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:00 PM

Missed a bit
THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD, PAST AND PRESENT
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:10 PM

Jim,
"Macmillan said they believed in it and were right to.
She said no such thing - she covered the recruiting campaigns fully in her book.
Give your quotes - in full and with their evidence for making such stupid statements."


Macmillan
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

Pennel
"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

Dave and Jim, are you claiming that these historians and the oothers are all wrong, and you are right?
Why can you find no single historian who agrees with you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:14 PM

THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD, PAST AND PRESENT.

That is the knowledge of current historians.
They have access to the knowledge of all their predecessors, and new data as well.

Historical knowledge advances.
It is added to, not lost.
It does not go backwards.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 03:37 PM

"Britain certainly thought it had legitimate reasons for going in, and I think it did," she says.

What the blazes does that mean. If by Britain you mean the island of Great Britain, that is an island surrounded by sea. Or a number of islands if you mean the British Isles. It is a geographic entity, no more capable of rational thought than any other rock. Does she mean the people who lived in Great Britain. In the British Isles. Which ones? What is her methodology for determining what they thought? Opinion polls?

No, what she means is the British government and establishment of the day. Herein lies the problem with historians, they are incapable of distinguishing the interests of the People from those of the Government and establishment. The Government and establishment were concerned only with their own survival as an entity (not even their personal survival for there is no evidence that had the Germans taken over they all would have been killed). They were not interested in the lives of the soldiers they sacrificed for their own personal interests.

We have the same problem today. The media bang on about "the reforms Britain needs from the EU", when what they mean is the reforms that Cameron and his mates in the City of London want. No mention of reforms which are in the interests of the British working people. They do not count.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:14 PM

Dave, read the whole piece.
She means the people.

Are you saying she is wrong.
Also Pennel, Brown, OU/Paxman, Sheffield, Todman, etc., etc.

Can you find a single historian who challenges that view?
No, and you have tried.

You are claiming that the historians are all wrong and you are right.
Tell us about your researches.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:21 PM

" 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."
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:23 PM

Q: Are you really THAT stupid.

A: Yes


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:24 PM

"The historians"

AJP Taylor
Alan Clark

Interesting how when you look up purely a list in alphabetical order of those whose work is used in BA (history) courses through most joint matriculation boards where early c20 military and political is used, the first two alone are dismissed by our resident "all" merchant...

I enjoy being right. I see where Keith and Teribus get their kicks. My high is even more orgasmic though cos I'm on the side of history, not "history."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 04:31 PM

There used to be a few historians who believed the myths you still cling to, but now there are none. They have been discredited.
They were wrong

Nothing written in recent decades supports you.
It all supports me.

Should we reject all the historians and believe you?
Why?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: gillymor
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 05:10 PM

What about Neil Faulkner?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 05:13 PM

Keith, did you really just describe AJP Taylor as discredited?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 05:17 PM

Keith, what then is Macmillan's methodology for determining the views of the British people in 1914.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 06:14 PM

Q: Keith] Are you really THAT stupid?

A: Yes

I believe that's all than needs to be said. No sense wasting more time and words.

Ditto for Colonel Blimp a.k.a Teribyte.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 06:36 PM

As this is a thread on warfare, here is an obituary of a gentleman, a hero and long time friend.
He encapsulated the spirit and resolution referred to by Mr T and Keith. Major "Peter" Cochrane.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Dec 15 - 06:57 PM

Peter Cochrane? How about Jimmy Clay:


JIMMY CLAY
(Patrick Sky)(c) Rabelaisian Music, Inc.

When you walk down the street, who will follow you?
Six o'clock, its getting late.
The moon it is rising as the sticky dew
Molds on the ground by the gate.
With your rifle on your shoulder as you walk along
Listening to your boot-heels hit the sod
Smoking your cigar as you hum a song
Thinking of your mother, and your God

Ah, but you're alone, Jimmy Clay
As you smoke your cigar and earn your pay.
And fifteen thousand soldiers are marching by your side
Still you're alone, Jimmy Clay.

And remember New York town, good old New York town?
The friends, the drinks, the cops and all
And the whores who took your money when you couldn't stand
And all the roaring nights you can't recall?
And remember Alice Fay, good old Alice Fay?
She'd been through life at least ten times around
And when she said she loved you, well she meant it, boy
Remember the night you nearly drowned?

Ah, but you're alone, Jimmy Clay
As you smoke your cigar and think of yesterday
Well, yesterday don't matter when its gone away
Where did it go, Jimmy Clay?

So as you lie there in the mud, who will talk to you?
Nobody, Jimmy Clay
For when you're gone mankind follows after you
Doesn't it, Jimmy Clay?
And your face is growing moldy where they kissed your cheek
And said "Please die for us, Jimmy Clay"
And so you died a soldier and a hero's death
Congratulations, Jimmy Clay.

Now you're alone, Jimmy Clay
You can smoke your cigar, and earn your pay
And somewhere in the distance you can hear the fiddle play
But not one note will change, Jimmy Clay


[With thanks to Spaw, god rest him.]


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 02:08 AM

Dave,
Keith, did you really just describe AJP Taylor as discredited?

On the issues under discussion, there is no historian who accepts his views.
He is discredited by advances in historical knowledge.

Keith, what then is Macmillan's methodology for determining the views of the British people in 1914.

I am sure she knows her job Dave!
She is a historian and professor at the University of Oxford, where she is Warden of St Antony's College. She is former provost of Trinity College Oxford, and professor of history at the University of Toronto and previously at Ryerson University.
There is no greater authority on WW1 in the world.

All the other world authorities have independently reached the same conclusion.
I have quoted Sheffield, Boot, Pennel, Todman, Snow, Stevenson, Hastings, Brown, Paxman/OU, etc. (count Jim!)

Is it your claim that they are all completely deluded, and you are somehow above them all in your knowledge of this period?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 03:13 AM

I was keeping out of this but I feel I must try to clarify what my point is and what I believe is

Keith says on 3 points no one has been able to prove him wrong. The three points are, if I remember rightly, that the war was necessary, it had the support of the people and that our troops were well led. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.

Of those three points he has admitted that an historian who meets his criteria disagrees with the first one so we are down to two.

I have no idea if the second is true or not but as it is Keith making the claim, it is up to him to prove it, not for anyone to disprove. Considering the number of historians who have written on the subject I do not believe anyone on here has read them all so no one can say that all historians agree.

The last one is relative. There is no doubt that our troops were better led that the opposing forces. We won, suffered fewer casualties and were not beset by the mutinies that some suffered. However, better led does not, in my mind, equate to well led. In the case of the lesser of two evils it must be remembered that neither is actually good.

Others are claiming that the war was a disaster of the first order. Of that there is no doubt and the number of lives lost is testament to that. Whether it was necessary, supported or well led pales into insignificance when you weigh those points up against 17 million deaths and 20 million casualties.

If Keith wants to win, fine, let him. There is no doubt that everything he has read, apart from one thing, supports his points. Those points are minor and have no impact on anyone alive today. It is akin to arguing that the Nazis had smart uniforms. What we have to remember is not to glorify war and try to make sure a similar thing does not happen again.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 03:15 AM

Sorry - Incomplete first line.

....clarify what my point is and what I believe is the point of many others on here.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:33 AM

If Keith wants to win, fine, let him.

I was ridiculed and castigated for holding those views, and disbelieved when I said it was what the history books say.

Three years later, no one has found a historian who disagrees, but still I am ridiculed and castigated just for repeating what all the history books say.

Forgive me for defending my position which is proved correct.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:34 AM

Is my summary correct then, Keith?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:37 AM

So you don't actually know Macmillan's methodology Keith. Despite your extensive reading. For sure, if her work is published in peer-reviewed journals she would have to have described her methodology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:50 AM

I have been looking forward to your response regarding macmillans" methodology". It was worth the wait. Too funny.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM

So you don't actually know Macmillan's methodology Keith.

Nor do I care.
There is no greater authority on the period in the world!
Why should I doubt a historian and professor at the University of Oxford, where she is Warden of St Antony's College. She is former provost of Trinity College Oxford, and professor of history at the University of Toronto and previously at Ryerson University.


She has been researching the period for decades, and her findings are confirmed by all the others, e.g.
" 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."
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:54 AM

"Discredited" Or put another way, not conforming to Boys Own Annual 1949 jingoism aimed at perpetuating generations of seeing war as something to take pride in.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:57 AM

A.J.P. Taylor & Alan Clark

Points of similarity:

Both are "historians" and each represent the opposite ends of the scale in academic achievement.

Neither specialised in the period in question. Both wrote books about it around the same time with one purpose in mind to make money on the back of the 50th anniversary. Years after his book "The Donkey's" came out Clark was forced to admit in an interview that for his book he had just made things up.

Both books were savaged by peer review by "historians" who were specialists in the period, most notable being Hugh Trevor Roper who had been Alan Clark's history tutor at Oxford.

Neither Taylor or Clark had access to the mass of information that came to light after 1970 which means that anything written by them could not possibly be as detailed, factually accurate or as insightful as work produced by those specialising in the period after 1970.

So if Taylor and Clark are your candidates the Keith A is correct in saying that their work has been largely discredited and their conclusions proven wrong.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:58 AM

You claim to be some kind of "academic" Dave.
You also appear to be questioning Macmillan's methodology!
Do you doubt she has one?
Have you tried referencing her work?
I am sure it is all open and published.

I do not question her work.
Please do not expect me to question it for you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:59 AM

Funnily enough in 1949 I think we had begun to get over all this stuff. Unfortunately in the last few decades we have regressed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:04 AM

Keith, I am an academic in a different subject, and when I see an academic paper, sure I look at the conclusions to see whether they interest me, but if they do I then look at the methodology to see whether it is sound. Even if they are professors at Oxford. I know lots of professors at Oxford, and they would expect no different, and would do the same with my papers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:06 AM

We haven!t all regressed Dave. Some have continued to study, research, and dig into newly available material. I do wonder at what kind of "academic " you are when you can' t seem to understand the need for vigorous and relentless research .


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:07 AM

Keith,

Telling phrase in your post at 04:58:

"I am sure it is all open and published."

I thought that you were supposed to have read all this stuff.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:11 AM

So check her methodology yourself Dave!
I see no reason to believe that she is incompetent and deluded, along with every other historian!

You are just driven by hopeless desperation in the face of overwhelming evidence against your position.
(Or have you found something, ho ho?)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:17 AM

Dave, what kind of academic are you? "I look at the conclusions to see if they interest me". You really are too funny Dave!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:23 AM

"That is the knowledge of current historians."
No it isn't - you have spent your time debunking past historians as have those who are presently trying to resurrect the reputation of this squalid war.
Despite your claims, nothing new has been produced to justify the war - the soldiers diaries still by and large remain out of reach to most of us, what has been released has confirmed what a horrific affair it all was, but nothing else - what will be released in future has been filtered through a process so as not to rock the boat too much - nowhere has the war been commented on.
You refer to 'methodology' as if you understand it, you have proven over and over again that you haven't a clue - your pomposity makes you a grater caricature than you already where.
And you sill haven't answered my question.
HOW CAN A WAR CONDUCTED BY SENDING YOUNG MEN TO CERTAIN DEATH IN WAVE AFTER WAVE UNTIL ONE OR THE OTHER SIDE GIVES UP BE DESCRIBED AS ANYTHING BUT RUTHLESS BUTCHERY - WHERE ID THE "GOOD LEADERSHIP" COME IN
You dishonestly claimed that you have already answered this: "Here AGAIN are the answers to your questions Jim." having previously said you refuse to do so:
"your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war"
Your reply
"Who cares what random know-nothings might believe?
Just political whims from empty heads!
Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle!
I read history books to learn my history!
Normal people do!!"
You have yet to reply
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:26 AM

HiLo, I am the kind of academic who doesn't have time to read in full about 100 papers which come out on arXiv every day in my subject.

And Keith, I certainly don't have time to read in full papers in a different subject to mine, which may or may not support your jingoistic viewpoint.

I am not accusing Macmillan of being incompetent and deluded. But if she says what you say she says I would be accusing her of conflating the interests and opinions of the British state and establishment with those of the British people. Although really I suspect that it is you who is doing this conflating, not her.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:39 AM

God Dave it must be a vast subject. And we already know you don,t read much else. As an academic you ought to know that passing judgement on things you have not read is an absolute no no. I am surprised that all of the profs you know at Oxford have not pointed this out to you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:43 AM

You are being cruel Dave, Keith will not even understand the word conflate, still less be able to do so himself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 05:53 AM

Hello guest, how's yer day going, nasty enough for you ? What did you say your name was? Ah , you forgot to mention your name... Or perhaps you just conflated it with another person of the same name.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:03 AM

And who is Hilo, does anyone know, do anyone care, you are just as anonymous as I am.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:09 AM

I am not passing judgement on what Macmillan says. Just on what Keith says Macmillan says. Which I have read.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:12 AM

Yes perhaps


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:19 AM

SorryI sent the message before I meant to. Perhaps I am as anonymous as you are. But am an identifiable poster. I use the same name at all times and do not go from thread to thread being nasty,.
Dave read your latest post and tell me it isn,t a joke.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:30 AM

No Hilo you are just nasty hiding behind a consistent name. It is surprising that the people who complain most about nastiness on threads tend the be the same people who are nasty themselves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Hilo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:39 AM

The difference is that you exist I dozens of incarnations , most of them very nasty indeed. Are you just one nasty or half a dozens nastiest hat is the difference, err guest or guest or.... Even more guests.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 06:56 AM

Keith's arguments are, and always have been a mass of contradictory, ill-thought- out claims
He claims to believe that history is "THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD, PAST AND PRESENT" yet he excludes as irrelevant the use of all historians no longer alive, including historians who were alive during and just after the War (such as Liddell Hart, who actually fought) - how dishonestly stupid is that?
He tells us that he is not going to respond to a question because we are all "empty-headed, abnormal random know-nothings": "Who cares what random know-nothings might believe? Just political whims from empty heads! Of course I do not respond to such ignorant twaddle! I read history books to learn my history! Normal people do!!"
Shortly afterwards he claims to have responded to the question - he isn't even singing from his own hymn sheet, let along his claimed 'historians'.
His motivation is crystal clear; he obviously has no knowledge of WW1 - the subject probably doesn't even interest him beyond at the 'Boys Own' comic- book level
He has proved himself a rabid, pro-establishment nationalist who will hear nothing criticising the British establishment.
When the centenary campaign was launched to whitewash the events of 100 years ago and make them, acceptable, he was there like a rat up a drainpipe to do his bit for God, Queen and Empire.
Despite claims to the contrary by this pair, nothing new has emerged from the War - it was as bloody, as ruthlessly vicious and as politically-driven as we have always known it to be.
It is pointless to ask either of them to produce anything new that has been discovered - they don't do that sort of thing, though they have often claimed to have "already done so".
They are, of course, quite welcome to prove this is not the case, but they won't - neither of them.
Hiding behind "experts" and "historians" and refusing to take responsibility for his own opinions, has now become one of Keith's main gambits to "win" arguments, every bit as useful as 'The English Opening' or 'Fools Mate' in chess.
These arguments are a prize-winning game to Keith - personally, I find them only useful for their entertainment value.
Thanks to Keith's obsessive desire to win, I have long given up any hope that we might actually learn something from them - his New Year present to all of us - Happy New Year Keith.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:10 AM

Hiding behind experts and historians. The nerve!
You and Dave are a great team, don,t have time to read much but loads of time to dismiss the people you have not read.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:12 AM

Dave,
But if she says what you say she says

I am not passing judgement on what Macmillan says. Just on what Keith says Macmillan says. Which I have read.

You know she said it. You have the quote and the link.

Jim,
"your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war"

I think your beliefs are wrong. They are contradicted by the history books.
That is why you can not find anything supporting them.

No it isn't -

Ye is is. I have quoted many.
You can not quote one.

Jim again,
Keith's arguments are, and always have been a mass of contradictory, ill-thought- out claims

I have made no arguments.
Just stated my 3 views, and showed that they come from the history books.

Current historians know everything their predecessors knew or thought they knew, but now have much more information available to them.
Historical knowledge only advances.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:15 AM

Sorry, quote missed.

delete my last.


Dave,
But if she says what you say she says

I am not passing judgement on what Macmillan says. Just on what Keith says Macmillan says. Which I have read.

You know she said it. You have the quote and the link.

Jim,
"your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war"

I think your beliefs are wrong. They are contradicted by the history books.
That is why you can not find anything supporting them.

"That is the knowledge of current historians."
No it isn't -


Ye is is. I have quoted many.
You can not quote one.

Jim again,
Keith's arguments are, and always have been a mass of contradictory, ill-thought- out claims

I have made no arguments.
Just stated my 3 views, and showed that they come from the history books.

Current historians know everything their predecessors knew or thought they knew, but now have much more information available to them.
Historical knowledge only advances.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:18 AM

Sorry, not myself today.

Dave,
But if she says what you say she says

I am not passing judgement on what Macmillan says. Just on what Keith says Macmillan says. Which I have read.


You know she said it. You have the quote and the link.

Jim,
"your refusal to respond to what some of us believe to be the major points of the war"


I think your beliefs are wrong. They are contradicted by the history books.
That is why you can not find anything supporting them.

"That is the knowledge of current historians."
No it isn't -


Ye is is. I have quoted many.
You can not quote one.

Jim again,
Keith's arguments are, and always have been a mass of contradictory, ill-thought- out claims


I have made no arguments.
Just stated my 3 views, and showed that they come from the history books.

Current historians know everything their predecessors knew or thought they knew, but now have much more information available to them.
Historical knowledge only advances.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:40 AM

"Long dead historians are no longer relevant"

So the works of Herodotus, Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Niccolo Machiavelli, Edward Gibbon et al are irrelevant are they.

Truly astonishing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:41 AM

"Hiding behind experts and historians. The nerve! "
I've said it before Hilo, Hiding behind experts and historians he ha not read and doesn't understand - cut-'n-pastes don't allow you to do that sort of thing.
"Long dead historians are no longer relevant."
Then how the **** can you possibly believe that "THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF ALL WORKING IN THE FIELD, PAST AND PRESENT" - it is a contradiction in terms
We are not talking about "long dead" anything - we are talking of writers who were alive during the war - which gives them an advantage over modern writers for a start - they were there, and those who were in a position to examine the people who experienced the war first hand, as participants and as those directly affected by the war - not an advantage any historian has today.
It it utter nonsense to claim that past historians are no longer relevant - do you have this as an official statement from anyone, anywhere - if anything, it is absolute confirmation that you know nothing whatever of history.
"Sorry, not myself today."
I am genuinely sorry that you are not at your best - but we all have our own crosses to bear healthwise - me, not the least.
I have been involved in heated arguments at a time I was having prods shoved up my arse for suspected prostate problems (over a priod of four years now).
The one time, when I was particularly low and frightened and happened to mention it on line, I was told in no uncertain terms that it had no place in those discussions - that was good advice which I have always adhered to.
I suggest that if you are not up to it, wait until you are and let the rest of us get on with it - it has no place here.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 09:07 AM

So the works of Herodotus, Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Niccolo Machiavelli, Edward Gibbon et al are irrelevant are they.


By no means as irrelevant as The Professor.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 10:34 AM

It it utter nonsense to claim that past historians are no longer relevant - do you have this as an official statement from anyone, anywhere

Knowledge advances.
The work of some of the previous generation is thus superseded.

On my three points there is now agreement, which shows some earlier historians to have been wrong.

Unless you are claiming that all the current generation are wrong about those points, you have no case.
Is that your claim?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 10:36 AM


So the works of Herodotus, Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Niccolo Machiavelli, Edward Gibbon et al are irrelevant are they.


No silly!
Only if there findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 10:41 AM

Dave, another Macmillan quote that makes it clear she is referring to the people not the state.

"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: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 10:58 AM

Thats just a review, no description of methodology. "Stevenson argues persuasively" - persuasively to whom. How does he argue, what is his methodology. The last paragraph is revealing, British soldiers were fighting for "king and country". The very fact that they should mention this in one sentence suggests that they were still in thrall to the mindset of subservience to their "betters". A French soldier fought because "he did not want to become a Boche". Suggests that the propoganda efforts of the French elite to portray the Germans as subhuman had been effective. Reading that paragraph I am even more disgusted by our rulers of the time. They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans, and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos. Stevenson isn't persuasive to me. And if he persuades me of anything it is that the lying, cheating, venal swine who ran our country at the time would stop at nothing, including sacrificing the lives of millions of their countrymen, in pursuit of their nefarious ends. The only people who had the nous to know what to do about this were in St, Petersburg.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 11:08 AM

Dave, explain this "methodology" thing. What do you mean by that ?
What is your take on Stevenson, I presume , although it would come as no surprise if you had not, that you have read Stevenson.
Should quit while your behind Dave, really it just gets odder and odder.
As an Academic Dave, what is your methodology ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 11:09 AM

This blind faith in an opinion... You do realise that MacMillan has a view based on the evidence she collated.

As a historian, she collated the evidence and laid it out.

As a commentator, she gives a view.

Educated people can form different conclusions from the work of historians than that of the historians themselves. Thousands upon thousands of people, myself included, have used the evidence of others in our thesis or dissertation on our subjects to form an opinion or conclusion that differs from that of those whose work we cite.

It's called the academic process. The problem here is that Keith A of Hertford has a blind faith in any opinion that is near to his own whilst scoffing at the opinions based on the same evidence that might upset his fantasy world order.

But at least Keith tries, even if his lack of academic approach fails him. Teribus must have led a frustrating life before he learned to google, cut and paste. Lilo, Akenaton and others merely resemble the weak kids standing behind the school bully egging him on.

By the way, "accepting the war, even willingly" equally applies to ISIS cannon fodder who willingly blow themselves up on the basis of a room full of Virgins for them to rape. It's a bit like our grandparents actually believing in God. If those in authority tell you, and you have little other option, you accept, even willingly.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 11:31 AM

"Only if there findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge."
And nobody has here Keith, but you have written all of them off without exception
Your Margaret McMillan out of context quotes are totally meaningless, as are all you other out-of-context ones.
The facts of the efforts made to recruit young man, the emotional blackmail inducements, the threats of dismissal by employers, the per pressure of the''Comrades Brigades' the exaggerations and downright lies about how easy the war would be, and when it would be over... and above all, the fact that the recruiting campaign ran out of steam and was replaced by enforced enlistment - all makes total nonsense of any idea that men joined up as a crusade.
Even your mate claimed (not true, of course) that the majority of men came from the middle classes - suggesting that the workers really wanted nothing to do with the war other than as a source of employment and romantic adventure (which were two major features of the recruiting drive)
You have claimed throughout that Historians back you up on Germany's blame fro starting the war - McMillan doesn't support that view by any means
She was interviewed and said:
"You do mention the thesis of the German historian Fritz Fischer about German culpability, but you don't endorse it unambiguously do you?

No. He was writing at a particular time and I think what he did was very brave. But having read his books again, I think that he allowed the hunt for German guilt to guide him in the selection of documents. He and his followers were so fixated on looking for German guilt that they failed to take into account some of the other possibilities. After all, Germany was not operating in a vacuum. It was having to deal with other nations which were also making decisions."
Smacks your claim in the face, for a start.
McMillan interview
She makes it quite clear that she believes that every aspect of the war is complex, yet you have used her quotes throughout to make them simplistic - that is a major part of your dishonesty.
Out of context quotes are dishonest manipulation of the facts to suit an agenda - your agenda.
You claim taht "all historians" agree with you on everything" - she doesn't, as has been pointed out to you.
I suppose any attempts to get you to commit yourself to why the war was "well led" is a bit of a lost cause!!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 11:46 AM

From OED:

Methodology: A system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity:

As someone who purports to do research on Medieval History, I am surprised that you do not know that.

Methodology in my field which is physical sciences will be quite different, and includes but is not limited to an analysis of the statistical significance of any conclusions.

As to Stevenson, that is the first indication that I have had of him, and based upon the review and the selected quotes I am not favourably impressed. Phrases like "disgusting establishment toady" come to mind, but I don't know him he may not really be like that, as the review inevitably presents quotes out of context.

The GUEST above puts it well. Historians are useful for assembling facts, but their opinions based on these facts are no more valid than those of anybody else. They can argue that people thought the war worthwhile, although I don't see how they have assembled a large enough database to establish that. But even if they do, it doesn't make it true. The parallel with ISIS is apt.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 12:20 PM

Dave, she was talking for herself.
She found it persuasive, but I am sure she was persuaded by other evidence already, that the British people believed the war to be a necessary evil.
You will find no historian who challenges that view.

They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans,
What lies? Justify your wild assertion.
and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos.
Justify that assertion too!

Stevenson isn't persuasive to me.
Have you read the book?
Rag and I have. We found nothing to dismiss. How do you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 12:23 PM

Guest,
Keith A of Hertford has a blind faith in any opinion that is near to his own whilst scoffing at the opinions based on the same evidence that might upset his fantasy world order.

No.
I expressed three views that are those of historians today.
I only scoff at people who dismiss the work of historians, imagining they somehow know more about history than they do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 12:38 PM

Jim,
"Only if there findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge."
And nobody has here Keith, but you have written all of them off without exception


No.
I say that historians agree my three points.
I say that previous work that did not agree has been shown to be wrong.

Your Margaret McMillan out of context quotes are totally meaningless, as are all you other out-of-context ones.

The whole piece was provided.
That IS the context it was in!

You have claimed throughout that Historians back you up on Germany's blame fro starting the war - McMillan doesn't support that view by any means

I made no such claim.
I have never argued about blame for starting the war, just for invading Belgium and France, but in that interview she states,

"I'd assign more responsibility (for the war), rather than blame, in the end to German policy and to the policy of Austria-Hungary. - See more at: http://83.223.124.158/derbyshire/judgement-and-understanding-margaret-macmillan-on-the-first-world-war/#.VoVmcvmLSt8"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 01:07 PM

Dave, you have now dismissed the work of Macmillan, Hastings and Stevenson!
Sheffield?
Is there any historian working now whose work you do not dismiss?

Please give us some names so we can discuss their views.

Happy New Year everyone.
keith.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 01:10 PM

There are a number of examples of the lies spread by the British establishment about Germany in "British Propaganda and the State in the First World War" by Gary S. Messinger, much of which is free to view online.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 01:21 PM

"HOW CAN A WAR CONDUCTED BY SENDING YOUNG MEN TO CERTAIN DEATH IN WAVE AFTER WAVE UNTIL ONE OR THE OTHER SIDE GIVES UP BE DESCRIBED AS ANYTHING BUT RUTHLESS BUTCHERY - WHERE DID THE "GOOD LEADERSHIP" COME IN" - screams Jom the infallible in RED

First part is a gross over-simplification of what went on - I think that you actually do know this, but for sake of clarity if you do not - then you are a complete and utter idiot who should actually do some reading (Even by people you think are wrong) and educate yourself.

Second part:
1914 - Hare & Hounds stuff all movement and scamper. Faced with odds of up to 3:1 in both guns and men, the BEF managed to stay intact as a fighting force. The Germans outran their lines of supply (Which they would not have done had they stuck to Schlieffen's original plan and invaded through Holland as well). The Battle of the Marne ends all hopes for Germany achieving its quick victory in the west, so they dug in where they were.

1915 - Britain's reserves and Territorials start to arrive to build up the strength of the British Army in France, the sector of line held by the British is increased. Britain's industries are nowhere near a level to sustain the war effort. But two offensive operations are planned, both initially succeed in taking all their DAY One objectives but poor handling of the reserve troops delays their arrival and the sought after breakthrough does not occur (NOT MY opinion, those are the opinions of the men who were there). Scandals involving munitions and handling of the BEF means that Sir John French is replaced by Douglas Haig - the man who has given the Germans opposing him two very real scares - the German response is to double, strengthen and deepen the defences in sections of their line where they are opposed by British Forces - (By the way neither Taylor or Clark would have known about this as this detail only surfaced post-1972)

1916 - Build up of the British Army continues and by now we see the volunteers of 1914 starting to arrive. The German commander on the western front General Falkenhayn opts for the strategy of ATTRITION to, in his own words, "Bleed the French white". He sees the French as the largest army opposing him and hits it at Verdun - The French demand a combined British and French attack on the Somme (The junction of both Armies) Haig disagrees with the location he says an attack in Flanders would stand a higher chance of success, he is overruled and is ordered to attack, meanwhile the French have taken away half the troops they said they were going to commit as they are needed by Petain at Verdun. The Battle of the Somme starts badly for the British, but where they are successful Haig reinforces that effort, by the time both the battles of Verdun and the Somme are over Falkenhayn has failed to "Bleed" anyone other than his own forces white. He is dismissed, the Germans now know they cannot defeat the British, the Belgians and the French while they are still fighting the Russians. The Battle of the Somme results in the largest retreat of the German Army on the western front since the Marne one year before - the Germans start to prepare the Hindenburg Line to the rear of their new positions, Britain's first ever "Citizen Army" has faced and forced the best army in the world to retreat. And up to this point every single man fighting EXCEPT THOSE IN THE BRITISH, COMMONWEALTH & EMPIRE ARMY have been conscripted – Although a system of conscription had been introduced for England, Wales and Scotland, those called up had not as yet been deployed to France ( Harry Patch – Conscripted, joined up in October 1916 first deployment was to France in June 1917 – so much for being trained in only days).

1917 – The lessons learned in 1916 by the British Army are refined and put into practice the Battle of Messines was carried out successfully in Flanders – and should have been immediately followed up but it was thought that the Germans would have been prepared and that the British Army needed respite before another battle. Allied powers were now biting bits out of the German line and holding them. Because of the German U-Boat threat from Belgian ports Haig was ordered to attack in 1917 in Flanders to divert and split German forces from the planned French attack by Nivelle. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George was totally mesmerized by the man, put all British troops under French Command and insisted that Haig attack the Passchendaele Ridge – Haig's location of choice, selected for the terrain and ground conditions was the Somme – Haig was overruled again by his French commanders and by David Lloyd George. The Passchendaele offensive did result in further German withdrawals. Attrition now meant that the British and the French could sustain their losses, the Germans could not sustain theirs and with the Americans now in the war the Germans would have to do something quickly or lose the war. The Russians have been effectively taken out of the war – (Anybody interested in knowing what German terms for a peace were like take a good look at the terms imposed upon the Russians by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk – in comparison the terms agreed to under the Treaty of Versailles were benign)

1918 – The German Army on the western Front is almost doubled in size by seasoned battle-hardened troops released from the fighting in the east by the Treaty with Russia. This time they attacked the British and pushed both the British and the French back to almost the high water mark of their attack in 1914. This time they were attacking across a battle-torn landscape that the British and the French knew intimately, the Germans did not. The Germans mounted a total of five offensive operations which ended in July 1918. Twenty-one days later, with all battle losses in terms of men, equipment and material made good a full strength British, Commonwealth and Empire Army went over onto the Offensive – the 8th August 1918 was regarded by Hindenburg as being the "Blackest Day of the German Army", the collapse all along the front was almost complete. One hundred days the war was over, Haig was the ONLY Commander on the western front to achieve and exploit a breakthrough in the entire course of the war – to do that with what started out as the smallest army of the major powers required amazing powers of leadership.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 01:25 PM

So in the physical sciences you read reviews and then make an assessment. I think you don't really know what the study of history actually is. You claim to be an academic but you give no credence to expertise, you don't read history, you judge based on reviews and you deny that carefully formed opinions from historians are no more valid than your ill informed nonsense. A very strange sort of academic indeed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 02:07 PM

No, in the physical sciences I read the papers. But I am selective, I have to be. History, well the papers are less accessible to me anyway, so often you are limited to reviews (its worth noting that so is Keith, since that is what he has been quoting recently). If Keith quotes reviews, I will respond to reviews. Maybe you, with access to the academic publications in a subject, would be prepared to quote something from a peer-reviewed paper which back's up Keith's views. And I don't mean the opinions of historians, which are no more valid than the opinions of everybody else, I mean facts backed up with a description of the methodology, i.e. how they were ascertained.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 02:08 PM

But seeing as how its available inline, I will read Messinger more thoroughly, he seems to have done some thorough research.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 03:15 PM

"First part is a gross over-simplification of what went on - I think that you actually do know this, but for sake of clarity if you do not - then you are a complete and utter idiot who should actually do some reading (Even by people you think are wrong) and educate yourself."
I know nothing of the sort and your arrogantly bullying tone indicates that you don't either but are trying to bluff your way through, as per usual.
Enlighten us, pray do as you have on every other declaration you have made in your somewhat aggressively defensive manner.
G'arn - educate us
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 03:21 PM

"I say that historians agree my three points."
McMillian says that historians are at odds about most aspects of the war - read what she says.
"You have claimed throughout that Historians back you up on Germany's blame fro starting the war - McMillan doesn't support that view by any means
I made no such claim."
That was one of your first claims until you retreated to your present three.
Yo defended every single aspect of Britains involvement in the war - your three points are now your Fort Alamo - that's where you have retreated to.
You said it was why Britain had no other alternative but to fight.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 04:43 PM

Jim, you seem to be in a war of attrition, and having to fight on two fronts, happy new year.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Dec 15 - 07:51 PM

Of everyone who has contributed the many sage insights regarding the expanding insights about WWI, who has actually written a book about it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 03:21 AM

Dave, all nations use propaganda in all wars, but you specifically stated that "They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans" in the context of the start of the war.

I challenge that, and ask for an example of any such lying about the Germans.

Jim,
McMillian says that historians are at odds about most aspects of the war - read what she says.

I agree with her, but on those specific three issues they are in agreement, as I have shown.

You said it was why Britain had no other alternative but to fight.

I have never argued about events prior to the invasion of Belgium Jim, and I will not embark on a new one at this stage.
Ferguson aside, the historians all agree that Britain did have no choice but to fight after that.

I will remind you that Macmillan holds Germany and Austria-Hungary "responsible" for the war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:08 AM

The Austrian Hungarian Empire must be quaking in its jack boots..

The question from Donuel above, whilst withering and intended to be sarcastic, accidentally makes an interesting point.

There are some on here, (let's call them Fred and Hubert to save embarrassment for Keith and Teribus, oh..) who confuse the role of historian with the role of commentator. You do not need to be a historian to conclude from the research of historians.

To be impressed with their evidence is one thing, but to be so impressed as to blindly follow their conclusions without balancing it against what we also know from other sources merely shows that this discussion is on two levels of intelligence. In order to sell your books or make your academic mark, you need to come off the fence, which is what these people are doing. In many cases, their personal take does not flow from the evidence as much as flowing from publisher requirements or promises from the establishment they increasingly serve.

No point in discussing it when the opinions of a few historians are carved in stone by those incapable of intellectual discourse.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:20 AM

Dave, I have read the introduction to the Messinger book.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0719030145

By propaganda he does not mean lying about the Germans.
I do not think the book will support your assertion, and nor will anything else.
I wonder why you made it.
Lying propaganda?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:27 AM

Guest,

To be impressed with their evidence is one thing, but to be so impressed as to blindly follow their conclusions without balancing it against what we also know from other sources


The history books, and the historians who write them, are where normal people learn their history.
Your "other sources" seems to refer to political dogma.

I claimed that the historians agree my points.
They do. None have been found who disagree.

I do not claim that the Mudcat Comrades are capable of understanding their findings.
You clearly are not, but who cares? It is no challenge to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:44 AM

"I have never argued about events prior to the invasion of Belgium Jim, "
Yes you have Keith - you backed away from all your arguments at a later dates and retreated to your present "three" when the rest of them became unsubstainable - you have done this with your 'Famine' arguments and with your 'implants' (with which you added, "I only believe it because some#body else said it".
It's became a technique of argument with you.
"I will remind you that Macmillan holds Germany and Austria-Hungary "responsible" for the war."
And I will remind you that McMillan, in all her arguments makes a point of stating that the subject of who started the war was an extremely complex one - one of the articles is headed "Please don't ask me who started the War".
She condemns the simplistic way jingoists like you approach the subject - half truths and inaccuracies.
"I agree with her"
Must have made her New Year for her - you can't stop being pompous, can you - just as Terribulus can't stop being belligerant.
I await with some interest to see how he is going to revise how the war was fought.
"who has actually written a book about it?"
Nobody - there have been no new revelations on WW1.
What has happened was that a handful of writers, from historians to tabloid journalists, have decided to take the opportunity of the Centenary of the war to rehabilitate its reputation and make it more acceptable, not with new historical facts, but with their own opinions - a PR exercise.
It was based on the deeply insulting claim that we all took our understanding of the war from 'Blackadder Goes Forth' and 'Oh What a Lovely War'
There is now access to soldiers' diaries, but these seem to confirm what we already know - and what is being argued about here is a justification (and distortion) of what we already know.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 05:00 AM

Keith
A quick scoop from a past thread "conining yourself to only three issues and "agreeing with McMillan about the blame for the war - ad I only went back to 2014.
As I said, you defended every aspect of the war from day one.
Jim Carroll

29 Dec 13 - 01:54 PM
Not relevant to Britain in 1914.
They were faced with aggressive, invading German armies rampaging across Europe towards the English Channel, massacring civilians and children as they went.
No-one chose that implacable enemy.
They just had to deal with it.

29 Dec 13 - 02:07 PM
Remember where the German armies were at Xmas 1914.
Where would they have been had they not been stopped at huge cost and sacrifice by the Allied forces?
It was nice that they stopped trying to push deeper into France and Belgium on Xmas day, and nice that the allies could stop resisting them.
It would have been nicer had they returned to their own borders.

30 Dec 13 - 12:54 PM
Are you quite sure you saw that sniper thing in The Week?
Which issue?
How did moving snipers prevent fraternising?
How would they know where to put them?
How would they know they were not best placed already?
It takes time to prepare a hide, so how long in advance?
It sounds a bit made up.
I have never heard of such a thing.
Why do you say it is "well documented" ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 05:07 AM

"I have never argued about events prior to the invasion of Belgium Jim, "
Yes you have Keith


No I have not.
You can not challenge what I do say, so you pretend I have said something else!

I await with some interest to see how he is going to revise how the war was fought.

No revision needed.
Here is what Macmillan says about it.

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: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 05:11 AM

Your quotes of me support me not you!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 05:48 AM

Keith, you should then read Chapter 5 of Messinger, on Lord Bryce. Unfortunately the online scanned version goes little further than this, but from the titles I think the last four chapters should be interesting too.

In a different post you say that Macmillan holds Germany and Austria-Hungary responsible for the war. Point 1 - the lesser point is that Macmillan here is expressing her personal opinion based upon evidence which she and others have collected, and others are able to, and have, expressed different opinions. Whether or not they are historians is neither here nor there.

The more important point is that even if Germany and Austria Hungary were responsible for the war, it was still not necessary for Britain to fight it. The only reason was the preservation of the privileges of the elite.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 06:09 AM

Dave,
were responsible for the war, it was still not necessary for Britain to fight it.

That is your opinion. Historians disagree. I do not believe you to be better informed.

Whether or not they are historians is neither here nor there.

Seriously!?
I think historians know more about history. I do not believe anyone to be better informed about history, and certainly not you!

Chapter 5 of Messinger, on Lord Bryce.

The reports about German atrocities were basically true.

P75 "He (Masterman) saw the (Bryce) report as based on authenticated fact, which he always believed should be the basis of propaganda."

There is nothing here to support your false assertion "They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans,"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 06:18 AM

This is getting silly.

I have given the views of the historians, which like any normal person I accept.

Your answer is that the historians are all wrong but you know the truth!

That shows laughable hubris and extraordinary arrogant conceit.
No other reply is needed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 06:35 AM

"No I have not."
Your arguments seem to have changed yet again from "onlt three points to "prior to Belgium"
You are a running joke Keith (running being the operative word)
As you rightfully say "This is getting silly." (except it's always been silly as far as your arguments are concerned.
How about some response to the nature of a war that slaughtered millions of young men - you dishonestly claimed you had already responded to it - now make good that lie
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 07:35 AM

Jim, my argument has never changed on this, and I have expressed no opinion on events before Belgium.

Do not repeat the accusation without an example, which you will never find.

I have given the views of the historians.
You can not find one who disagrees or supports you, because you are wrong.
You have no case. Give it up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 07:58 AM

"and I have expressed no opinion on events before Belgium."
Belgium was the start of the war - what's your point?
You have supported every single aspect of the war
You have either denied or ignored and refused to respond to the effect blackmailing nature of the recruitment campaign, the threats of dismissal by employers, the promises of a short war, the conditions that forced men to join up, and the fact that compulsion was introduced when the recruiting campaigns failed, insisting that people joined up because they believed in the war - you spent a graet deal of time on these - which one of your "three points£ covered that?
For ***** sake Keith - stand by your arguments and stop moving the goalposts
You have supported every single aspect of this war from day one - stand by what you have claimed.
Despite having claimed otherwise, you have at no time attempted to answer how the war was "well led" or how it was a war worth millions of lives.
You have said you have answered these points - indicate where you have or answer them.
How about a New Years Resolution like "I promise to speak the truth".
It really would life much easier for the rest of us.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 08:19 AM

Normal people don't "accept" anything Keith. They consider.

The only people who "accept" either lack capacity or are superstitious, which is basically the same thing.

There is no definitive "history." I was at Orgreave in 1984, and have yet to read an account from any viewpoint that coincides with my own recollection. I am sure any of us could give examples of this. In my professional life, a newspaper once turned my "we cannot comment on individual cases" into about three column inches of comment attributed to me.

If you are impressed by someone being given the (non legally reserved) title of historian, then I'm sure they wouldn't complain. But being a "historian" doesn't stop David Irvine from being a holocaust denier, and doesn't stop Max Hastings from altering his view of the same evidence as his earlier view based on pushing his "opinion."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 09:12 AM

Agree entirely with that guest.
Simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?
If you do disagree with it, what evidence (historical or moral), to support you?
You insist on our providing historians - where are yours to contradict that statement?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 09:24 AM

"They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans, and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos." - GUEST Dave

Not in July and early August 1914 - Forget about historians looking back at the events, as you do not seem to believe them - go to Hansard and read the speech given in Parliament by the British Foreign Secretary of the day Sir Edward Grey on the 3rd of August 1914:

Grey's Speech 3.08.1914

On the IN or OUT thing here is what SIr Edward Grey said:

It may be said, I suppose, that we might stand aside, husband our strength, and that, whatever happened in the course of this war, at the end of it intervene with effect to put things right, and to adjust them to our own point of view. If, in a crisis like this, we run away

[Loud cheers.]

from those obligations of honour and interest as regards the Belgian treaty, I doubt whether, whatever material force we might have at the end, it would be of very much value in face of the respect that we should have lost. And I do not believe, whether a great power stands outside this war or not, it is going to be in a position at the end of it to exert its superior strength. For us, with a powerful fleet, which we believe able to protect our commerce, to protect our shores, and to protect our interests, if we are engaged in war, we shall suffer but little more than we shall suffer even if we stand aside.

We are going to suffer, I am afraid, terribly in this war, whether we are in it or whether we stand aside.
Foreign trade is going to stop, not because the trade routes are closed, but because there is no trade at the other end. Continental nations engaged in war all their populations, all their energies, all their wealth, engaged in a desperate struggle they cannot carry on the trade with us that they are carrying on in times of peace, whether we are parties to the war or whether we are not. I do not believe for a moment that at the end of this war, even if we stood aside and remained aside, we should be in a position, a material position, to use our force decisively to undo what had happened in the course of the war, to prevent the whole of the west of Europe opposite to us -- if that had been the result of the war -- falling under the domination of a single power, and I am quite sure that our moral position would be such as --


[the rest of the sentence -- "to have lost us all respect." -- was lost in a loud outburst of cheering].

And THAT was part of the speech that took Great Britain to war the next day because the Germans violated the neutrality of Belgium - a move clearly to e seen as being AGAINST Great Britain's best national interests.

"They were spreading deliberate lies about the Germans, and they were invoking the card of their supposedly superior breeding to persuade people in whose interests they were supposed to be governing to put their lives on the lives to satisfy their petty political and aristocratic egos."

Nothing whatsoever to do with "supposedly superior breeding" or with "petty political and aristocratic egos." it was all to do with protecting the wealth, security and prosperity of the nation - and that includes the jobs and livelihoods of all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 09:36 AM

Eehh. You don't half talk bollocks Terribulus.

"Wealth, security and prosperity." You forgot the common denominator, "privilege."

A bit of a glaring omission, coming from such a cap doffing fool.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 10:31 AM

"First part is a gross over-simplification of what went on - I think that you actually do know this, but for sake of clarity if you do not - then you are a complete and utter idiot who should actually do some reading (Even by people you think are wrong) and educate yourself."
Are you going to educate us on how World War One was really fought or are you going to leave us in suspense forever - as I suspect will be the case?
Happy New Year
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 10:57 AM

"I think historians know more about history. I do not believe anyone to be better informed about history, and certainly not you!"

But we arent't talking about history as an abstract concept. We are talking about the deaths of 17 million people, including a million British and Commonwealth.

Regarding the quote from Messinger:

"P75 "He (Masterman) saw the (Bryce) report as based on authenticated fact, which he always believed should be the basis of propaganda."

It wasn't though, as you find when you read the whole of that chapter


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 11:13 AM

Teribus quotes Edward Grey, as some length:

"And I do not believe, whether a great power stands outside this war or not, it is going to be in a position at the end of it to exert its superior strength."

Exerting superior strength, thats what its all about, not the interests of the working people.

"For us, with a powerful fleet, which we believe able to protect our commerce, to protect our shores, and to protect our interests, if we are engaged in war, we shall suffer but little more than we shall suffer even if we stand aside."

Commerce, shores, interests, not a mention of the people anywhere

"We are going to suffer, I am afraid, terribly in this war, whether we are in it or whether we stand aside."

Not him though, not Sir Edward Grey, the suffering is something to be done by the lower orders

"Foreign trade is going to stop, not because the trade routes are closed, but because there is no trade at the other end. "

Thats what its all about, trade and the interests of the mercantile classes, of whom Sir Edward Grey was very much a scion.

Wikipedia says a bit about Sir Edward Grey, descendent of baronets, related to other politicians, privilege all over the place, and this bit about his time in Oxford:

"Grey subsequently became even more idle, using his time to become university champion at real tennis. In 1882 his grandfather died and he inherited a baronet's title, an estate of about 2,000 acres (8.1 km2), and a private income. Returning to the University of Oxford in the autumn of 1883, Grey switched to studying jurisprudence in the belief that it would be an easier option, but by January 1884 he had been expelled. Nonetheless, he was allowed to return to sit his final examination. Grey returned in the summer and achieved Third Class honours."

An idle child of privilege who only obtained a degree because of bending of the rules, not stated there but one suspects that daddy had pulled a few strings.

A third rate scholar and a fourth rate human being. Remind you of anyone else from Oxford, a bit later??

Sir Edward Grey was a big part of the problem, and if revolution had come to Britain he would have been one to get his come-uppance in a very big way.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 02:32 PM

It wasn't though, as you find when you read the whole of that chapter

It was thought to be true at the time, and turned out to be true in fact. It does not justify your false claim of the people being lied to about the Germans.
They already knew about the atrocities anyway from the hundreds of thousands of Belgian refugees.
The revisionist historians tried to understate the German atrocities, but we now know that 6000 civilians including children were deliberately massacred.
Messinger is out of date on that. It was published 24 years ago.

But we arent't talking about history as an abstract concept.

We are talking about the history of WW1.
Of course the historians know more about it than you do!
Your pomposity is truly breathtaking!

Jim,
Far from being "well led", it was.....

The historians and military historians agree it was, so why should anyone care what your view is Jim?

You are very ill informed about this Jim.
It is blatantly obvious that you have read no history written for at least twenty years.
Almost everything you have said about it is wrong.

If you want a response on something, try to formulate a question and I will answer it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 02:46 PM

"The (Bryce)report has long been a bête noire for those cultural historians examining popular attitudes during the war, it having been concluded by some very emphatic commentators in the 1920s and 1930s (such as Arthur Ponsonby in Falsehood in War-Time and Irene Cooper Willis in England's Holy War) that the Report was simply a tissue of lies. Modern research, as we shall see, has confirmed that the Report's conclusions were substantially correct."
http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/memoryofwar/the-rape-of-belgium-revisited/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Jan 16 - 04:31 PM

"We are talking about the history of WW1."

I think we are talking about the actuality of WWI. You know, where 17 million including a million British and Commonwealth died.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:34 AM

Ah but Dave. The actuality of WW1 isn't something that the government wish us to celebrate. They like to see it as an example of serving your country (which means supporting them rather than criticising them.)

Jingoism isn't just good for recruiting sergeants, it allows us to forget how inefficient, unreconstructed and plain inept our military actually are. It is designed to give us a fuzzy warm feeling that young men in uniform who act rather than question, led by people trained to take on armies trained in the same way can somehow make us feel safe in the wake of fear stemming from a source they cannot tackle with their silly drill, medals and shouting at other ranks.

Which is ironic considering WW1 is portrayed as starting as a result of civilian terrorism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:16 AM

"The historians and military historians agree it was, so why should anyone care what your view is Jim?"
If it was a case of young men sent over to their deaths until the other side gave in - it was not "well led" - that is not leadership it was enforced butchery.
Justifying that historical fact as good leadership is not the domain of historians - it is only their opinion that it was right.
If you believe it was well led you would be able to explain it.
Who cares what an historically illiterate right-wing agenda driver like yourself believes
The scale of death in World War One makes it little short of a holocaust
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:43 AM

Dave,
I think we are talking about the actuality of WWI. You know, where 17 million including a million British and Commonwealth died.

Yes, and the way to learn about it is to read the history books.

You consider them all to be deluded while you hold the truth!

You are exactly like those Creationists who can not accept new knowledge because it challenges your irrational belief in dogma.
Hard evidence will never convince you.
Pointing and laughing is the only way to respond.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:53 AM

Jim,
it was not "well led"

The military historians say you are wrong, so who cares what you think?
You are only informed by political dogma.
You reject all the new knowledge of the last thirty years.

If you believe it was well led you would be able to explain it.

I can Jim.
The war had to be fought (read the history books).
The war could not be fought without incurring heavy losses (read the history books).
Had the army not been well led, the losses would have been even heavier (as they were for all the others) and we would not have won.

Instead of political theorising read ANY HISTORY written in recent decades.
They will all tell you what I have been telling you.
Reading those histories is how I know this stuff while you wallow in ignorance and make ridiculous political pronouncements about an event you actually know nothing about.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:19 AM

Its all so simple isn't it. Just black and white.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:55 AM

Yes.
Open your mind to new knowledge.

A dogma that can not incorporate knowledge should be questioned, and if it can not accommodate the facts, discarded.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:01 AM

"Had the army not been well led, the losses would have been even heavier (as they were for all the others) and we would not have won."

Without commenting on the veracity or otherwise of this strange remark, I'd just point out the illogicality of it. The easiest way would be to turn it on its head, thus: "Even though the army was very badly led, our enemies' armies were even worse led, leading to heavier losses for them than for us." Just saying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:34 AM

Steve, that would be a fair comment if this was all uninformed speculation.
It is not. People who have devoted their lives to the study of military operations have been working on this for a hundred years.
They have now all, independently, reached the conclusion that the army was generally well and competently led.
That is not my opinion. I am not qualified to have one on such a complex issue.
Read a book about it Steve.
Anything less tan twenty years old.
Then read another and you will find general agreement.
I have read lots and I know this.
Jim and Dave are pontificating about something they know nothing about.
They have read nothing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:36 AM

"You are exactly like those Creationists who can not accept new knowledge because it challenges your irrational belief in dogma."

So this new knowledge is what exactly, "did 17 million really die?" David Irving would be proud of you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 06:46 AM

"The military historians say you are wrong, so who cares what you think?"
It is totally mindless to claim that it was well led without being able to say why it was well led.
You have the reasons why I believe it was nothing but butchery, you tell my why you believe it wasn't - and you agree free to quote any historian to back you up by showing they claim is wasn't as I described.
You have lost any right you might ever have had to claim the authority of historians with the most outrageously stupid statement on history anybody has ever made - that all past historians have been made irrelevant by modern ones - that is tantamount to claiming we must now burn all books written by past historians.
Nobody in the history of scholarship has ever made such a suggestion.
No historian has ever had his or her entire work debunked because is was wrong - not one - yet this is what you have suggested - mindless twaddle.
George Bernard Shaw once joked that he was a better playwright than Shakespeare because he had read everything he had written - Shaw was joking - you apparently believe your idiocy.
Your suggestion will remain a Mudcat classic while I am a member.
By the way - I see you have expanded your 3 points to 4 as you are now including blame for starting the war in your arguments, despite your "historians" (particularly Margaret McMillan's) attitude to the subject.
The war was carried out using a policy of simple butchery - show how this was not the case, and again, feel free to use as many historians as you wish
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:06 AM

A dogma that can not incorporate knowledge should be questioned, and if it can not accommodate the facts, discarded.
Which Christmas cracker did that come from.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:26 AM

Well I'm not pontificating, nor am I commenting on the substantive subject matter of this thread. I'm commenting on your apparently flawed method of argument.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:29 AM

Jim
you are now including blame for starting the war in your arguments,

I am not, but you raised the issue and made a false assertion about Macmillan's view on it.
She said Germany and Austria-Hungary were responsible.
Here are ten other historians who mostly agree. None of them blame UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

Dave,
So this new knowledge is what exactly, "did 17 million really die?"
You will find the new knowledge laid out in the histories written in recent years. Just read something Dave, instead of endlessly exposing your woeful ignorance.

"did 17 million really die?"

Yes, and that seems to be the sum total of your knowledge.
The war had to be fought (read the history books).
The war could not be fought without incurring heavy losses (read the history books).
Had the army not been well led, the losses would have been even heavier (as they were for all the other armies) and we would not have won.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:33 AM

I'm commenting on your apparently flawed method of argument.

My method of argument is to say, "this is what all the history books say."

Jim and Dave's method is to claim the historians have all got it wrong, and it is not even worth their while to read one because they already know everything.

Any comment on that Steve?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 08:05 AM

No, Keith. That's like saying that in the match that ended Chelsea 12 Man U 11, Chelsea defended really well because they won, when the reality is that they defended very badly, though not quite as badly as Man U.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 08:25 AM

"My method of argument is to say, "this is what all the history books say.""
You haven't read "all the history books say" so you are lying - they don't
You are not going to respond to my points, are you?
Doesn't matter; they were not for your benefit.
Your gross stupidity and on history has long been common knowledge - now you have confirmed it yourself.
Long dead historians are no longer relevant" - sheeeeesh!!
Must remember to put that in my 'future use' file.

This is a leading historians description of the competence of the leadership - he goes on to claim the Army only reached the point of becoming a fully efficient fighting force in 1918 - the year the war ended - so the army fought their way through the war below par - McMillan says the same.
"One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. Haig's decision to continue with the fighting at Passchendaele in 1917 after the opportunity for real gains had passed comes into this category. In some ways the British and other armies might have grasped the potential of technology earlier than they did. During the Somme, Haig and Rawlinson failed to understand the best way of using artillery."
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 08:44 AM

So Keith has accepted that 17 million really did die. And the corrolary is that he believes that this loss of life was worthwhile in some nebulous cause, though the history books that he quotes are pretty vague about what that was. My contention is that it was petty political egos and vested commercial interests. Keith may say it was the survival of the British state and I would say thats the same thing. History books are irrelevant, the difference between Keith and myself is whether it was worth that sacrifice to preserve a national identity. Especially when the vast majority of those doing the fighting and dying had no stake in that national identity, never had and never would.

So what do these historians beloved of Keith, lets call them apologists for want of a better word, say on that? I suspect they say nothing because they are starting from the viewpoint that the survival of a state trumps the survival of individuals. A bit of a socialist viewpoint it would seem. But I think that is why they say the war had to be fought. Those longer ago (and indeed many more recent, we have seen now that Messinger does not pass muster with Keith, although he is still writing) may have a more nuanced view.

Jim's point is different, it is that if the politicians and military brass had been more competent the war could have been won with less loss of life. I have nothing to say on that, except that of the loss of life had been reduced by a factor 10 or 20, the war still would have not been worth it. And that I would rather it had been lost with fewer casualties than won with as many as there were.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 09:18 AM

Yes, and the way to learn about it is to read the history books.

Which, as you've admitted numerous times, Professor, you've never done.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 09:40 AM

Jim,
You are not going to respond to my points, are you?

You keep saying this and I keep asking for a clear statement of what you want.
Put it simply and briefly and I will respond.

If you think there is a book I should read, name it.
I have read lots and on these issues they all agree.
None has yet been found by any of us that does not.

Long dead historians are no longer relevant" - sheeeeesh!!

I said that in the context of your post about one whose work has been discredited by new evidence.
I clarified by saying, "No silly!
Only if their findings have been contradicted in the light of later knowledge."(31 Dec 15 - 10:36 AM)

Your quote is of Gary Sheffield WHO YOU KNOW BELIEVES THE ARMY WAS WELL LED!
Dishonest Jim.
Read the whole thing here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

Dave,
So Keith has accepted that 17 million really did die.

Keith knew that all along.

he believes that this loss of life was worthwhile in some nebulous cause,

It was not a nebulous cause. Powerful and cruel German armies were attacking neighbouring countries and heading our way.
The government and people of the time believed that they should make a stand, and modern historians think they were right.
Compared to all that, why should I care what you think about it?

I suspect they say nothing because they are starting from the viewpoint that the survival of a state trumps the survival of individuals.

If you actually read some, you would find you are wrong about that too!

of the loss of life had been reduced by a factor 10 or 20, the war still would have not been worth it.

Those who actually fought it think it was even worth the higher cost, so once again who cares what Dave thinks?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM

"You keep saying this and I keep asking for a clear statement of what you want.
Now you are lying again - you have never asked for any such thing - never!!
Proof of your lying
01 Jan 16 - 09:12 AM
"Simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?
If you do disagree with it, what evidence (historical or moral), to support you?
You insist on our providing historians - where are yours to contradict that statement?"
Couldn't get clearer than that - please stop this dishonesty
"If you think there is a book I should read, name it."
You claim to have read may books and have written off all those who don't support you.
Read what McMallan really says in 'The War that Ended Peace' it dosn't bear comparison with your claims
Read her 'The Misuse of History' which deals specifically with what you are doing here.
Read The Sleepwalkers - which deals with the avoidably of war
"Your quote is of Gary Sheffield WHO YOU KNOW BELIEVES THE ARMY WAS WELL LED!"
Nothing dishonest Keith - Sheffield says what he says about Haig - no editing - you claim he supports Haig - he qualifies his support, which you have deliberately avoided doing - that is dishonesty - it is what you have done with every single quote you have put up - without exception.
Explain the contrdictions in your claims and Sheffield's own statement
"One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence. Many more were the result of decisions made by men who, although not incompetent, were like any other human being prone to making mistakes. Haig's decision to continue with the fighting at Passchendaele in 1917 after the opportunity for real gains had passed comes into this category."
That is not the unqualified support you have claimed.
Sheffield and McMillan state that the army did not reach fighting fitness until 1918 - virtually the end of the war - so they fought the rest of it unfit for purpose, which leaves the question, was the war worth the sacrifice of so many lives? another question you refuse to respond to   
Don't you ever accuse me or anybody here of dishonesty again after the way you pair have behaved and are continuing to behave here - you have monopolised the practice.
Another simply put question AGAIN
How dare you disqualify all but modern historian when no individual working in the field has ever done so EVER? If that is not the case - show us who has
By the way - yet another lie - you are now claiming that you haven't answered my questions because you don't understand them (having first claimed you had answered them and then told us that you won't answer questions from agenda-driven igoramouses who are incapable of thought) - I make tthat three contradictory answers to the same question - don't suppose you ahve an explanation other than "I told lies" which is the only one I can think of.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:18 AM

missed a bit
Re "new evidence"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:23 AM

Missed a bit
Re "New evidence"
WHAT NEW EVIDENCE? THERE IS NO NEW EVIDENCE AND EVEN IF THERE WAS, NO HISTORIAN HAS EVER AT ANY TIME WRITTEN OFF THE WORK OF PAST HISTORIANS - NOT EVER.
THEY MAY HAVE DISAGREED WITH WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, BUT YOU HAVE WRITTEN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM OFF IN ONE FELL SWOOP

Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:46 AM

Well then "nameless" GUEST you get set the same challenge that he totally failed in responding to


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:01 AM

"Those who actually fought it think it was even worth the higher cost, so once again who cares what Dave thinks?"

Many of them did not think that. Many of them were not in a position to think any such thing, on account of them being dead.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:02 AM

Whoops
"the same challenge that he totally failed in responding to"
You seem to have entered into a vow of silence on all the questions you have refused to answer - particularly about your deliberately distorting what others have said.
Starting the year as you mean to go on, no doubt!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:11 AM

GUEST,Dave - 01 Jan 16 - 04:31 PM

"We are talking about the history of WW1."

I think we are talking about the actuality of WWI. You know, where 17 million including a million British and Commonwealth died."


No GUEST Dave we all know that WWI actually happened and we all know roughly how many people died during it, a number dwarfed by the way by the Spanish Flu pandemic that followed it

What we are discussing GUEST Dave is the HISTORY related to the First World War as opposed to the MYTHOLOGY related to the First World War.

The MYTHS introduced and promulgated between 1929 and 1969 have to a great extent been disproven, they were after all promoted by people driven by their own agenda's and those ulterior motives have all been exposed for exactly what they were.

A.J.P. Taylor and Alan Clark were put up as champions of those believing the myths - I note that defence of these champions has been notable by its absence since it was brought to notice that the works of both were savaged in peer review by the leading World War One specialists of the day when those works were published. Alan Clark admitted to making stuff up - now exactly what kind of credible historian does that? Certainly not one that any sane person would ever put forward as an expert on anything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:16 AM

Ahhh Jom - all your questions have actually been answered, but as usual with you, you ignore all that does not agree with your idiotic, biased and bigoted point of view.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:20 AM

"Many of them did not think that. Many of them were not in a position to think any such thing, on account of them being dead."

Is that where MANY = 1 in 10 GUEST Dave?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:36 AM

Jim, if you post screenfuls of text in one posts it becomes impossible to reply with anything short enough to be readable by any normal person

If you REALLY want my response to something, put them them to me just one or two at a time as briefly and simply as possible.

I think that I actually have answered all your point and you are just obfuscating.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 11:48 AM

"all your questions have actually been answered, "
No they haven't - jeez -you're as big a liar as your mate.
Where have you responded to your long-exposed lying about what I said about Tommy Kenny?
Your contemptuous and contemptible response to my point on the butchery of World War One in no was constitutes an answer - if you have contrary information that it was conducted otherwise, give us it instead of your old usual bluster and bullshit.
Even Keith's historian acknowledges it was a waste of young lives, tough he (as an establishment lackey) asses the opinion that "winning made it all worthwhile.
Where is your response to the suggestion that so many lives were not worth defending the ill-gotten-gains of Empire - you have admitted it was an Imperial war - now justify the sacrificing of so many millions of lives.
You have never attempted to justify your "well-off Liverpool", or "democracy since the beginning of the 19th century" or "classless army" nonsense.
The problem with you Tory bully-boys is you're too used to your victims baring their arses when instructed to do so.
Please stop lying and answer the points, instead of accusing other of doing what you have made a long-standing practice.
You never answer questions - you make arrogant pronouncements.
Sorry if this is difficult for you to read - perhaps you can ask a neighour's sprog to abandon his video game and give you a hand
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:04 PM

What happened there?

What that post was supposed to say was that a million dead (British and Commonwealth) is most definitely "MANY", especially when compared with much smaller death tolls over which a great deal of fuss has been made more recently.

And as far as Spanish Flu is concerned, maybe those deaths should be added in as well. For, according to Wikipedia:

"Investigative work by a British team led by virologist John Oxford of St Bartholomew's Hospital and the Royal London Hospital identified a major troop staging and hospital camp in Étaples, France, as almost certainly being the center of the 1918 flu pandemic. A significant precursor virus, harbored in birds, mutated to pigs that were kept near the front."

Cue Keith and Teribus searching for a reason as to why Professor John Oxford's research should be considered as discredited.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:08 PM

"Jim, if you post screenfuls of text in one posts it becomes impossible to reply with anything short enough to be readable by any normal person"
For crying out loud Keith your not a child and you've used this before - if you cant read a couple of sentences how the **** do you manage to have read what you have claimed to have read - Max Hastings and Margaret McMillam my arse, as for Isaac Deuscher..... further evidence of your truthfulness!!
You really are something else!!

1"simple statement - if you have any interest or knowledge of the war, as you claim, you should have no problem whatever in responding.
World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.
Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grounds?

Is that too difficult for you or shall I break it down even further.
You have already claimed you have answered this - so you are ow accepting that you lied.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:13 PM

I wonder if these threads exist for any other purpose than to provide a place for ad hominem back-and-forth always and, unfortunately, forever.

Repeat after me "Get off my lawn" "GET OFF MY LAWN NOW!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:40 PM

Jeri, pop and put the kettle on love.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:17 PM

Hi Terribulus! Any chance of you standing with your mates pointing and laughing at whatever you seem to be aiming at me?

Mind you, two problems with that....

On other matters, I agree with guest completely regarding the role of historians. It's ok to believe their conclusions but that infers a) they flatter your views and b) their selectivity of evidence to deliver their view is also to your comfort.

It is clear, self evident and factual that the deaths of so many people in such a short time cannot lead to a conclusion of "well led." It is also a fact that social class division meant people respected the country's leaders so therefore were more inclined to swallow jingoistic bullshit. It is a fact that war between nations occurs when diplomacy has failed, questioning leadership in any and every way you wish to judge it.

The war was a beast of its time and to judge it by today's standards would be wrong. People fell for bullshit, were less world wise and informed and let's face it, gullible. Most people were superstitious a hundred years ago, so used to being told what to do.

No. The war resulted in the needless slaughter of a generation of Europe's finest. Not a single lesson was learned as we raped what was left of the German economy, leading to extremism flourishing and for that, the sacrifice was futile, wasted and for no purpose.

To defend inept military leadership and to judge the attitude of common or garden recruits against today's intellect is not only wrong but rather distasteful. Sadly, there are many people with the same base intellect as Terribulus. After all, without such ignorance, we'd never get tomorrow's cannon fodder.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:33 PM

"Cue Keith and Teribus searching for a reason as to why Professor John Oxford's research should be considered as discredited."
Don't be stupid Dave - he's not a historian
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:41 PM

Jim,
Even Keith's historian acknowledges it was a waste of young lives,
Sheffield does not Jim.
You made that up.
His view is that the war was necessary, and the army generally well and competently led.

World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over.

Not true Jim.

Far from being "well led", it was fought on the basis of taking as many men who could be obtained, by persuasion, by subterfuge, by emotional blackmail and eventually, by compulsion under the threat of imprisonment or death (that just about covers every point I have ever made about the nature of the War).
Is that an accurate description of World War One as I see it - do you disagree with it, if so, on what grou


Of course I disagree. Where do you get this stuff.
Not from history books!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:49 PM

Jim, I am sure that Keith will, after 10 minutes reading in Hertford Library, be quite able to discern which virologists are discredited and which are not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:51 PM

Surely, Jeri, it is in your power to put a stop to this ludicrous thread and all the others that are bound to follow.

Please do so!

Pretty please?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 01:53 PM

Jim says:

"World War One was an Imperial war fought, not to defend freedom or to oppose tyranny, as you and others have your kind have claimed, but in defence of the political and economic interest of Empires, all guilty at one time or another of atrocities against the citizens of the colonies being fought over. "

and I entirely agree. I am not saying that the British were more culpable than the Germans or indeed less. Unfortunately only the Russians had the nous and nerve to do anything about it


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:11 PM

Jim, Britain did not enter the war for imperial gain.
It was intending to keep out of it.
The invasion of Belgium was not expected, and so neither was our entry.

As a consequence the army was unprepared and ill equipped to face the German onslaught.
We fought to resist the invasions which also threatened our own security.

Of course there were encouragements to join, but the numbers volunteering overwhelmed the capacity of the army to process them anyway.

The numbers volunteering increased dramatically when the British Army was thought to be defeated and running, and total defeat imminent.
Any prospect of winning seemed years away and imminent defeat far more likely.

When there were just not enough left to volunteer, conscription was brought in but it did not produce many extra men. Those who had not volunteered mostly had valid reasons not to go. It was necessary to lower the physical requirements and to admit older men.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:22 PM

"We fought to resist the invasions which also threatened our own security."

Shades of "45 minutes". Nothing changes.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:23 PM

Oh, but he's the world expert on health, especially twisting health statistics to support the less savoury member of his fan club.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:25 PM

Why on earth would you want jeri to close this thread while others like "Peeing in a onesie" are left on the board?
Besides, it is interesting and instructive to see how many knots you pin dancers can tie yourselves into, while you try to escape incoming facts and rationality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:33 PM

Because the peeing in a onesie thread is mildly amusing and does not denigrate the deaths of 17 million people?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:55 PM

"Jim, Britain did not enter the war for imperial gain."
Rthey entered the war to protect their colonial and political interests - for no other reason 'Gallant little Belgium'was a recruiting ploy2 along with your lurid description of Germans raping and massacring their way across Europe - it was an Imperial War in defence of Empire.

"The numbers volunteering increased dramatically when the British Army was thought to be defeated "
These are the monthly recruiting figure from the start of the war to compulsory recruitment was introduced - no dramatic fluctuation.
298.923, 462.901, 136.811, 169.862, 117.860, 156.290, 87.896 , 119.087, 135.263, 114.67, 9 95.413 95.980, 71.617 113.285, 121.793, 55.152, 65.965

"When there were just not enough left to volunteer,"]
If there where not enough left to volunteer where did the conscription come from - out of thin air?

"Sheffield does not Jim"
""One cannot ignore the appalling waste of human life in World War One. Some of these losses were undoubtedly caused by incompetence."
Gary Sheffield
The word Sheffield uses was "waste" - maybe he was lying - or are you ?

Re the way the war was fought:
"Of course I disagree. Where do you get this stuff."
All accounts from the history books and especially from the on-lin soldiers diaries explain it exactly and being like that - that has never been in question certain not by any historian.
Sheffield mentions the losses of Passchendaele and the Somme, but he and others thing it (the gains of Empire) were worth those lives.
f you have an alternative - give it - I didn't ask for a denial even though I knew that's what'd get.
C'mon Keith - even you can do better than this
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:58 PM

Surely, Jeri, it is in your power to put a stop to this ludicrous thread and all the others that are bound to follow.

Please do so!

Pretty please?


Here's a friendly tip Dave the Gno-one; If you want to dictate how a discussion forum is run then start your own.......simple!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:25 PM

Peeing in a onesie is bloody hilarious. Anyway, back to the substantive. England 1 Germany 0. Replay to come. Aka Chelsea 25, Man U 24 aet. Both teams really well led, especially Chelsea. Not!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:32 PM

why Professor John Oxford's research should be considered as discredited.

HEY! First off, is he alive or dead & canhis works be found in "real" bookshops???


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:38 PM

He is alive and as far as I know well, though now 73, is still one of the most active researchers in the field of virology:

http://www.oxfordmedicine.co/john-oxford.php


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:08 PM

Well done, gusset of 02:58pm. As inane comments go yours takes first prize but I suppose it will help to get this nonsense closed. I'll let you into a little secret though. I do have my own discussion forum. You are welcome to join if you can figure out what it is. Oh, hang on. That would mean you letting someone know who you are. I can't see that happening somehow...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:57 PM

He is alive and as far as I know well, though now 73, is still one of the most active researchers in the field of virology

Yeah well, alive, OK but he still ain't one of what the Professor would call an historian, is he?

Are his works available in real bookshops??

If not, thus irrelevant.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:16 PM

I do have my own discussion forum.

Then shut it down because I don't like it.

Please do so!

Pretty please?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:25 AM

Jim you know well that Sheffield believes the war to have been necessary and the army generally well and competently led.
By exquisitely selective quoting from a balanced article you have dishonestly tried to reverse its message.

Let me do the same.
Opening sentence,
"Douglas Haig was 'brilliant to the top of his Army boots'. David Lloyd George's view sums up the attitude of many people towards Haig and other British generals of World War One. "

" 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."

Concluding paragraph
" 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."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:33 AM

Jim,
'Gallant little Belgium'was a recruiting ploy

No. It was the reason we entered the war.
Otherwise we were intending to stay out.
along with your lurid description of Germans raping and massacring their way across Europe -

"Lurid" but true. That is what happened and there was a very reasonable fear that we would be next.

If there where not enough left to volunteer where did the conscription come from - out of thin air?

People who would have volunteered anyway. To increase enlistment they had to relax physical requirements and accept older men.

All accounts from the history books and especially from the on-lin soldiers diaries explain it exactly and being like that

No they do not. I have read them. You have not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:40 AM

Greg, I think that you might need to go to an academic library for full texts of John Oxford's work, though abstracts are available on PubMed which is public domain. Careful though there is more than one J. Oxford publishing in medicine, but anything on influenza will be his.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:46 AM

This is one relevant paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15603896


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:51 AM

Dave,
"We fought to resist the invasions which also threatened our own security."
Shades of "45 minutes". Nothing changes.


You are denying that there was a threat, but the fear of invasion was genuine.
There was self interest in addition to a will to defend Belgium from an imperialist militarist invader.

Again, what is you opinion worth when it is based on an absence of any knowledge or reading?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:01 AM

"Jim you know well that Sheffield believes the war to have been necessary and the army generally well and competently led."
And you have exactly what he said in exactly the words he used
He describes incompetence and ignorance, yet he still thinks the war was worthwhile - no argument there - he is entitled to his opinion - that's what it is AN OPINION
He is a spokesman for military affairs, an employee of the war department - he is bound to think as he does, but it has nothing whatevr to do with the fact that he knows and says that the lives lost where "wasted" - which is, as far as I;m concerned, what any discussion on this ****** war should be about - the decimation of Europe's youth to maintain the status quo pertaining at the time.
The people of Britain gained nothing from the war other than depression, mass unemployment and poverty, appeasement to fascism and permanent war from then till now.
That was what all those lives were expended for - Sheffield supports all that and no doubt you do.
""Douglas Haig was 'brilliant to the top of his Army boots'."
You don't even understand Lloyd George's caustic comment on Haig - he hated the man and pointed out that he totally lacked humanity and was incapable of thinking outside of the military box - he couldn't even communicate with his own fellow officers and staff, - that is what that comment is about.
Probably the greatest betrayal of the British people was the fact that the political and military leadership spent as much, if not more time fighting each other than they did the Germans - they were all remote and elitist, defending a rigidly class-divided society and Haig was the worst of them (Kitchener was a close runner-up to the extend#t that it was rumoured that his death was deliberately brought about).
Sheffield attempts to rehabilitate Haig from his widespread reputation of "the Butcher of the Somme" and fails miserably.
"The result was that by 1918 the British army was second to none in its modernity and military ability."
McMillan makes the same point, but she points out that it took four years of horrendous war to arrive at that position - both she and Christopher Clark make the point as a criticism - 'eventually, after all that carnage, they finally got there'. Clark deliberately chose his title' 'The Sleepwalkers' to emphasise Britain's unreadiness for war throughout the war.
"The victory in 1918 was the payoff. "
Sheffield's and Terrytoon's point - all those lives were worth sacrificing - cannon fodder - sacrificial lambs - expendable - the traditional right wing elitist view of 'lesser human being' outside the circle of the elite.
Wonder how you square that with your supposed Christianity - certanly not the view held by the "normal human beings" come across on a daily basis.
Any more on how the war was 'really fought' yet Keith?
Don't suppose so!!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:35 AM

Civilians killed in Belgium in the German advance approx. 8000

Civilians killed in one bombing raid on Dresden approx. 22,700 maybe more.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:52 AM

Jim,
yet he still thinks the war was worthwhile - no argument there - he is entitled to his opinion - that's what it is AN OPINION

The informed, evidence based opinion of an historian is worth more than than any number of uninformed whims founded on nothing but political dogma.

And not just Sheffield.
Can you name a single hhistorian who holds a different view?
No. You have been trying for years.
All you can do is selectively quote Sheffield hoping to misrepresent his actual view.

Either every historian is deluded, or you are Jim.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:53 AM

"Again, what is you opinion worth when it is based on an absence of any knowledge or reading?"

It is based upon quite a lot of knowledge and reading. And the fact, which you have not denied, that 17 million died.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:57 AM

Guest, not to mention Operation Gomorrah on Hamburg, which killed around twice that number. And the codename of the operation suggests that they knew exactly what they were doing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:59 AM

Dave, if your opinion is based on any history written in the last twenty years, then tell us what it was.

I do not believe there is anything you could base those opinions on.
I challenge and defy you to identify anything.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:04 AM

"I challenge and defy you". This is a debate forum idiot, not a mediaeval chivalric tournament.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:23 AM

"The informed, evidence based opinion of an historian "
It is opinion - Sheffield's brief if not to give such opinions, his opinions are worth no more than anybody else's
The same goes for every other historian past or present.
Whether the war was worthwhile is a philosophical or political subject not a historical one.
You have been given the political outcome, you choose to scurry behind historians you have not read and don't understand - you are defending your right-wing political position and totally ignoring the obscenity that the war was - very Christian of you!!
"Can you name a single historian who holds a different view?"
Society in general holds that the war was an obscenity - that's why this 'Blackadder'/'Oh What a Lovely War' campaign has been launched.
For Christ's sake Keith - if you support this slaughter, say so and stop hiding behind "experts" again - what do YOU think anout it?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:38 AM

"Your post referred to above. If you take as a start point the time when you and your lot jumped in to mob and bully Keith"
Your persistently thuggish behaviour gives you the least right to call anybody a bull;y - go and read your own disparaging posts and count the growing number of questions you still refuse to answer
Th pair of you have persistently resorted to lies - Keith at least attempts to hide behind cut'-n-pastes - you just pronounce and expect everybody to fall flat on our faces.
Give us a break - you wannabe Flashman - stop addressing people as if they are all oiks - that world is as outdated as the one that gave us WW1, fags and common-rooms - you're not at Greyfiars now.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:07 AM

Keith, let me ask you again:

Do you deny that 17 million died?

If you do, then you will be able to point to the historians whose research casts doubt on this number. Even if its David Irving.

If you do not, then your opinion is clearly that the deaths of 17 million were worthwhile in your cause. If that is your view, they you can hold it, I find it repugnant. If historians also hold that view, then I find their views repugnant also, but they are no more qualified to express an opinion than you or I. If that question is in academic realm, it is moral philosophy not history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:38 AM

I have not made many comments on here for reasons given very early on but since teribums seems to insist on bring me into it...

The war was necessary has now become That Great Britain viewed the war as one on necessity to protect its own national interests and to honour Treaty obligations.

That everyone supported it has now become That in general the British people supported the Government view and reading of the situation and backed the Government in the pursuit and prosecution of the war against Germany throughout the war.

That the British troops were well led has now become That in general compared to the other combatant powers the British, Commonwealth and Empire armies were well led.

I expect before long that machine guns will become tickling sticks, mustard gas will become happy juice and 17 million dead will become a host of golden daffodils.

You will get used to this, Guest, Dave. When faced with any opposition the usual tactics are abuse and a quick re-write of the rules. You will get used to it and realise that the only thing you can do is either get out of it altogether or just take the piss.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:56 AM

Your persistently thuggish behaviour.....

My, my but isn't someone totally lacking self awareness.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 10:59 AM

"My, my but isn't someone totally lacking self awareness."
Want to show where I'be behaved like a thug - O anonymous one (probably Bruce again)
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 11:21 AM

Incidentally Brucie
Don't suppose youd'd care to comment on Israel banning the book 'Borderlife' in schools because it "encourages assimilation" - didn't think so!!
They'll be burning them neext.
Jim Caroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:11 PM

No-one thinks wars are a good thing, but sometimes making a stand against an aggressor is the lesser evil.

WW2 cost 60 million lives, but most of us would still argue it was the right thing to do.

I have just said what the history books all say about WW1.
Jim, Dave and Musket hold views that no single historian of WW1 endorses.

Unless every historian is wrong, they are.

None of them has read any history of the subject written for at least twenty years. Their opinions are not based on any actual knowledge, just politically motivated propaganda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:16 PM

DtG, I have not changed any of my claims.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:20 PM

"Keith, let me ask you again:

Do you deny that 17 million died?"


Let me ask you academic GUEST Dave - are you really as thick and indoctrinated as you appear to be in print?

I ask as your question has been answered quite a number of times now and the answer has been that NO-ONE denies the number of people who died in the course of the First World War - now what part of that do you not understand - or do you seek further clarification?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:24 PM

Correct Keith. No "single" historian at all.

An amalgamation of consensus coupled with historical fact and present day evidence.

The sanitisation of military incompetence, political blunder and callous indifference to those in your charge are there, as an elephant in The Litte Englander's room. No amount of scoffing or treating opinion as fact can alter that.

Guest- Whilst I accept that church attendance was dwindling slightly in Edwardian times, the rise of many alternatives at that time reinforces my view that the default position was to do as you were told. Clergy were, as ever, good recruiting sergeants.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:25 PM

Dave, you asserted that the people were lied to in 1914.
Asked to support that statement, you suggested a book that you had not read and which did not in anyway support your assertion anyway.
Nothing else from you on that so far.
You made it up.

Today you asserted that your opinions are based on a lot of reading, but you declined a request to say what.
As nothing written in the last twenty years by any historian does support your views, I think you made that up as well.

Will you tell us now what you have read that supports your opinions on WW1?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:25 PM

"Oh Jom, I take it then that you were never bullied at school then."
Let's say I'm usd to thugs like you - I invariably found them pitiful know - nothings who ran squealing and whining to the teacher when the tables were turned - recognise the description?
If you think it important enough to defend people like Keith, who is quite capable of his own hand-wringing bullying and insulting, then try to behave like an adult and stop it yourself - it makes you look stupid to accuse people of what you have become noted for.
You really are not tall enough to talk down to anybody so stop digging holes.
Get a grip
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:27 PM

"It was Musket who started on Keith A with the TC jibes "
Did you really say "He hit me first sir"?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:28 PM

Dave, you asserted that the people were lied to about the Germans in 1914.
Asked to support that statement, you suggested a book that you had not read and which did not support your assertion anyway!
Nothing else from you on that so far.
You made it up.

Today you asserted that your opinions are based on a lot of reading, but you declined a request to say what.
As nothing written in the last twenty years by any historian does support your views, I think you made that up as well.

Will you tell us now what you have read that supports your opinions on WW1?
Will you tell us now what you have read that supports your assertion that the people were lied to about the Germans in 1914?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:32 PM

Don't suppose youd'd care to comment on Israel banning the book 'Borderlife' in schools....

Hey Jew hater, the topic is WWI - can't pass up any opportunity, can you, oh obsessive one?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:00 PM

"but sometimes making a stand against an aggressor is the lesser evil."
Then why not put Vickie in the ring with Kaiser Bill and let them kick it out - it had sweet FA to do with the millions of lads who had no quarrel with each other perished in the mud of Europe while they both sat at home in comfort (or back safe at Central Command, quaffing Whisky and sodas).
One was no more "evil that the other - ask the 10 million dead Congolese or those being treated as wealth-producing slaves throughout the British or any other Empire.
Jim Carroll

imperialism
......Before the 1800s, Western nations did business in Africa and Asia within existing trade and political networks. After the Industrial Revolution, Western powers used their superior weapons and powerful iron warships to conquer much of the world, especially lands in Africa and Asia. In 1800, Western powers controlled 35 percent of the world's land surface; by 1914, they controlled 84 percent. When a nation dominates or controls another land physically, economically, or politically, it is called imperialism. Western imperialism placed millions of black and brown people under the control of white people.
......Imperialism was encouraged by nationalism; European nations wanted to increase their power and pride by adding new colonies. Imperialism was also supported by racist attitudes like social Darwinism. Europeans claimed to be doing "backward" people a favor by conquering their lands and bringing them Western advancements. But the most important force behind imperialism was money. The Industrial Revolution changed Europe from a consumer of manufactured goods to a producer, and Europe's factories needed places to sell their products. One Englishman said, "There are 40 million naked people [in Africa], and the cotton spinners of Manchester are waiting to clothe them." Colonies provided Europe's factories with new markets for manufactured goods, and cheap raw materials to feed Europe's machines.
A guide to teaching World History


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:01 PM

my view that the default position was to do as you were told.

I do not think the Lefties and Socialists of that time would accept that slur.

I earlier quoted the Socialist Party of Belgium in 1914 who issued a statement to say that their members were defending themselves against 'militarist barbarism' and fighting for liberty and democracy.

The leading left wing paper in Britain then was The Manchester Guardian.

"The Manchester Guardian had been very strongly opposed to war, and frankly isolationist. No one was more insistent on the need to keep out of a European war than the paper's chief leader writer and deputy editor, CE Montague. But when war was declared, he was so appalled by German perfidy that he enlisted, aged 47, dying his grey hair to conceal his age."
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/09/-sp-myth-of-the-good-war


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:05 PM

Jim, I think we all knew already what imperialism was and is, but this is about WW1.

I think the Germans were more confident of their huge armies winning than their handicapped leader.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:08 PM

..and Victoria was dead.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:21 PM

An amalgamation of consensus coupled with historical fact and present day evidence.

The sanitisation of military incompetence, political blunder and callous indifference to those in your charge are there


WHAT amalgamation of concensus? Those put forward as representing views similar to your own fall into two categories:

1 - Revisionists who wrote about the Great War between 1929 and 1969

2 - "Historians" who are not specialists in the subject

WHAT historical "Facts" as far as can be seen from this thread and others on the same subject you have not put forward any FACTS and you have been completely unable to refute those put forward by either Keith A, myself or by others

WHAT present day evidence calls into question the work of modern day historians who are writing and studying the period in question armed with far better knowledge and information than any who have covered the same work previously.

The second paragraph is just a collection of tired old cliches:

What military incompetence to the likes of you lot the military is always incompetent - funny but going by track record I wish that our politicians, leaders of industry and trades unions had proved to have been half as effective and willing to adapt to new ideas and technology as the the military have proved to be.

Political Blunder - nothing new there, but not with regard to the First World War, The German Emperor wanted the war and he got it, not a single thing anyone else could have done about it.

As for "callous indifference" - again only YOUR OPINION, but in time of war the political leadership of any country has committed itself to putting people deliberately into harms way with the inevitable result that some will get killed both civilian and military and if numbers of dead are the metric you judge things by then the British were less "callously indifferent" than many others.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:28 PM

Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 12:27 PM

"It was Musket who started on Keith A with the TC jibes "
Did you really say "He hit me first sir"?
Jim Carroll"


Nope Jom - just plain simple statement of FACT - go and look it up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 01:54 PM

"Political Blunder - nothing new there, but not with regard to the First World War, The German Emperor wanted the war and he got it, not a single thing anyone else could have done about it."

Yes there is, they could have refused to engage. There have to be two sides in a fight.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 02:09 PM

Terribulus doesn't need to be called a TC. You see, Keith can appear credible till you notice the detail. Terribulus's posts don't require qualifying. Anyone's reaction if they bother reading them to the illogical end tends to be two words, beginning T and C. Waste of effort pointing out the obvious.

Oh gosh..😳 "He knows he would be caught out in a blatant lie if he ever..."

Not a lie then, but a blatant one! He'd be caught out too! Naughty Musket to be potentially caught out, being blatant too, the little scamp.

Ever thought of getting a job on The Daily M*il Terribulus? They sensationalise when trying to come out with bollocks too. They do it with far more panache and style though.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 02:09 PM

"Nope Jom - just plain simple statement of FACT "
Oh dear - still - "he started it first Sir"
Your abusive and insulting behavior has been a factor for as long as I can remember.

"The Manchester Guardian had been very strongly opposed to war,"
The Manchester Guardian, like your previous claims of The Daily Mirror and The Guardian on other threads, spoke for nobody but itself - it in no way represented Left opinion But even so .

Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 02:57 PM

Yes there is, they could have refused to engage. There have to be two sides in a fight.

Yes. Belgium could have "refused to engage" and the Germans would have left them alone.

You really have no idea about that period at all Dave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:02 PM

"You really have no idea about that period at all Dave."
Neither have you - as you have just shown
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:06 PM

From Jim's link,
"Once war was declared on 4 August, Scott however swung the Guardian firmly behind the decision, declaring in the next day's paper: "We ourselves have contended for the neutrality of England to the utmost of our power and with a deep conviction that we were doing our patriotic duty … Some time the responsibility for one of the greatest errors in our history will have to be fixed, but that time is not now. Now there is nothing for Englishmen to do but to stand together and help by every means in their power to the attainment of our common object – an early and decisive victory over Germany."

it in no way represented Left opinion
All through 1914 Britain had been riven by industrial disputes, strikes and civil unrest.
That all came to an end when the ultimatum was refused and the Left, like everyone else, put there efforts and support into the war.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:23 PM

"That all came to an end when the ultimatum was refused and the Left, like everyone else, put their efforts and support into the war."

For all the good it did them, for at the end of the war things went back to the way they had been, and the cause of the working people was advanced not one iota. So yes, the left were duped the same as everyone else, into fighting and dying to maintain the privileges of the wealthy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:25 PM

The Guardian represented the 'soft Left' of Britain - even so, it stuck out against the war till the last minute and the editor considered resigning
The left throughout Europe opposed th war totally - The Bolsheviks won power because of just that - the Mensheviks (Liberal Democrat Majority) insisted on the troops returning to the front to finish the war and then confirming the revolution.
Trotsy, as Bolshevik representative, went to Brest Litovsk, stuck his feet on the table and declared "neither war nor peace", insisting that the war end and revolution should begin throughout Europe - that was the stance of The International, the group that represented the genuine left in Europe.
The fact that the German Left immediately entered into revolution and nearly won proved that the war need never have happened as a significant majority of the German people were against it.
Had this ben successful neither Stalin nor Hitler would never have been issues - both were products of the failures of WW1.
Go read a book instead of scrabbling around for cut-'n-pastes for ****'* sake.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:43 PM

I no longer have any idea what your original 3 points were Keith. I did ask earlier but you declined to comment. For my sake and for that of anyone who did not know in the first place, what were they?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:07 PM

perfectly correct Mr T, "Team Musket" was formed(by their own admission), to personally insult and confuse debate, they have stooped to every low blow in the book, insult, libel, outright lies, stalking, death wishes, intimidation using ones family, attempts to wreck debate when they have run out of anything sensible to say...which happens pretty quickly.

In all the years we have argued and debated here we have mostly held differing views on politics, but you have never been abusive unless provoked.....and on this particular issue, both you and Keith have been severely provoked.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:41 PM

Has the court given you a date by which you are allowed to keep dogs again Alex?

Stop telling lies eh? There's a good creature.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:47 PM

"Yes. Belgium could have "refused to engage" and the Germans would have left them alone."

They might. And they might not. Either of which would have been better than 17 million dead.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:54 PM

The post of 3Jan 16....is a typical example of what I am talking about.
Have you found any proof of these disgusting allegations?
The appropriate body which deals with such matters is "the Greyhound board of Great Britain", 6 New Bridge Street, London.

I look forward to your apology.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:07 PM

And you can tell that Guest Date: 03 Jan 16 - 04:41 PM is part of 'Team Musket' while, for instance, Date: 02 Jan 16 - 02:58 PM, is not. How can you do that then, ake? Do you have access to the IP addresses of all the posters? Are you a moderator? Come on, tell us how you do it. Is it the same as you can tell that a gang of criminals is foreign just by looking at them? Your omniscience astounds me...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:32 PM

I know this particular specimen from his history Dave....as do the moderators. He is a stalker which is a criminal offence, as is saying that I have a criminal record for abuse of animals. A complete fabrication.

However, the regulatory boards address has been made available to the stalker. He can either put up or shut up.

It is annoying that these people infest the forum, but as has been explained to me it is extremely difficult to block unnamed GUEST postings.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:39 PM

Of course it was Musket. There aren't very many people active in this thread. Why I don't close it is that it sort of functions like adult day care... or a septic tank. In any case, it gives people of a certain temperament somewhere to hang out.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:41 PM

I also know most "guests" from their writing "style" ...or lack of it.
It is quite difficult to disguise ones written work.....ask PFR :0)


Sorry about the drift Keith...apologies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:58 PM

Why I don't close it is that it sort of functions like adult day care... or a septic tank. In any case, it gives people of a certain temperament somewhere to hang out.

If that's your attitude, you are clearly not a fit and proper person to be a moderator. I've suspected that from your overwhelmingly negative attitude here for a long time. This particular post of yours is no better than those of most of those hateful anonymous guests who occasionally plague the place. Still, it's not my gig, and I do enjoy your pointless interventions.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 06:00 PM

OK then, Jeri. You are happy to name one guest, even though you could be wrong, so who is guest 2nd Jan, 2:58pm then? BTW I do work with high end servers, including web services and security so when I say you could be wrong I do know what I am talking about.

A bit late now but tomorrow as a little demonstration I will post as me from three different places simultaneously, get some else to post from the same IPs and post from a completely untraceable source. Don't operate one rule for some an another for everyone else.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 06:09 PM

Dave, get a sense of proportion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 06:20 PM

Dave, get a sense of proportion.

He's another member of the braying pack trying to defend the despicable posts of his fellow traveler.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 06:53 PM

This is not about defending the behaviour of fellow travellers. It is about expressing disappointment about, irritation with and profound contempt for a so-called moderator who pontificates about her thread-closing powers whilst, in the same post, is "wittily" equating posters who she won't actually name with residents of a septic tank. Why, anytime soon, she'll almost certainly indulge in the ultimate irony of condemning "personal attacks."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 07:28 PM

"I no longer have any idea what your original 3 points were Keith."
"Keith's "original three points" were every single point that has ever been discussed which he was cornered into reducing to three, and has just added another "It was Germany wot did it".
Hurry before he moves the goalposts again.
"both you and Keith have been severely provoked."
Both of these people have lied consistently about their own position and about what others have said - that's what I call provocation.
I do wish people would keep out gratuitous personal attacks though It's neither clever nor helpful.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 08:59 PM

I agree withSteveShaw, moderation on this forum is a joke. Nasty shite stays while people who complain about the nastiness have their threads deleted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:11 PM

Well I don't actually think that all moderation here is a joke. At least one moderator here does a good job, and another, once he leaves his religion behind, is fine, even though he pretends he isn't really a moderator. But this one generally wades in with negative comments about the usual suspects, etc., and, were moderatorship a paid post, one might surmise that her interventions were thoroughly unprofessional. As I keep saying, this is not a democracy, nor is it real life. But that doesn't mean that it's OK to sit here being compared to the denizen of a septic tank, etc., in the same post as her crowing about her deleting prowess. That's just bloody annoying is that. Infra dig, as they say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:17 PM

Yes, you are right Steve, they are not all a joke, But one is and it seems to me that moderating from a biased position is not moderating, it is censoring. As to this not being a democracy, true, but that is a whole other issue.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:32 PM

Dunno really. I don't know who it is who does the censoring, and shall remain cheerfully incurious. The only time I ever get annoyed with thread deletions or post deletions is when I've just done a bloody great big long one that took me ages, only to see it lost forever to the ether!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:44 AM

Dave, suggesting that there was anything that Belgium could have done to prevent its invasion, and the massacres of its people, again shows your ignorance of the period.

Your claim that everyone including the left were "duped" shows your ignorance.
(" 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."
Dr. Catriona Pennel
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_219199_en.html)

Your claim that people were "lied to about the Germans" shows your ignorance. You could find nothing to support it. You made it up!

The history books contradict you, so what is the source of your knowledge?

You just make things up in the vacuum of your head and claim it has equal worth as a researched history book!

You call yourself an "academic" but you are just a posturing buffoon.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:49 AM

How could the Manchester Guardian be "duped?"
They knew what was going on from their own sources.
Like the government they were against Britain entering the war until the very last day.

"The Manchester Guardian had been very strongly opposed to war, and frankly isolationist. No one was more insistent on the need to keep out of a European war than the paper's chief leader writer and deputy editor, CE Montague. But when war was declared, he was so appalled by German perfidy that he enlisted, aged 47, dying his grey hair to conceal his age."

"Once war was declared on 4 August, Scott however swung the Guardian firmly behind the decision, declaring in the next day's paper: "We ourselves have contended for the neutrality of England to the utmost of our power and with a deep conviction that we were doing our patriotic duty …"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 01:58 AM

For anyone even remotely interested, there are a number of very good interviews with ww1 historian Margaret MacMillan on you tube. she is especially interesting on the causes of the war. Perhaps some may learn a few things.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:16 AM

" they could have refused to engage. There have to be two sides in a fight."

Interesting strategy that GUEST Dave - Amounts to the response to a naked threat of invasion and annexation is, "OK then we'll not fight you, now go away" - Doubt if that would actually work, don't you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:28 AM

GUEST,Dave - 03 Jan 16 - 04:47 PM

"Yes. Belgium could have "refused to engage" and the Germans would have left them alone."

They might. And they might not. Either of which would have been better than 17 million dead.


Academic Dave, in making the above statement I take it then that you have read nothing about Germany's attack plan for a war against France.

German mobilisation demanded that immediately after mobilisation Luxembourg and Belgium HAD to be invaded otherwise massive bottlenecks would be created.

Pray tell how the Germans avoiding the invasion of Belgium would have prevented the deaths of 17 million people? After all the formal military alliance between France and Russia, between Russia and Serbia and between Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have still come into play - or had you forgotten all about that - more likely you were completely unaware of their existence.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:01 AM

The price in blood may be high, but appeasing a tyrant will lead to more human misery not less.

WW2 cost 60 million lives, but if the world had lain down its arms and opened its borders to Hitler's armies, th world would be a worse place.

That was understood in 1914.
The editorial staff of the MG knew and understood the issues, and decided that it was right to make a stand.

Pennel says her research proves that the same is true of the people.
Macmillan says the same.
Also Boot, Sheffield, Todman, Brown, ....
All the historians.

The people were not lied to, you were.
You are the dupes.
You have been duped by the lies and propaganda of hard left political groups, because you have read no history to find the truth.

It is no coincidence that all you people arguing against the hard, researched evidence laid out in the history books are of the far left.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:15 AM

Just out of interest. I mentioned the information regarding Akenaton in reply to his general hatred and awful attitude on this thread, accusing those who support the evidence behind the thread title of being "beaten" by the jingo merchants. Always nice to get a sense of perspective.

I am not a Musket. I used to post under my own nickname though. Akenaton bleated to moderators over my name.

I, like some others on this thread, are aware that Musket is a real person who devised to share his log in with two others. I am none of the above.

I did however suggest that Jeri pop and put the kettle on, and in another thread Jeri called me Musket.

I assume Musket must be laughing his head off, although reading his comments on this thread, I get the impression he thinks the subject title too serious to take too lightly.

Oh, as Akenaton knows my wife is a greyhound trainer, it's the Sheriff Court that acted. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain has nothing to do with criminal convictions. They decide whether registration can be restored or not after "time spent."

In any case, I use an IP blocker which masks my own IP.   Comes in handy when dwelling in the sewer.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:29 AM

GUEST - 04 Jan 16 - 03:15 AM

1: You have provided no information regarding Akenaton you have made serious allegations and refused point blank to substantiate them, which in my book renders your smears and allegations baseless

2: You contribute as a "nameless" GUEST and use an IP Blocker because you are basically a coward who does not have guts to stand by the statements you make.

Apologies for thread drift.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:41 AM

Gosh. I must get used to signing autographs. I know who the guest is now!

Needless to say, I don't log in these days. Don't see the point. If any axe murderer, stamp collector or nymphomaniac wants to be called Musket, that's fine by me. I'm bored with the moniker anyway, considering how many are using it now.

IP. Yeah, that's an interesting one. Something the original three of us had in common was the same VPN that enables us to access certain clinical data on our personal phones iPads laptops etc. Having just checked, my IP is the same as yesterday but different to a couple of days ago. Hoopy.

I don't think this is thread drift. The thread was a none starter. Terribulus & co are the ones who should be apologising for trivialising 17 million deaths as worthwhile and appropriate. Makes discussion over an irrelevant lochside dinosaur meaningless. Mind you, presumably he knows now how frustrating it was for McMusket when Akenaton said he was in an open marriage with multiple sexual partners and carrying disease. I have no idea if this is the same person listed in the courts as claimed, but have no sympathy either way.

Luv&hugs


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:54 AM

"WW2 cost 60 million lives, but if the world had lain down its arms and opened its borders to Hitler's armies, the world would be a worse place."

Hitler was not an issue in 1914. And had the 1914 war not been fought the conditions which led to the rise of both Hitler and Stalin would not have arisen, as Jim has pointed out. And possibly Spanish flu into the bargain. So we might now be laying more than 100 million deaths at the door of our refusal to negotiate peace in 1914, and again in 1916.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:24 AM

Yes, you a quite right, ake. Not often I say that. In proportion to the loss of 17 million this thread really is trivial. Keith's points are trivial, whatever they were. The silly moderation on here is trivial. Jeri, and many others, know that I can sign in from numerous places, other people can use the same IP address I am using and anyone can block their IP anyway. I will not bother putting myself out over it but I see she has neither deigned to comment on my comments or those Musket has made. I think that says more than any of us can.

This thread was dead ages ago. It is now putrefying.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:25 AM

"Interesting strategy that GUEST Dave - Amounts to the response to a naked threat of invasion and annexation is, "OK then we'll not fight you, now go away" - Doubt if that would actually work, don't you?"

Doesn't seem to have done Switzerland much harm.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:28 AM

Hitler was not an issue in 1914.

No. It was a different tyrant but still a militarist, imperialist, child murdering regime backed by huge and powerful invading armies.

The people knew and understood the issues, and decided that making a stand was the right thing to do.

You say they were wrong.
The difference between your positions is that they were there and you were not.
They knew what was going on and you have shown yourself to have no idea or understanding at all.

The history books contradict you so what are your opinions based on?
Lies.
You have been duped.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:36 AM

Doesn't seem to have done Switzerland much harm.

You really know nothing.
Switzerland has always been determined to fight against any invasion.

Germany decided to invade Belgium whether they defended themselves or not.

Open your eyes and your mind and inform yourself of what really happened.
Read a history book and forget your agenda ridden, class war, political tracts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:40 AM

"The price in blood may be high, but appeasing a tyrant will lead to more human misery not less."
Tyranny had nothing to do with anything Keith - that is wartime propaganda bullshit.
Each Empire represented tyranny to someone somewhere Britain, Germany, Belgium, France, Russia..... had divided the world up between them and the politicians decimated the generations of their youth in order to maintain those divisions.
The war had nothing whatever to do with freedom and economic conditions at home - it was about who would rule who in Africa, Asia, India.... - it was a war to protect colonies.
The Russian people knew that - they got rid of their feudalistic rulers when they had had enough.
The German people the same - they launched a revolution to get rid of the Militaristic mob that took them into war.
The British clamped down on any significant changes that might have taken place, trades Unions, fights for better conditions.
The Women's suffarage movement made some gains because they supported the war (shamefully)
From day one the Left opposed the war as being Imperialist, which was exactly what it was.
It was never a fight for freedom or national liberation - the victors never became any more "free" after the war, despite having made such a massive sacrifice - it took a decade or so before the colonies began to crumble and economically and socially things became worse, unlike WW2, when a leftish government introduced programmes for the improving the lot of the poor - opposed and eventually dismantled by the right.
THe German leadership was no more a threat that our own rulers - they were headed by the same ****** family.
Had the line of accession been different in Britain regarding of male/female rulers, the Kaiser could have been King of England - that's how different they were.
Acession to the throne
Tyranny my arse - jingoistic bullshit!
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:51 AM

"The thread was a none starter."

Of course it was for you and your fellow travelers Musket. How on earth could any of you possibly even start to discuss or debate what constitute the history of the First World War and the mythology of that conflict - by your own admissions none of you know the simplest thing about it. But as usual your aim has been to mob and bully Keith - sorry chaps but you failed again

"Terribulus & co are the ones who should be apologising for trivialising 17 million deaths as worthwhile and appropriate."

Good heavens another accusation flung out there without a single instance of such "trivialisation" - Standard tactics for those who argue from a background of ignorance and who have to resort to "name-calling", distraction and deflection. Failed again Musket and no examples of this trivialisation will be given.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 06:26 AM

"fellow travelers"
Your right wing shit gave us the Holocaust, a King who supported Hitler, and a Royal Family teaching their sprogs to give the Nazi salute, not to mention a Depression, an ongoing series of recessions, mass unemployment, a divided Britain, permanent high employment, an increasing gap between rich and poor, mass homelessness, a non-industrial Britain - and to top it all, a Prime Minister who exposed herself as a fascist by announcing that Pinochet's mass-murdering policies was her idea of democracy.... need I go on?   
Wouldn't be too proud about being right wing, with your political record.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 06:56 AM

Jom - if you've got a fiddle you could put a tune to that idiotic little rant of yours - and hey presto another whinging ballad.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 07:18 AM

"Jom - if you've got a fiddle you could put a tune to that idiotic little rant of yours "
And if you had any brains you'd be ably to flaw me with one swing of your superior intellect!
But then again - if my Granny'd had balls she have been my grandfather.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 07:50 AM

Jom - if you've got a fiddle you could put a tune to that idiotic little rant of yours - and hey presto another whinging ballad.

Beautifully said!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 08:34 AM

"The people knew and understood the issues, and decided that making a stand was the right thing to do."

The people had no say in the matter. The decisions were taken by the likes of Sir Edward Grey. Only in 1917, and in Russia, did the people get any say.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 08:40 AM

"Beautifully said!"
Any reply to that question of Israeli bookburning yet Bruce?
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 08:47 AM

"Good heavens another accusation flung out there without a single instance of such "trivialisation"


You have been trivialising those deaths for the whole of this thread. So has keith with phrases like:

"The price in blood may be high, but appeasing a tyrant will lead to more human misery not less."

When there is no evidence that the German tyrants would have been any different in practice from our own.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 09:23 AM

Any reply to that question of Israeli bookburning yet Bruce?

Help is available for your obsession......get it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 09:47 AM

"Only in 1917, and in Russia, did the people get any say."

Tell me Academic Dave just how they did that? How did THE PEOPLE get a say?

Who compiled the lists that defined who THE PEOPLE were? How long did that take? Who was it that decided the wording of the question to be put to THE PEOPLE? Who ensured that all of THE PEOPLE could read it?

THE PEOPLE in Russia in November 1917 had as much say in what was going on and what would form "Government" Foreign Policy as they had in August 1914 - Please, please, please say that you disagree with that and demonstrate to anybody reading this that you are indeed as naive and stupid as you possibly could be.

By the way THE PEOPLE of Russia/U.S.S.R: have NEVER HAD ANY SAY IN ANYTHING the "Communist Party Elite" as represented by the KGB, The Party and the Army have told THE PEOPLE of Russia what to think, how to act and what to do since the October Revolution of 1917.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:02 AM

Calm down Teribus, we get that you don't like communism very much. Sure it wasn't the answer to everything, but it did put some power into the hands of the working people, even if it didn't stay there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:07 AM

"Who compiled the lists that defined who THE PEOPLE were? How long did that take?"
The people did in the from the elected representatives of workers, peasants and soldiers , at a series of mass meetings held at The Winter Palace in October, 1917 - all beautifully covered in minute detail in John Reed's 'Ten Days the Shook the World' with lists of deputies, elected officers and proposals.
The conclusions of that meeting were summed up in it's list of objectives; 'BREAD, PEACE and LAND'.
If that's too difficult for you - the book was very much condensed in Warren Beattie's 1981 film, 'Reds', made for the hard of thinking, so even you should be able to manage it.
All this stuff is readily available for anybody with the nouse to look for it.
Are we to assume that all the points I made in my "little rant' are to be shelved along with all the others you have responded to with only abuse?
You have as little self-respect as has Keith - little wonder you a so full of bullshit in an attempt to cover your ignorance up.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:09 AM

"You have been trivialising those deaths for the whole of this thread."

Really Academic Dave? So is there any reason why it is you cannot find one single example of ME doing that?

"The price in blood may be high, but appeasing a tyrant will lead to more human misery not less."

Now in what does Keith's statement trivialise the deaths that resulted from the German Kaiser's drive for war in July and August 1914?

NOBODY has trivialised those deaths.

"When there is no evidence that the German tyrants would have been any different in practice from our own."

What tyrants of our own? A democratically (For the timne) elected Government with a Constitutional Monarch as Head of State - what tyrany? The democratically (For the timne) elected Government of Germany at the time had no say in foreign policy and no say whatsoever on military matters.

As for evidence of aims and ambitions:

1: Was it Great Britain who stood to honour it's Treaty Obligations to defend Belgium's neutrality, or was it France or Germany?

2: Was it Great Britain who threatened to annex Belgium and take over it's colonies should the Belgian Army put up any resistance to an invasion by foreign troops? No I don't believe that it was, it was Germany who issued those threats

3: In fact Academic Dave did Great Britain threaten to invade or take over anyone's territory in July or in August 1914? Examples of this please that can be verified.

4: Here are the German terms dictated to the Russians at Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 tell us Academic Dave if you find those terms reasonable:


Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

In July 1914 the German Emperor embarked on a course of action geared at securing German domination of Europe with the added bonus of acquiring "Germany's place in the sun" by stripping Belgium and France of their overseas possessions and colonies - ALL STATED AIMS Academic Dave so no conjecture required on my part.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: History and mythology of WW1
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 10:16 AM

"Calm down Teribus, we get that you don't like communism very much. Sure it wasn't the answer to everything, but it did put some power into the hands of the working people"

Just to be perfectly clear on this Academic Dave - AT NO TIME AT ALL did communism EVER put ANY power into the hands of the worki