Is only 1 view of the War now permissible?

[phil andrade]

The question is:

Has the school of historians that has promulgated a more flattering view of Haig's generalship started to impose a kind of tyranny which makes it uncomfortable for the likes of Phil_B to suggest a contrarian view ?

Indeed it has, I regret to say.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

The question is:

Has the school of historians that has promulgated a more flattering view of Haig's generalship started to impose a kind of tyranny which makes it uncomfortable for the likes of Phil_B to suggest a contrarian view ?

Indeed it has, I regret to say.

Phil (PJA)

You're free to argue whatever, whenever you want. If you have the strength of argument, and the facts to back it up, then I'm happy to be persuaded that the ' revisionists ' are wrong. The truth is what we are all after, is it not?

Mike

[phil andrade]

Yes, of course.

Some of the onslaughts against those who've suggested a "contrarian" view have been vituperative. In many instances those views have been based on very weak foundations : lack of factual content and an excess of "Donkeyism" being the principal features.

I suspect that some of Haig's supporters feel outraged at the disgusting way he has been maligned by Lloyd George, Joan Littlewood, John Laffin and others ; perhaps they feel that he was too much the gentleman to argue back and repudiate the unfair criticisms ....the result being that they argue Haig's merits with a degree of ferocity that is truly intimidating.

Phil (PJA)

[Guest]

" Some of the onslaughts against those who've suggested a "contrarian" view have been vituperative. (1) In many instances those views have been based on very weak foundations : lack of factual content and an excess of "Donkeyism" being the principal features. "

(1) This type should be easy to deal with?

(2) Some of Haig's supporters feel outraged at the disgusting way he has been maligned by Lloyd George, Joan Littlewood, John Laffin and others ; perhaps they feel that he was too much the gentleman to argue back and repudiate the unfair criticisms ....the result being that they argue Haig's merits with a degree of ferocity that is truly intimidating.

(2) If someone feels they have the facts to deal with these " supporters " why be intimidated?

I agree the likes of PM Hart and GAC are very persuasive but if and when they are wrong, I'm sure they would admit to it?

They don't scare me

Mike

[Hedley Malloch]

I may have opened the door by mentioning the Marshall Plan and the contribution of the TUC in the post WWII reconstruction of Germany, ffor which I must apologise, as this led to comments that are definitely heading into current affairs and today's international politics. I have made a couple of edits, and hidden two posts which were exclusively relating to current affairs. mea culpa.

Let's not go nearer to the present than that reconstruction please.

Keith

I note that one of my posts has been cut altogether although it did little more than quote one directed at me - which has been allowed to stand.

How can we have a sensible discussion about the long-run effects of the war without looking at what happened afterwards? If no discussion on modern politics is allowed then where is the cut-off date? 1918? 1945?

The whole process of censorship is arbitrary, not well-thought out, and entirely inconsistent. If we can't discuss 'modern day politics', then why is a line which starts "And to this very day, Germany after being bailed out by Marshall has learned nothing ..." allowed to stand? (my underlining).

[keithmroberts]

I think Phil has it. Perhaps I might add that Haig, beyond the publication of his diaries was surely not seriously attacked for his conduct of the war L-G excepted in his lifetime. The spate of memoirs that began about 1929 reminded the English speaking world of the horrors of war, not least of the earlier years when the campaigns seemed costly and superficially at least produced little gain. The real attacks came later.

As Phil said, recent exponents of the "Donkeys" school on the GWF of late have largely advanced assertions lacking evidence, and have suggested a rewriting of history based on 21st century hindsight and attitudes. There should always be room for debate, and I doubt if many, or even any of the modern historians would assert that errors were not made, sometimes of a very costly nature, (I'm off to Gallipoli next week).

Keith

[David Filsell]

I have only just picked up on Hedley's comments about German victory. It may have been tongue in cheek, I hope it was. Is there any evidence that a Nation ruled by the Kaiser's Germany - which already had a record of Genocidal practices in Germany, in which institutional anti Semitism, existed, which was authoritarian in many respects, would have been any better than a Britain run by the 3rd Reich. Please tell met was a wind-up Hedley.

[Hedley Malloch]

I have only just picked up on Hedley's comments about German victory. It may have been tongue in cheek, I hope it was. Is there any evidence that a Nation ruled by the Kaiser's Germany - which already had a record of Genocidal practices in Germany, in which institutional anti Semitism, existed, which was authoritarian in many respects, would have been any better than a Britain run by the 3rd Reich. Please tell met was a wind-up Hedley.

There is a case to be made. Of course there is no evidence - it did not happen. Could the UK have benefited, both then and subsequently, from the importation of some German institutions and practices? Yes we could. Were German hands clean on the subject of ethnic and socially cleansing? I don't know. Was the administration of the British Empire free of such practices? Certainly not. It won't have escaped your notice that we went to war to help 'a plucky little Belgium' which was busy enslaving large chunks of the Congo. And we won the war with the help of the US Army where racism was both rampant and unquestioned. The French were scarcely better, if at all. So I don't think anyone can claim the moral high ground there.

I have never - and would never - argue that any nation would have been better off in any respect under the 3rd Reich than they would have otherwise been. But if the Kaiser wins, would we have had the 3rd Reich? It's doubtful. Hitler and Nazism arose out of the ashes of a German defeat and a bad peace settlement.

[Alan Tucker]

Hitler and Nazism arose out of the ashes of a German defeat and a bad peace settlement.

It didn't actually. Weimar Germany was in a strong position by 1929 with only 12 Nazis in the Reichstag, Locarno, entry to the League, success of Streseman's 'fulfilment', Dawes Plan etc etc. What did for it and opened the door to AH was the impact of the World Economic crisis on Germany. Germans voting Hitler did so because his party seemed to offer more economic hope. Versailles was the best that could be achieved at the time. Hitler could have been stopped by a SPD/KPD alliance but that's another story.

[David Filsell]

My comment was is there any evidence that it Britain would have been any better under the Kaiser than the Third Reich.But I guess my hypotheticals are as valueless as yours, which I consider so far off the wall they are floating in an imaginary cloud of its own making. Just give me the facts maam!

[phil andrade]

Were German hands clean on the subject of ethnic and socially cleansing? I don't know. Was the administration of the British Empire free of such practices? Certainly not.

Why the certainty about the sins of the British Empire, and the " don't know" when it comes to the cleanliness of German hands ?

A wind up, surely.

Phil (PJA)

[bill24chev]

I would have thought that if WW1 was lost by the French & British in 1914 there would not have been a takeover of Britain by the Kaiser. Britain would have retreated across back across the channel behind the shield of the Royal Navy.

If the British Government chose to carry on, as in 1940, the land war would probably have shifted to the Middle East and the with Turkey being a base for German offensives to the West against Egypt and from Mesopotamia towards India. The Royal Navy would be hard pressed in the Mediterranean because Germany would presumably have the support of Italy & Austo-Hungary and the resources of the French fleet.

Alternatively, an agreement could have been reached with Germany but the threat of a potentially hostile navy on the other side of the English Channel may well have caused a return to hostilities.

I have not studied Economics beyond A level but I suspect a short war would not have allowed the USA to become the dominant economy it became post WW1 but Ii am not sure how this would impact on the world.

all this is hypothetical and in reality we have History as it actually happened which helped create the world as we have it today.

[phil andrade]

History as it actually happened ? If only !

Try as we might , what we struggle with is different versions of what happened.

The history of The Great War is especially challenging in this regard.

The theme of this thread demonstrates this.

I find myself so frightened of being cast under the spell of the Donkeyites that I consciously strive to think of Haig in positive terms, and suspect that I have resolved to subscribe to a certain " mind set": it's almost as if a form of politically correct perception is holding sway.

"Speak for yourself ! "...I can hear the protest...but I daresay there will be some recognition of what I'm alluding to.

Phil (PJA)

[sjustice]

Just let your record speak for itself Phil.

Cheers,

Simon

[bill24chev]

PJA

"History as it actually happened" does on reflection seem a bit off the mark bearing in mind the amount of discussion and argument about WW1.

What I should have said ,we are stuck with the actual events that have shaped our world.

bill

[PhilB]

I find myself so frightened of being cast under the spell of the Donkeyites that I consciously strive to think of Haig in positive terms,Phil (PJA)

The alternative is to be cast under the spell of the - what`s the opposite of Donkeyite? Lionite? To do that you have to decide whether you believe men like Churchill, Lloyd George & Edmonds who actually worked with the generals and knew them well personally or the revisionists who didn`t.

Edited 12.37. "And" changed to "Or". Sorry, gents!

[Alan Tucker]

Bit unfair on Edmonds lumping him with Churchill and DLG

[sjustice]

PJA

"History as it actually happened" does on reflection seem a bit off the mark bearing in mind the amount of discussion and argument about WW1.

What I should have said ,we are stuck with the actual events that have shaped our world.

bill

Actually, we are stuck with differing interpretations of the actual, or alleged, events that have shaped our world. And that's where we came in...

Cheers,

Simon

[sjustice]

Bit unfair on Edmonds lumping him with Churchill and DLG

Poor old Sir James; he got it right so often. Bit unfair on the generals linking them to a working partnership with DLG, too

I am going to assume it was an oversight from Phil_B not adding 'the generals' to the list of entities we should choose to assess...or not.

Cheers,

Simon

[sjustice]

<snip>...Churchill, Lloyd George & Edmonds who actually worked with the generals and knew them well personally and the revisionists who didn`t.

Having a good personal knowledge of, and a working relationship with someone, and accurately portraying that person based on those links are entirely different matters; for nefarious, malicious, flattering, accidental or a multitude of other reasons. Additionally there is (or should be) a tendency for those portrayals change over time as circumstances and events permit. I never met Sir Douglas Haig but, as an historian, I am confident I can write about what he was like as a man and a soldier and be explicit in showing precisely on what evidence I formed my opinions. Whether or not my views coincide with Edmonds, Churchill or the Welsh Wizard is entirely beside the point, but no-one can deny they are based on the evidence, examined and cited.

Cheers,

Simon

Cheers,

Simon

Edit: So good I signed it twice!

Edited 30 May , 2013 by Simon J

[PhilB]

Simon, I`ve edited a word in my post which somewhat changes the sense.

With regard to your post #120, as I said, it`s a personal decision as to who or what you take as credible.

[sjustice]

Simon, I`ve edited a word in my post which somewhat changes the sense.

With regard to your post #120, as I said, it`s a personal decision as to who or what you take as credible.

It still excludes 'the generals' as a possible subject of scrutiny, themselves This appeals to my natural pedantry.

As to the other, the point is: have an opinion, state it and back it up with evidence. No-one should have any problem with questions of source or validity, or opposing views based on the same or other valid evidence.The first alternative is to talk ******** and refuse to back it (them?) up (might have to work on that metaphor); the second alternative is to make like Sir Douglas and believe that the truth will out.

Cheers,

Simon

Edit: My 'nads' have (has...definitely difficult) been censored.

Edited 30 May , 2013 by Simon J

[PhilB]

Simon, I`m afraid that`s where we differ. I see no requirement to back up an opinion with evidence. Not unless one needs to persuade someone else, which I don`t. Like many forum members, I have done a lot of reading and gradually formed views over the years. The desire or need to convert others I leave to those who feel the need. Others may feel free to ignore my views at their leisure. Do others find that strange?

[PMHart]

Phil B I find your willingness to pontificate without reasoned evidence entirely in character! Carry on that man!

Pete

[sjustice]

Simon, I`m afraid that`s where we differ. I see no requirement to back up an opinion with evidence. Not unless one needs to persuade someone else, which I don`t. Like many forum members, I have done a lot of reading and gradually formed views over the years. The desire or need to convert others I leave to those who feel the need. Others may feel free to ignore my views at their leisure. Do others find that strange?

Come on, Phil. That doesn't work, does it?

Putting your thoughts into a response on a public forum cannot be anything else than an attempt at persuading the audience of the validity of your argument, tacit or not. I don't mind reading unsubstantiated opinions at all; good grist to the mill as far as I'm concerned. Even those naughty little thoughts that go up as fact are good fun, but they are fair game and open to challenge. 'I read it somewhere' can't be construed as a valid defence. Mind you, sulking is, according to my daughter.

Cheers,

Simon