Is only 1 view of the War now permissible?

[green_acorn]

I can feel it in my water, is a classic thread coming on?

Cheers,

Hendo

[PhilB]

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.

but they are fair game and open to challenge. 'I read it somewhere' can't be construed as a valid defence.

Cheers,

Simon

Again we must differ, Simon - I don`t see a response as necessarily being an attempt to persuade others. No more than if I say "It`s hot" I`m attempting to persuade others that it`s hot. You`re right - of course such views are open to challenge but I would say that "reading it somewhere" is probably the source of 99% of forum knowledge!

[Dawley Jockey]

Again we must differ, Simon - I don`t see a response as necessarily being an attempt to persuade others. No more than if I say "It`s hot" I`m attempting to persuade others that it`s hot. You`re right - of course such views are open to challenge but I would say that "reading it somewhere" is probably the source of 99% of forum knowledge!

I tend to agree with 'Phil B' on this, Like he says we may have different points of views on subjects but why have to go into a massive debate about them if we are NOT trying to change other peoples points of view ? They are after all our own views

I have given quite a number of talks to a lot of various groups about the First war and keep to the facts about battles & casualties and the effect on the local communities and when asked "Where our lads Lions lead by Donkeys" always answer the same why .. that it is entirely up to the individual to make their own mind up.

I by the way before being shot at, am not in the' lions lead by donkeys' school, I do also not believe in the modern revisionists theories falling probably about mid point between the two and after studing the First War for forty years and touring the western front battlefields regulary can honestly say that's where my point of view is going to stay!.

[hazelclark]

Again we must differ, Simon - I don`t see a response as necessarily being an attempt to persuade others. No more than if I say "It`s hot" I`m attempting to persuade others that it`s hot. You`re right - of course such views are open to challenge but I would say that "reading it somewhere" is probably the source of 99% of forum knowledge!

'Fraid you are correct Phil. I love to read the posts in this Forum but stay below the parapet because i am not sufficiently disciplined to make notes as I read and can never remember where I read anything. People on the Forum get very rickety when you can't remember!! I have a life outside the forum that doesn't include WW1 and am a voracious reader. Some things do of course stand out, but I do think your 99% is correct.

Hazel

[Dawley Jockey]

but I do think your 99% is correct.

Hazel

I also agree with that point Hazel

[sjustice]

Again we must differ, Simon - I don`t see a response as necessarily being an attempt to persuade others. No more than if I say "It`s hot" I`m attempting to persuade others that it`s hot. You`re right - of course such views are open to challenge but I would say that "reading it somewhere" is probably the source of 99% of forum knowledge!

Picture the scene...it's the GWF (Great Water-Temperature Forum).

Someone posts a new thread 'Hey! Is this water hot or cold?'

You post 'Hot'. People read that and say, 'Hey, it feels cold, but maybe it's hot. That guy Phil_B said so.' Any response is an argument.

Now, I think I know a thing or two about water, but in the great Hot Water Debate (sister to the Great Hot Air Debate) I am pretty strongly in the cold camp, having gone through the published arguments over about a hundred years. But I'm willing to learn and I really want to make sure I haven't missed anything.

I post 'Actually, based on my research <insert example here>, I think it's cold, do you have a foundation for that assertion?'

You: 'I read it somewhere'

Hmmmm.

Now if you had said, I read it in Denis Winter's 'It's always too bloody hot', we could have gone through the argument and at the end you might have been forced to hold your hands up and say, 'Fair dos...it's cold'

Or...you might have said, 'Actually I've found a piece of evidence in a previously unpublished diary which shows conclusively that it was freezing.' We could debate that and I have to say' Wow. I was wrong. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.'

'I read it somewhere'? Grist to the mill.

Cheers,

Simon

[keithmroberts]

We can overdo this debate.

While I tend to prefer arguments or assertions that are supported by evidence, especially if they are shall we say novel, or out of the ordinary, I don't have an issue with someone saying for example - I have thought/read about such and such and come to a particular conclusion. That is fine if it is a statement of a personal viewpoint and clearly such. I might differ, but then, people are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

Surely the problem for all of us, on whichever side of a debate, is when someone seeks to influence that debate by presenting a personal viewpoint as a statement of fact, or as a strong assertion, and not being willing to support it, or even by stating that something contentious IS a fact, but with no intention or ability to support it.

Keith

[hazelclark]

Hi Simon,

I do like your analogy. You are, of course perfectly correct. Anyone seriously studying the subject would agree with you. However, as I said, the vast majority of us stay below the parapet because our ammunition is a bit suspect and the "enemy", having had time and discipline, has stockpiled his ammo. However, some demands for verification are a bit silly (in MY opinion) e.g. I have read in numerous accounts that prospective deserters were threatened at gunpoint and sometimes actually shot. Someone said "tosh" and a discussion developed. In that instance, subsequent demands for a bibliography seemed a bit of a waste of time as anyone who has read just about anything about WW! MUST have read about it.

I can see where you are going to go with this so will get my head down!

Hazel

[nigelcave]

I think that we have to accept that historical debates can get very hot (see Simon's post 131 ) . Let us take a fairly recent example. In the 60s Geoffrey Elton came along with his revolution in government thesis in the reign of Henry VIII (Thomas Cromwell et al). He was challenging the Pollard school. At first he was challenged by the medievalists, who pointed out that similar systems were used anything up to a century or so earlier. It became something of a heresy to challenge Elton's opinions. Elton's thesis largely derived from working on State Papers and Calendars, which might have been expected to give support to his centralising thesis, modern government viewpoint. (This, I hasten to add, is very oversimplified.) There followed in the early 70s and 80s a number of monographs, based on intensive spade work in local archives, which challenged Elton's overall conclusions. The result is that, as a consequence of hard work in local and family depositories, we have a more nuanced view. In the meantime the argument could get quite vitriolic - as it did also for the pre Civil War and post Civil War periods as well.

A similar process, it might be argued, occurred for eighteenth century British Parliamentary history (particularly the Commons), when the great Sir Lewis Napier's views were challenged. And so it goes on. More information, a broader based documentary search, often on documents that were not known about before or neglected. leads to changes in opinions. When one considers the Great War, documents often did not become publicly available until the mid 60s under the fifty year rule. There was a paucity of people working seriously - ie doing very time consuming spade work - in the archives. In the 60s I was able to wander into the IWM and meet up with Rose Coombs and discuss a two day battlefeld visit I was going to make with my father and I spent the better part of a morning with her: I was then fourteen! Imagine being able to do that with a similar expert now!

The point of all this: for the Great War we now have far, far more information available and it is, generally, far more accessible. I am constantly surprised how many more good diaries and memoirs are still out there somewhere - I was amazed to find, for example, Brigadier General Johnston's wonderful diary just sitting in the Worcesters RHQ - now published in abridged format.

So, there is more written, each book building (one hopes) on what has gone before. There is substantially more academic work on the First World War. We are far better informed. It is pointless to argue an old argument IF it has been PROVED to be flawed either completely or at least has to be substantially modified. It is no use saying, for example, that Haig was a technophobe when it has been proved that he was not. However, it is another question entirely to discuss how well he might have used the technology (eg tanks) and whether better decisions might have been made. Today we are also better informed through 'popular' accounts of the other side of the wire, at least going some way to filling the great gap - the knowledge of the other combatants, the Gemans, the French, the Turks and so forth. Lots still to be done here - Austro-Hungarians, Italians, Bulgars, Serbs ....

The whole question of the conduct of the war has a tendency to be very military commander orientated. More analysis, or perhaps better, more popularly available analysis, of the political conduct of the war would be useful. Military History is very complex: some of us are most interested in the battles, how they were fought, command decisions and the like; others are more concerned with social matters - the men, the people at home, the evolution of the role of women in the war and in the social fabric at home.

It is inevitable, too, that with an interest we come with some presuppositions. We are challenged as we go into the subject more deeply. Surely no one who has actually read around the subject still believes in the Lions led by Donkeys oversimplification? Chateaux generals? I am just coming to the end of writing about Ypres 1914 and the roll call of general officers - and staff officers - who were killed or wounded is something of an eye-opener to me, even though I knew there were casualties at that level. OK, some were probably poor, some were indifferent, some were moderately capable, some good, some excellent, some promoted beyond their capability - rather like any profession one can think of; and we just have to consider the circumstances and times in which they operated.

Historiography can be a bitter business - AJP Taylor v Trevor Roper, seconds away! Of course opinions should be welcome, but we do have to discipline ourselves a bit when expressing them - rather stating something as a fact, state it as, 'what truth is there in the view that...' : it is fascinating what knowledge comes through on the Forum from members who are extremely well read/versed in particular, specialist areas of the war. And everyone's blood pressure can remain at a healthy level.

[Guest]

I had written this as Nigel was posting his excellent post, but I might as well add it?

I thought most serious books listed their sources. When you make a statement on a forum you are publishing it, and when asked should be able to provide the source? If not, what's the point of publishing it? If your argument has no source, then it holds no water. Geddit?

Mike

[Dawley Jockey]

I thought most serious books listed their sources. When you make a statement on a forum you are publishing it, and when asked should be able to provide the source? If not, what's the point of publishing it? If your argument has no source, then it holds no water. Geddit?

Mike

Only if you are having an argument do you need to back it up with sources/facts if you are just saying that it is your own point of view then you do not need to back it up because it is YOUR POINT OF VIEW and you are not arguing a case to convert others to your point of view.

We are all different on our points of view be it Politics, Religion or WW1

Now do you geddit?

[Guest]

Only if you are having an argument do you need to back it up with sources/facts if you are just saying that it is your own point of view then you do not need to back it up because it is YOUR POINT OF VIEW and you are not arguing a case to convert others to your point of view.

Now do you geddit?

I'm sure someone with more brain power than I, could knock serious holes in that argument, but I can't be ****** Stop it! My head is hurting.

Mike

[MichaelBully]

Yes intriguing post indeed Nigel in #134.

Also I'd just like to add.to what Mike has said below.

Firstly, maybe we should treat our GWF pals the way we would want to be treated ourselves, in other words with some consideration.So if I ask somebody what their source is for something they have stated, I have to realise that someone can do the same to me.

Secondly , I learn a lot from people's posts, and if I ask someone what their source is, it could well be that I 'm actually wanting to read more, not trying to trip them up.

And in any history forum, it is appropriate to separate what is drawn from a source and what is interpretation. Also a particular source which is quoted often has to be put in some context, so a valid question.

Going back to the original post, I hope future debate can continue to include a variety of views.

Regards,

Michael Bully

I had written this as Nigel was posting his excellent post, but I might as well add it?

I thought most serious books listed their sources. When you make a statement on a forum you are publishing it, and when asked should be able to provide the source? If not, what's the point of publishing it? If your argument has no source, then it holds no water. Geddit?

Mike

[Dawley Jockey]

I'm sure someone with more brain power than I, could knock serious holes in that argument, but I can't be ****** Stop it! My head is hurting.

Mike

[salesie]

Nigel's post is highly pertinent to the way this thread has gone - it tells us that points of view are highly personal and not necessarily accurate nor pertinent - it also makes the valid point that as time goes by, and "new evidence" appears, then points of view can and do change.

Dawleyjockey and PhilB et al tell us the same as Nigel i.e. that points of view are highly personal. But then make strenuous and highly illogical efforts to convince us that personal points of view should not be challenged because they are personal opinions and therefore, in some way, become sacrosanct. In my opinion, that is complete and utter baloney - not least because it denies others the right to proffer an opinion about their opinion. If freedom of speech is to be truly free then counter opinions are not only valid but essential. Anyone has a right to express an opinion but everyone has a right to challenge it.

Cheers-salesie.

[Dawley Jockey]

Salesie,

You are more than welcome to proffer an opinion about my opinions, I have stated a few posts ago that I am roughly in the middle ground between 'Lions etc' and the revisionists BUT,

because I have my own personnel opinions it is solely up to myself to believe or not what I read or am told.

I have read multi volumes of books on various aspects of the first war from all points of view and so can make my own mind up. By the way I personnally think the best book I have read on any aspect of the war is by Alan McDonald's 'A Lack of Offensive Spirit' so I don't know what camp that book falls into besides Factual.

Dave

[moggs]

Nigel's post is highly pertinent to the way this thread has gone - it tells us that points of view are highly personal and not necessarily accurate nor pertinent - it also makes the valid point that as time goes by, and "new evidence" appears, then points of view can and do change.

Dawleyjockey and PhilB et al tell us the same as Nigel i.e. that points of view are highly personal. But then make strenuous and highly illogical efforts to convince us that personal points of view should not be challenged because they are personal opinions and therefore, in some way, become sacrosanct. In my opinion, that is complete and utter baloney - not least because it denies others the right to proffer an opinion about their opinion. If freedom of speech is to be truly free then counter opinions are not only valid but essential. Anyone has a right to express an opinion but everyone has a right to challenge it.

Cheers-salesie.

I may have mis-read their posts but I don't believe they said their opinions should not be challenged, rather that the insistence of soild proof for every opinion proffered is not warranted.

Jonathan

[salesie]

I did say their posts were illogical, Jonathan i.e. Dawleyjockey said in post#128 "I tend to agree with 'Phil B' on this, Like he says we may have different points of views on subjects but why have to go into a massive debate about them if we are NOT trying to change other peoples points of view? They are after all our own views."

This basically says, when offering a personal opinion then no debate should ensue. This must mean, by definition, no challenges i.e. there would be no debate if no one challenged their opinion. You didn't mis-read their posts, Jonathan, you just didn't unravel the logic.

No matter how they try to spin it, most people going public with their opinions and no evidence to back them up just hate to be challenged by those with evidence, and invariably cry foul when challenged. On a public forum, without evidence to substantiate opinions, and/or counter opinions offering at least some evidence, then what do we have? I say we have nothing but myth, hearsay, anecdotes, possible mischief making, and red-herrings.

But that's just my opinion so there's no point debating it.

Cheers-salesie.

I may have mis-read their posts but I don't believe they said their opinions should not be challenged, rather that the insistence of soild proof for every opinion proffered is not warranted.

Jonathan

[moggs]

I did say their posts were illogical, Jonathan i.e. Dawleyjockey said in post#128 "I tend to agree with 'Phil B' on this, Like he says we may have different points of views on subjects but why have to go into a massive debate about them if we are NOT trying to change other peoples points of view? They are after all our own views."

This basically says, when offering a personal opinion then no debate should ensue. This must mean, by definition, no challenges i.e. there would be no debate if no one challenged their opinion. You didn't mis-read their posts, Jonathan, you just didn't unravel the logic.

No matter how they try to spin it, most people going public with their opinions and no evidence to back them up just hate to be challenged by those with evidence, and invariably cry foul when challenged. On a public forum, without evidence to substantiate opinions, and/or counter opinions offering at least some evidence, then what do we have? I say we have nothing but myth, hearsay, anecdotes, possible mischief making, and red-herrings.

But that's just my opinion so there's no point debating it.

Cheers-salesie.

I accept what you say Salesie, I'm sorry if I have aggravated you in any way. I'm just a person who likes people to have opinions - yes, it's extremely valuable to be able to support these but it's not absolutely essential. (Otherwise, hypocrisy would not exist - where would we be without that!!??)

ALl the best

Jonathan

[Guest]

It's my opinion, that this thread, Click, demonstrates why sources are so important?

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” Harlan Ellison. Source

Mike

[bill24chev]

I use the GWF to improve my knowledge of WW1 and for recreation. Like Hazel in post 129 I am not disciplined enough to make academic notes when reading basically for pleasure despite, becoming forgetful at times I can still retain a fair amount of information on a subject but may not always be able to quote chapter and verse. If I was producing an academic paper on WW1 it would be correctly referenced but if we quoted every reference for every quote postings would be of greater length which would eventually have a financial impact on the GWF.

I do appreciate posts that provide good references to points raised but I am happy for other members points of view to be made with out supporting evidence, in many cases, the points or similar raised have been discussed before so I often have some idea where the view is developed from.

[phil andrade]

There does exist a kind of pressure to conform with a certain view....at least, I feel it to be extant. When it comes to the discipline of using sources properly, and citing them in discussions, then that's as plain as a pike staff. Who would argue with that?

I liked Phi|_B's allusion to the " learning curve". It's almost axiomatic that such a thing developed, but there is the question of the length of time that applied during the process. Therein lies a challenge for those of us who endorse the modern revisionist view.

Phil (PJA)

[PMHart]

Hi Phil,

Modern scholars (well George and I) now look in askance at the idea of a learning curve. Like 'bite and hold' it was just a stage in the learning process of historians taken towards an 'All Arms Battle' of a better understanding of the Great War.

We do not accept the learning curve - a simplistic narrative of unremitting progress as the Allies mastered the problems of trench warfare and moved seamlessly towards victory.

Rather more it was of two roller-coasters: one Allied and one German, running side-by-side along their own separate tracks, with their relative position 'high' or 'low', 'rising' or 'falling', depending on a combination of their own latest tactical innovation, their success in assimilating the lessons of the fighting, the tactical advances of their enemies and the restricting factor of the availability (or otherwise) of military resources. Thus a tactic that seemed to work well one month might ensure nothing but utter disaster just a few weeks later.

I fully understand that this may be challenging to Phil B! But I am not trying to persuade him. I would rather leave him to enjoy his solitary pleasures tapping away randomly at the keyboard of life.

Pete

[centurion]

What would seem important is the development of the ability (and culture) within an army that allows it to learn in the first place and to drop (without hesitation of regret) or re develop techniques, weapons and tactics that no longer serve and quickly adopt and absorb new ones. In other words the capacity to counter the enemy's latest innovations and impose one's own as rapidly as possible. To react, adapt and attack. I think that by 1918 the British army was doing this better than the Germans.

[sjustice]

It's a good job there are modern scholars like George and Pete around!

Cheers,

Simon